Rp Pros And Cons

As the pace of shale gas drilling has accelerated in recent years, so have environmental concerns. Incidents such as a 2007 home explosion in Bainbridge, OH, the 2008 groundwater contamination on Wind River Indian Reservation in Pavilion, WY, and the 2008 chemical poisoning of an emergency room nurse in Durango, CO, have intensified the debate over regulation of fracking.10 As a result, new laws regulating fracking activities have

The mismanagement of the practice has the potential to create environmental damage such as water contamination, radioactive spills, and increased seismic activity that could cost thousands in dollars in damage. Furthermore, the unintended consequences of fracking can have detrimental effects on the environmental. The potential for water contamination can pose both an immediate and long term risk to environmental stability, including landscape distortion, inhabitability and ecological displacement. This contamination of drinking water can also be detrimental to the human environment, limiting the amount of safe water available for both the residential and commercial human environment. With the increase of fracking, the level of disapproval for the practice has only mounted. Concerns including overconsumption of

The most dangerous consequence of fracking is that hundreds of chemicals are blasted into the Earth’s crust, which creates cracks in the bedrock. Many times, these cracks lead to an aquifer, in which case, all of the water in the aquifer becomes contaminated with these chemicals (Jackson, 2014). Additionally, when the natural gas is being pumped out of the wells, methane is released into the atmosphere. A study conducted by NOAA found that approximately 4% of the methane is being released into the atmosphere. This same study found that methane pollution increases climate changes because it traps heat in the atmosphere 25 times more than carbon dioxide (Hoffman, 2016). Furthermore, fracking waste wells are the primary cause of the increase of earthquakes in the Central U.S. This is because these wells operate for a longer period of time, which means that they inject more “solid ‘cake’” into the Earth than the actual fracking process (USGS, n.d. and StateImpact, 2017). Finally, recent studies have found that people who live near a fracking site are at higher risk to develop respiratory problems, which is due to the increased levels of pollutants. These pollutants are not only affecting the people who live in close proximity to these sites, but to the workers, as well. The most common type of respiratory problem reported was lung

The environmental risks that accompany fracking are potentially hazardous. In order to frack, thousands of acres of forests need destroyed to allow roadways the space they need to exist (Lampe 38). However, these roadways allow erosion to occur due to the lack of vegetation (Lampe 38). Along with erosion, siltation occurs and sand, soil, and mud sink to the bottom of rivers, and ponds (Lampe 38). Therefore, the animals living in these habitats may migrate, or simply just die. Trees situated on the acres of land for hundreds of years would have to be chopped down to make way for roadways. In some cases, depending on where the oil reservoir is located, the state declares eminent domain on houses and pays the landowners. Consequently, the houses will be destroyed and the oil reservoirs will be fracked.

Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) is the process of drilling into the ground and pumping sand, water, and fracking fluid at high pressures in order to extract natural shale gas that was previously unattainable. This process comes with environmental issues: the chemicals from the fracking fluid can contaminate nearby drinking water wells and harm the citizens of that area. Despite the fact that there have been several contaminated drinking water cases reported, there is little being done about this matter. This paper analyzes the available research that asserts why fracking is a dangerous process that should be banned immediately. The intended audience is my peers and instructor, as well as anyone interested in the debacle of fracking-caused water contamination that may come across this piece. As you are reading, I ask that you keep in mind that this is a very perplexing issue that has not been given much of an opportunity for true research and investigation. Therefore, the data discussed has not been officially proven or disproven to be directly related in every way to local fracking. However, the research gathered on the proposed danger of the Hydraulic Fracturing process is solely based on science that has already been proven as well as documented illnesses and symptoms from residents and contractors around or near fracking operation sites.

A relatively new process for extracting desired shale oil from the bowels of the earth seems to be shaking things up around operation sites. Environmentalists and oil tycoons have been debating for years over the safety of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, since areas with a high concentration of fracking operations have been affected by several environmental problems. Though many scientists argue that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, the media and many environmentalists use these environmental problems around fracking sites as proof of the long term damage fracking causes. Although it has domesticated the oil industry and reduced usage of coal as a fuel source, fracking is undoubtedly related to many detrimental environmental impacts, such as water table pollution and increased seismic activity.

Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is a mine stimulation technique that is taking the country by storm. It is a multi-billion dollar industry and in some parts of the country there are so many wells clustered together that they can be seen from space. The commodity being mined is natural gas. Natural gas has earned itself many new names depending on who is asked. According to big gas companies like Haiburton, it’s America’s solution to the energy crisis and a fuel for the 21st century. They claim this current period of economic and energy prosperity is due to increased fracking. However, this prosperity does not come without a cost. Many landowners, environmentalists, and scientists claim the process is poisoning the air, ground, water,

Bob Weinhold, a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, has been investigating environmental health issues since 1996. He continues to expose the public to the consequences of environmental abuse. His article “The Future of Fracking,” analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their efforts made to regulate and improve the current state of toxic air emissions produced by hydraulic fracturing sites in the United States. Weinhold successfully presents technological and economic benefits of oil and natural gas drilling but counters these successes by considering the damage that current fracking sites and future fracking sites have on human and environmental health. The information he

Hydraulic fracturing is a process used in nine out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States, where millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are pumped underground to break apart the rock and release the gas. Scientists are worried that the chemicals used in fracturing may pose a threat either underground or when waste fluids are handled and sometimes spilled on the surface. The natural gas industry defends hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, as safe and efficient. Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-industry non-profit organization, claims fracking has been “a widely deployed as safe extraction technique,” dating back to 1949. What he doesn’t say is that until recently energy

With the public’s growing demand for clean energy and the need to replace the current energy sources that we consume on a daily basis use, more and more states are starting to use hydraulic fracturing, at an alarming rate, to excavate these resources from beneath the shale rocks. Many experts, along with the public, believe that hydraulic fracturing has numerous environmental and health to both human and wildlife communities. Also, many believe that hydraulic fracturing possibly have moral and ethical implications that need to be address and fixed. With hydraulic fracturing being a very controversial topic between scientist and the public, fracking will remain very controversial unless changes and regulations are made and enforced to protect humans, wildlife and the planet to ensure none are in danger and we are able to extract the resources we need. What are these implications that have the experts and public in a need of concern and uproar about fracking? Let us start with what kind of implications hydraulic fracking can have on the environment if we are not careful and observant of our planet.

Pursuing hydraulic fracturing as a top manager of Chevron, I will describe the dilemmas that are associated with fracking. The first problem with this procedure is finding the appropriate land and leasing it from the landowners. With talk around the country, it can be difficult finding land because of landowners’ personal experience with the practice of hydraulic fracturing. In southwestern Pennsylvania there have been cases of animal birth defects, faucet erosion, stomach pains, and other health issues; in response, according to the New York Times, “Range Resources maintains that a D.E.P. study from 2010 indicates no air pollution of any kind” (Griswold, 2011). The country is torn in

While natural gas may be the “cleanest fossil fuel available,” the process of collecting it is not without environmental concern. At the forefront of environmental issues in fracking are the large use of freshwater in wells and the production of large amounts of wastewater. Hunter (2012) points out that as the fracking boom began, “speculators rushed into hydrofracking … with little attention to how much water would be needed or the best practices for managing the water when they were done with the wells.” As mentioned before, in the year 2012 alone, more than 3 billion gallons of fracking water waste were produced in the state of New Mexico. While “conventional gas production generates 65% more wastewater per unit of recovered gas than fracking does” (Schmidt 2013), the use of water by fracking is still of particular to concern to a state like New Mexico

The topic of hydraulic fracturing has been a source of debate in recent years. Often referred to as “fracking,” this controversial process involves injecting vast amounts of water, sand and chemicals deep into the ground at high pressure to crack the shale and release the natural gas trapped within. Critics fear the process endangers the public water supply because well drilling goes through the water table which exposes it to both the gas itself and the chemicals used to free it. Proponents refute many of these claims and discredit environmental studies by pointing out seemingly valid errors in their execution. They also point out key economic, environmental, and

Shale gas is an unconventional emerging energy source that since 2008 has had an increase in both conventional and unconventional well inspections which have led to a decrease in violations (Phillips, 2016). In 2015, inspectors issued 404 violations whereas in 2010 inspectors issued 1,280 violations (Phillips, 2016)! In addition, for the year 2015, the Department of Environmental Investigation reported no findings of wrongdoing of water contamination through methane migration by the gas industry. Moreover, the Department of Environmental Protection is the responsible party for reviewing and issuing drilling permits, respondents to water quality problems, and the inspection of drilling operations (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2016).

The rationale for selecting these two countries was to provide a diverse array of examples where the competitive bidding scheme had been used in Africa that will provide a syllabus of learning for a country such as Nigeria.