To Frack or Not to Frack

To Frack or Not to Frack

Fracking stands for hydraulic fracturing, which is where high pressurized water is used to extract natural gas and sometimes crude from rocks. The process of fracking can reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. However, the many environmental consequences are making this a much debated topic. Arguments for fracking focus on the benefits provided to the economy and future generations while arguments against it focus on the environmental factors. Due to its great potentiality for economic growth, it would be irresponsible to not utilize this resource.

The most valid and compelling argument against fracking is its negative effects on the environment. Some adverse consequences to fracking include the potentiality to contaminate both surface land and water, and also the excessive waste of resources. Land contamination can occur when gas-wells are developed because requires clearing of land, the creation of infrastructure, and the release of chemicals into deep systems of water. Fracking can also lead to contamination of water. This is because most often times gas-wells are placed near rivers where chemicals are able to leak out into the water supply (Entrekin, et al., 502-504). Despite these claims there is an easy solution. By researching beforehand, we can reduce land and water contamination (Holloway, 250).

Another environmental concern is the waste of water. Dr. Klein in her lecture on renewable energy highlighted the dangers of wasting water. According to her, it may not be easily justified to waste fresh water when there are more source of gas. This, too, has a solution. With further research and development we could create a system that would reuse the water and therefore it would cut down on waste of fresh water.

Arguments for fracking concentrate primarily on these three topics: through fracking the United States could limit or get rid of any need to use foreign oil, fracking would also lead to a better economy, and...