The ethical issues regarding hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas in the Karoo are abundant and complex. Although it is not a new procedure with new technology, South Africa and especially the Karoo is not use to this term and what it entitles. There is no reason why the shale formations should not be developed to its full potential but the crisis is balancing the development and not effecting the residence living there in a negative manner. Communities was built where water was availability, industries contaminating that supply is simply unacceptable (Potter & Rashid, 2013). 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 fact that natural resources continuous to dwindle is obvious, therefore the need for sustainable energy from alternative resources is completely understandable. Natural gas in the Karoo has raised several optimism regarding the abundance that has been found, however several ethical issues raises when drilli... ... middle of paper ... ...Waxmann et al. (2011) 750 different chemicals were used by various oil and gas companies during hydraulic fracturing over a four year period, where a minimum of 29 were identified to contain carcinogens which are listed as hazardous on both the clean air and safe drinking water act. The USEPA (2011) suggested that chemicals used during fracking should be monitored according to specific criteria. With the technical background in mind, this is certainly one of the categories to decide if fracking is ethical or not. The question can now be asked if transparency is being practiced. If it is not, then there will be ethical questions raised. Take the fracking industry for example, as seen above they have hidden some of the contents of the mixture being used. So now using this poisonous fluid and not telling the public about it that is not seen as ethical practice.
The oil and gas industry has been met with increasing opposition over the years, with fracking and water pollution being some of the most controversial subjects alongside others like pollution, global warming, and claims of corruption. While some anti-frack claims seem like viable arguments, many are the product of misconceptions, an uninformed public. One of the greatest examples of this is Josh Fox’s 2010 documentary GasLand, whose most memorable scene showed a man in Fort Lupton, Colorado, lighting his faucet on fire, blaming it on hydraulic fracturing. After the film was released, among numerous errors it contained, it was found that the water well contained naturally occurring biogenic gas unrelated to oil and gas activity (Energy In Depth).
In today's global economy, energy is one of the most crucial and sought after commodities. Who supplies it and how much they supply determines how much influence they have over other countries as well as the global economy. This is why hydraulic fracturing is currently such an important and controversial topic in the United States. Hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as "fracking" or hydrofracturing, is the process of using pressurized liquids to fracture rocks and release hydrocarbons such as shale gas, which burns more efficiently than coal. This booming process of energy production provides a much needed economic boost, creating jobs and providing gas energy for Americans. The efficiently burning shale gas reduces carbon emission from electricity production plants, reducing carbon footprints on the environment. However, the process of hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of pressurized liquid, which contains toxic chemicals, and some of this water is left over undealt with. The air near fracking sites is often also polluted and unsafe for nearby community residents. Injecting millions of gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals into the rock thousands of feet deep can cause earthquakes, causing a safety hazards for all nearby areas. Hydraulic Fracturing makes rare natural gases easily attainable, boosting the economy and reducing carbon emissions. However, the negative side effects such as contaminated water and air, make hydraulic fracturing a process that may not be worth the benefits.
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.
Current research, in the field of public health, is looking at the adverse health effects of hydraulic fracturing on community members. This research is focused on looking for evidence-based research in processes, procedures, materials and cleanup from drilling and running a well. In recent years, several states such as Maryland and New York, have called for special advisory commissions to examine the potential adverse health implications for the community if the moratoriums are lifted and fracturing is allowed to start. A lot of the previous research conducted focused on the anecdotal perspective of the adverse health effects. This perspective does not offer scientific verification that the fracturing processes are causing them or evidence where the contaminations are coming from.
Marcellus Shale drilling causes a problem because it involves the use of hundreds of deadly chemicals. Over three hundred chemicals are used in the Marcellus Shale drilling process (Environmental). According to Howells, author of the article “Don’t Frack with Our Water!,” these chemicals are especially dangerous because the companies that use them will not tell the public what specific chemicals are being used. However, through studies of the chemicals, some of them can be identified. Some of the chemicals in the fracking fluid and wastewater have been identified as carcinogens. Many of the other chemicals have been found to be harmful to humans (Environmental). According to Griswold, author of the article “The Fracturing of Pennsylvania,” wastewater is a combination of different chemicals that come from the process of fracking. Not only does this wastewater contain chemicals that were originally used in the drilling, but it also contains harmful substances that come from the earth like salts and other compounds (Griswold).
