More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of hydraulic fracturing
How might fracking affect us positively and negatively
Negative effects of fracking essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The U.S federal government should significantly increase fracking because oil and gas fracking is big business in America, with more than two million hydraulically fractured wells across the country producing 43 and 67 percent of our national oil and gas outputs, respectively. But in my opinion these wells also nearly played a secondary role as nuclear waste storage sites and had the Atomic Energy Commission had its way with Project Plowshare. And fracking is the process of pumping water deep into the Earth, specifically into underground oil and gas reserves, at tremendous pressures in order to break apart the surrounding rock and free the energy product, which can then be pumped out and used. However in the mid 1950s, scientists from the Atomic Energy Commission and officials from the U.S. Bureau of Mines did begin experimenting with an alternative method of fracking, one that employed nuclear bombs more powerful than anything we dropped on the Japanese.
Another reason why the U.S should significantly increase fracking because fracking plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future. Fracking causes the U.S. to have vast reserves of natural gas that are commercially viable as a result of advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies enabling greater access to gas in shale formations. Responsible development of America's shale gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits.
It is good that the U.S federal government will significantly increase fracking. If the U.S federal government will significantly increase fracking then it will create thousands of jobs and create a better economy. It will also benefit us in a good way because when it creates a better econo...
... middle of paper ...
...racking might be poised to make a comeback. According to a study presented at last year's annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union by Leonid Germanovich, a physicist and civil and environmental engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology, liquid nuclear waste could be used as the fracking fluid instead of water.
Since nuclear waste is more dense than the rock it'd be injected into, the radioactive slurry would never rise back to the Earth's surface and thus—in theory—would never contaminate the water table. "It's basic physics here—if it's heavier than rock, the fracture will propagate down," Germanovich explained at the conference. Instead, he hypothesizes, it would continue to traverse further into the crust, providing a means of energy production and nuclear waste management in one. In his eyes, it's a win-win. [Forbes–Live Science–Wiki–AOGHS 1, 2]
One of the most talked about opposition toward nuclear fission is the radioactive waste it produces. A radioactive waste is what is left behind after using a reactor to make electricity. There are two levels of waste, low and high, but both are regulated by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. High level waste is made up of fuel that’s been used directly in the reactor that is highly radioactive but can still be disposed. Low level waste is the contaminated items that have been exposed to radiation. The nuclear wastes are then stored in a safe and secure location with different types of methods such as wet storage, dry storage, and away from reactor storage. Wet storage is the main method of disposing the waste because it is the
There is an abundance of oil underneath earth’s crust on land and in the water but getting to that oil can be proven as a challenge and a negative impact on the earth. Many of these oil reservoirs lie in federally protected land or water to minimize the negative impact on the earth. But should those restrictions be removed? Removing the restrictions can allow the US to tap into domestic reserves rather than rely on imported oil from the Middle East and Asia but tapping these reservoirs can also leave behind an impact that is harmful to this planet. “Critics oppose this move for fear that it will cause irreparable harm environmental harm. They point to the April 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence of the risks associated with offshore drilling” (SIRS).
However, the negative side effects such as contaminated water and air, make hydraulic fracturing a process that may not be worth the benefits. One benefit of hydrofracking is that it creates job in the current economic slump that America is in. The increase of hydraulic fracturing in the United States directly benefits the citizens, with the number of employees i... ... middle of paper ... ...
A lot of questions surrounds fracking, questions involving national government and job creation, local municipalities and job opportunities, economists and revenue, relevant infrastructure concerning local economy, local developers, current land owners and property value, food security, social and moral decline in society, local governments feeling towards Ubuntu and the list goes on and on. Although the list of potential problems is long, there is also some benefits in this industry as well. The state of South Africa now has a new form of revenue that will be collected by tax and permits. All cities and small town in the Karoo will benefit from all the new business brought on by the new drilling operators. All the farmers owning mineral rights will be financially rewarded by the gas industry leasing those rights (Potter & Rashid, 2013).
The United States relies on imports for about forty percent of its crude oil, which is the lowest rate of dependency since 1991 according to the U.S Energy Information Administration. Today our country is trying to keep on track in becoming less and less dependent. When it comes to the topic of the future ways the United States will get its fuel, most of us readily agree that the United States should become more independent by using natural gas that is already here on our land. Where this argument usually ends, however, is on the question of the consequences drilling for natural gas brings. Whereas some are convinced drilling is safe, others maintain that it is actually in fact dangerous. Hydraulic fracturing or "fracking", the terms for drilling for natural gas, is dangerous to our public health and to the environment because of the water contamination it causes. Therefore, it is not something that should become a project for alternative fuel used by the United States.
In the past couple of years the word fracking has been prevalent in the media whether its been mentioned in the news or in the movie Matt Damon stared in titled “Promised Land”. Many people know it as a method of extracting gas from the earth and don’t inquire further into what hydraulic fracturing actually is. Before the process is explained we should understand why it has become prevalent in the last decade. The reason Hydraulic fracturing has become so popular in the last couple of years is because of the passage of the energy policy act of 2005, which contained the Halliburton loophole. The Halliburton loophole stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing (New York Times 2009). Allowing Hydraulic Fracturing allowed companies to finally access the abundant sources of natural gas legally. This act made it possible to access the vast amounts of natural gas contained in the Marcellus Shale, which created a boom in hydraulic fracturing. What exactly is hydraulic fracturing? Hydraulic fracturing is a method of extracting oil and gas, that is not accessible by conventional drilling methods. The process, injects chemically treated water and sand at high pressures into shale rock to release the oil and gas (Pritchard 2013).
