Hydraulic fracturing, also known simply as fracking, is a process used to extract natural gas and oil from beneath the earth’s surface. This process is accomplished by drilling a well and pumping pressurized water, proppants such as sand, and chemicals into that well; the result of this process is that fractures occur within the targeted layer of shale rock, which allow for extraction of the desired gas and oil (Hyder and Lerner 2250). As a cleaner burning fuel, natural gas continues to be an important prospect in the energy business. One estimate suggests that, “by 2035, shale gas may make up half of all natural gas produced in the United States” (2251). Hydraulic fracking, however, is not without its share of proponents and opponents. Understanding
…show more content…
These supporters suggest that the extraction of oil and gas by fracking “has the potential to create a large number of jobs in the energy industry, to bring in profits for oil companies, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to boost the national economy” (Grogan 166). Likewise, other proponents refer to a 2012 estimate to further this statement. The estimate approximates that fracking provides Americans with 2.1 million jobs and that “energy from fracking and related chemical activity contributed almost $284 billion to GDP while abundant, affordable energy from shale has helped fuel a U.S. manufacturing resurgence” (Energy From Shale n.p.). S&P analysts have also supported these claims. The report from these analysts states that the resulting energy boom has primarily had a positive economic effect; they give reference to increases in populations, property values, and profits by energy companies and the consequential increased revenue experienced by several municipalities (Williamson n.p.). In addition to these assertions, proponents use a 2012 estimate to remark that the energy resources obtained by fracking have reduced America’s natural gas expenses (Energy From Shale …show more content…
Fuels, such as natural gas, are cleaner alternative fuels. Compared to oil and gas, natural gas produces less carbon dioxide when it is burned, thereby reducing carbon emissions (McGlynn 1052).
On the opposing side, critics counter with their concerns of air pollution. In part, the concern is that “natural gas production might be releasing not only methane but also high levels of smog-forming volatile organic compounds and the carcinogen benzene into the air” (McGlynn 1064). Additionally, fine particle matter and respirable crystalline silica, two air contaminants associated with fracking operations, also cause unease (Walters et al. 8). This unease is largely due the fact that fine particulates can cause cardiovascular and lung disease (8).
In conclusion, the pros and cons of fracking need to be assessed by those who could be benefitted or harmed by its effects. More research still needs to be done to properly assess all the risks. While fracking could be a great opportunity, it first needs to be determined if the benefits are greater than the
These supporters suggest that the extraction of oil and gas by fracking “has the potential to create a large number of jobs in the energy industry, to bring in profits for oil companies, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and to boost the national economy” (Grogan 166). Likewise, other proponents refer to a 2012 estimate to further this statement. The estimate approximates that fracking provides Americans with 2.1 million jobs and that “energy from fracking and related chemical activity contributed almost $284 billion to GDP while abundant, affordable energy from shale has helped fuel a U.S. manufacturing resurgence” (Energy From Shale n.p.). S&P analysts have also supported these claims. The report from these analysts states that the resulting energy boom has primarily had a positive economic effect; they give reference to increases in populations, property values, and profits by energy companies and the consequential increased revenue experienced by several municipalities (Williamson n.p.). In addition to these assertions, proponents use a 2012 estimate to remark that the energy resources obtained by fracking have reduced America’s natural gas expenses (Energy From Shale …show more content…
Fuels, such as natural gas, are cleaner alternative fuels. Compared to oil and gas, natural gas produces less carbon dioxide when it is burned, thereby reducing carbon emissions (McGlynn 1052).
On the opposing side, critics counter with their concerns of air pollution. In part, the concern is that “natural gas production might be releasing not only methane but also high levels of smog-forming volatile organic compounds and the carcinogen benzene into the air” (McGlynn 1064). Additionally, fine particle matter and respirable crystalline silica, two air contaminants associated with fracking operations, also cause unease (Walters et al. 8). This unease is largely due the fact that fine particulates can cause cardiovascular and lung disease (8).
In conclusion, the pros and cons of fracking need to be assessed by those who could be benefitted or harmed by its effects. More research still needs to be done to properly assess all the risks. While fracking could be a great opportunity, it first needs to be determined if the benefits are greater than the