The Pros And Cons Of Fracking

The popular, mistaken fallacies of the environmental destruction of fracking have been proven to be unsound. When extracting natural gas, underground water wells are drilled through in order to place pipes. The pipes lead to a rock containing natural gas, commonly referred to as shale, to withdraw the gas and bring it to the surface. In a certain instance, residential water wells contained high levels of methane, which is the core component of natural gas. However, researches reported that the contamination came from natural biological sources such as bacteria found within the soil, not from leaky gas wells (“Fracking not Linked to Contamination”). Even if methane gas found in natural gas seeps into public water supply it poses no health hazards.

Fracking corporations are strict to ensure that their methods are safe and effective by regulating the amount of gas escaping from the pipes. Corporations strive to have a flawless vacuum seal, but under the immense pressure of the vacuum, leaks are inevitable. To resolve this dilemma, the fracking industry has appointed engineers to inspect and improve the fracking system. “A 2010 documentary that shows a colorado man setting his kitchen tap on fire with a cigarette lighter. Regulators show that was in fact caused by “Biogenic” gas that had been detected in local groundwater for years and had nothing to do with fracking” (“No Middle Ground in Fracking Debate”). Peoples’ narrow minded views on fracking lead them to believe every problem that occurs relating to fracking is in direct correlation to nearby wells. Methane gas is naturally found in groundwater, but depending on the metropolitan area the water quality may differ. In the case where tap water was set on fire the water source may have not been filtered and came straight from the

Emissions from natural gas have the ability to continue to decline with existing technology and at a minimal cost to fracking corporations. If people only knew that the capability to limit emissions from burning natural gas was readily available and within the budget of most corporations, it would change their perspective. In hindsight, “ A 50% reduction in methane emissions is equivalent to a 90% fall in coal-fired power plants, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.” (“Moment of Truth on Emissions.”). This proves that methane emissions are much easier to control as compared to coal or other fossil fuels. A smart, inexpensive way to help reduce methane emissions could help the industry grow immensely and overall help save the planet as well. “Hillary Clinton, former U.S. secretary of state and probable candidate for president, also likes to describe natural gas as a “bridge” to a greener economy” (“Natural Gas Boom no Boon to Climate Change”). A positive democratic opinion on fracking should be considered among the American population to continue to grow and invest in the industry. Previous studies have shown that the use of natural gas instead of coal to heat homes or provide electricity could greatly reduce the global carbon dioxide emissions. Aside from air emissions, many skeptics worry about the chemicals that are