Fracking is quickly becoming a debatable topic in our society today. The practice involves injecting fluid into the ground to fracture rock in order to release natural gas. It sounds like it would be a safe way to harness fuels in the earth’s surface, but it actually is a danger to our environment. Because of the dangers of fracking, what little fresh water remains on earth is being contaminated. It is also releasing toxins into the airs creating contaminated air and acid rain. Because of the many health and environmental dangers of fracking, it should be stopped immediately to help prevent more worldwide health issues down the road.
In addition to the potential dangers of accidents in generating stations, nuclear waste is a continuing problem that is growing exponentially. Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for about 600 years and disposing these wastes or storing them is an immense problem. Everyone wants the energy generated by power plants, but no one wants to take responsibility for the waste. Thus far, it is stored deep in the earth, but these storage areas are potentially dangerous and will eventually run out. Some have suggested sending the waste into space, but no one is sure of the repercussions.
...t decades but recently the government has been more involved trying to regulate fracturing processes so that they are safe to the environment and to the people. Although fracking is not very well accepted, many believe that fracking is the only way to extract natural gas and oil efficiently. While others believe that it is harmful to the drinking supply of water and to the environment as all other extractions of natural resources are. Today states, the House of Representatives, and the Senate are all working to help minimize the effects that hydraulic fracturing has within communities and the environment by enforcing stronger laws and regulations within fracturing wells and fracturing companies. Hydraulic fracturing provides sufficient and clean energy that will help minimize the impact on other natural resources that are used for energy as well.
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as fracking, is a widespread practice in the United States. Fracking is a method used to extract oil and natural gas. Scientists and citizens report detrimental side effects of hydraulic drilling. New York and Vermont have banned fracking statewide. Maryland has set a two year moratorium on fracking, so that more research can be done to show the impacts of fracking on the environment. Nationwide, many other cities and counties have banned fracking as well. All states should look into finding alternative sources of energy, instead of using devastating practices like fracking to extract non-renewable resources.
Every resource on our planet is limited. This is not surprising information as humans have known this since the beginning of existence. Eventually, oil and other resources will no longer be viable sources of energy because they will be depleted. The simple answer to this inevitable issue is hydraulic fracturing. It is currently a controversial means of finding energy and was argued both ways by Josh Fox in his film Gasland as well as Phelim McAleer in his documentary FrackNation. Hydraulic fracturing, better known as “fracking”, is a safe and efficient way to acquire the copious amounts of energy needed to power the earth.
Imagine a world where fresh and clear water was a luxury. Imagine water so contaminated with chemicals that every plant it comes into contact with dies. As the trees begin to die, oxygen levels drop. As the vegetation dies, wildlife begins to die out. The polluted water which flows through the ground into wells causes instant contamination. As the water flows out of the sink, one can strike a match and light the liquid on fire. Showering in these chemicals is out of the question. Fresh water has become a comfort, rather than a given. Could planet Earth survive this existence? If hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking, were deemed legal, this question may be put to the test. Fracking is a process in which chemicals, sand and water are used in “high volumes… to fracture gas-bearing layers of rock” (Dolesh 2). As the rock breaks, natural gas is released and then collected to be used as energy. The United States is currently sitting on a gold mine of natural gas which could stimulate our ever declining economy. The question is what price are we willing to pay for a temporary fix? Fracking is a dangerous process that should be deemed illegal due to its harmful short and long-term environmental effects.
Fracking is a pressurized, chemically treated mixture of water and sand to release and extract natural gas and petroleum from shale rock. There are many articles, studies being done, and organizations fighting for what they think is right. Environmentalist want the technique of fracking banned because it plays a part in global warming, affects our water, and causes human health problems. If fracking cannot be banned because of its necessity then it should be made safe and eco-friendly. The process involves a well being drilled vertically to the desired depth, then turns ninety degrees and continues horizontally for thousands of feet into the shale believed to contain the trapped natural gas. A mix of water, sand, and various chemicals is pumped into the well at high pressure in order to create fissures in the shale through which the gas can escape. Natural gas escapes through the fissures and is drawn back up the well to the surface, where it is processed, refined, and shipped to market. Flowback returns to the surface after the
Fracking is a highly controversial practice that utilizes the injection of water, chemicals and abrasives to extract relatively inaccessible pockets of natural resources. Although fracking has the potential to benefit the economy, it may also pose a significant impact on the environment, the ecosystem and safety.
...sh community, decreased biomass, and an altered balance between producers and consumers (para. 1). According to Lapp (1971), temperature changes in the water from the thermal pollution (taking cool water from bodies of water and replacing it with warm water following the cooling process in nuclear plants) can change the activities of species, for example the Bluefin crab, which could have detrimental effects on the whole ecosystem. However, an advantage of nuclear power to the environment is that nuclear waste is carefully disposed of and designed to stay away from the air humans breathe, the water humans drink, and the food humans eat (Morris, 1999, p. 36). On the other hand, this is not true for fossil fuels which pollute the air and water. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear waste does not produce harmful air pollutants such as ash, sulfur dioxide, and greenhouse gases.