The people who are being asked permission to transform their land into drilling sites for natural gas have more reason to be concerned than most because it will affect them more directly than people who do not live in that specific area (although it does affect people who do not live in the vicinity as well). Although fracking may seem to concern to only a small group of people, it should also concern anyone who cares about doing what is safe for our country's citizens. The truth is, fracking is extremely dangerous, not only because of the negative effects on the environment, but also because it could make people ill.
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).
While methane is not a rare contaminant in drinking water wells, the fracking process seems to allow more methane to seep into the wells. A study headed by Duke University’s Robert B. Jackson, a professor of Environmental Sciences, shows that in Pennsylvania, drinking water wells within one kilometer of fracking sites contain nearly six times more methane than in wells farther away (Banerjee). Methane, no matter where it is contained, is flammable, thereby posing a risk for explosion, which is not good for homes. Reports show that a fracking site in Dimock, Pennsylvania caused methane to leak into a water well, where it detonated, leading to even further contamination of other water wells and homes (Henheffer 30). The domino effect presented here raises fear in critics of fracking, who seek only to stop the process from happen-
Fracking can cause harm to people, animals, and nature. When they drill into the ground they are pumping chemicals to extract the gas and oil, and this contaminates the water sources around it. “An editorial on gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale in the Post-Star, a newspaper in Glens Falls, New York, contends, “New York state simply can’t take the risk. There are plenty of places to find fuel. It’s not so easy to find a new water supply for 17 million people.”” (Hydrofracking
Some of the chemicals found in this mixture are: sodium chloride, ethylene glycol, borate salts, sodium carbonate, guar gum, and isopropanol. Proponents of fracking will lead you to believe that the chemicals used are essentially harmless, and found in such small amounts as to have negligible side effects. On the CDC website, ethylene glycol is described as an odorless liquid with a sweet taste. When ingested, it breaks down into toxic compounds. A person’s central nervous system, heart, and kidneys are affected.
After the pollution, the companies were confronted by the environmental agencies and they listed chemicals that are used in the drilling process but still refused to list them under the clean water act. The companies said that they
Before one can see the devastating effects of fracking, one must first understand how fracking works. As previously stated, the main intent of hydro-fracking is to access and harvest natural gas that lies below the surface of the Earth. Having formed over 400 million years ago by the collision of tectonic plates (Marsa 3), the Marcellus Shale plays host to a gold mine of natural gas, which is currently at the center of the fracking debate in the Northeastern region of the United States. Unfortunately, access...
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 has become a highly controversial and publicized topic due to rising concerns and growing analysis into the mutual benefits of hydraulic fracturing to retrieve natural gas and oil reserves. With concerns of water pollution, mismanagement of toxic waste and irreversible
Numerous reports have been given on the dangerous affects of hydraulic fracturing. One such affect that has been noticed is that drinking water wells near the fracturing sites have been contaminated. During the hydro-fracking process, injected fluids that help to break and keep open the rock bed where the natural gas is kept, have “been known to travel three thousand feet from the well (Goldman).” This fluid could have the potential to enter and contaminate any water well for homes around hydraulic fracturing sites. This incident is one of the major problems that people want to figure out and know about before they allow a fracturing site by them. It has been the most feared outcome of having a fracking site nearby, and it is highly appropriate. One site in Wyoming had this happen, “…in August, EPA reported that eleven of thirty-nine drinking-water wells near a Wyoming hydraulic fracturing operation were contaminated with chemicals used in the fracturing process (Hobson EPA).” In Pennsylvania, another such case occurred, “There have already been severe pollution cases in Pennsylvania, mo...