fracking pros and cons essay

Get the latest news and stories from Tufts delivered right to your inbox.

Fracking: Pro and Con

Is the new boom in domestic natural gas production an economic bonanza or environmental disaster? Two experts face off

$photo of large fracking equipment$

For some Americans, it is our energy dreams come true. To others, it is an environmental nightmare. Ever since a new drilling technology, called hydraulic fracturing or fracking, made it possible to extract natural gas from shale deposits about a mile underground, a new gold rush has been under way.

While fracking has created jobs and contributed to record-low natural gas prices, it comes with another kind of potential cost: risks to our environment and health that some say are far too high.

The fracking process begins with a bore hole drilled some 6,000 feet below ground, cutting through many geological layers and aquifers, which tend to be no more than a few hundred feet below the surface. The shaft is then lined with steel and cement casing. Monitors above ground signal when drilling should shift horizontally, boring sideways to pierce long running sections of shale bedrock.

Millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals are then blasted into the bedrock, the pressure creating cracks that release trapped natural gas from the shale. The gas and water mixture then flows back up to the surface, where the gas is separated from the water. While most of the water stays in the well bore, up to 20 percent is either reused for more fracking or injected into disposal wells thousands of feet underground.

The wellpad and related infrastructure take up to eight to nine acres of land, according to the Nature Conservancy. Fracking is currently occurring in Texas and Pennsylvania, the two largest gas-producing states, as well as in North Dakota, Arkansas, California, Colorado and New Mexico. And the oil and gas industry is eager to expand its fracking operations into New York, North Carolina, Maryland and Illinois.

Bruce McKenzie Everett, F70, F72, F80, an adjunct associate professor of international business at the Fletcher School, says fracking provides substantial economic benefits and its problems are relatively small compared to those benefits. He worked at the U.S. Department of Energy from 1974 to 1980 before beginning a 20-year career with ExxonMobil, working in Hong Kong, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. His research has included gas-to-liquid conversion technology as well as the economics of oil, gas and coal production and use.

On the other hand, John Rumpler, A88, argues that we are making a mistake in thinking that fracking is worth the damage to the environment. He is a senior attorney at Environment America, which is leading a national effort to restrict, regulate and ultimately end the practice of fracking. He has fought for clean air in Ohio and advocated to protect the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay. This fall he is teaching the Experimental College course Fracked Out: Understanding the New Gas Rush.

Tufts Now: Is fracking safe?

Bruce McKenzie Everett: Nothing in the world is entirely safe, but by the standards of industrial activity in the United States, fracking is very, very safe. Think about the airline industry. Lots of things can go wrong with airplanes, but we work very hard to make sure they don’t, and as a result, flying is one of the safest activities we’ve got. Now, that does not mean that things can’t happen. It just means that with proper attention, mistakes can be kept to an extremely low level.

The question about fracking that gets the most attention is contamination of drinking water. Aquifers, the underground rivers that provide our drinking water, are about 100 to 200 feet below the surface. The gas-producing shale rock formations tend to be 5,000 to 6,000 feet below the surface. So you need to make sure that the well you drill to pump the water and chemicals through the shale to fracture it and release the gas is sealed properly, and that’s not a hard thing to do.

John Rumpler: Fracking presents a staggering array of threats to our environment and our health. These range from contaminating drinking water and making families living near well sites sick to turning pristine landscapes into industrial wastelands. There are air pollution problems and earthquakes from the deep-well injections of the wastewater into the gas-producing shale, as well as significant global warming emissions.

When the industry says there has not been a single case of groundwater contamination, they mean there is not a verified instance of the fracking fluid traveling up through a mile of bedrock into the water table. What they cannot dispute is that fluid and chemicals have leached into groundwater at 421 fracking waste pits in New Mexico. What they cannot dispute is that a peer-reviewed study by Duke University linked methane in people’s drinking water wells to gas-drilling operations in surrounding areas. What they cannot dispute is a University of Colorado study published earlier this year documenting that people living within a half mile of fracking and other gas-drilling operations have an increased risk of health problems, including cancer from benzene emissions.

Are there sufficient regulations now in place to ensure safety?

$fracking pros and cons essay$

And there are consequences that we don’t even know how to regulate yet. Geologists are just beginning to think about the long-term implications of drilling down a mile and then drilling horizontally through shale rock for another mile. We don’t know what happens to the structural integrity of that bedrock once you withdraw all of the gas and liquid from it. No one has the definitive answer. There’s been some recent modeling that indicates a loss of stability that goes all the way up to the water table. The U.S. Geological Survey took a look at some earthquakes that occurred in the vicinity of Youngstown, Ohio, in proximity to deep-well fracking. They found that the seismic activity was most certainly manmade—and there was no manmade activity in the area except fracking.

So when you look at the whole picture—from contaminated wells to health problems to earthquakes—one quickly comes to see that the best defense against fracking is no fracking at all.

As for the current state of regulations, it is worth noting that fracking is exempt from key provisions of our nation’s environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act. The reason we have national environmental laws is to prevent states from “racing to the bottom of the barrel” to appease powerful industries.

$“If we stopped right now, or placed a moratorium on new fracking, the price of natural gas would go up,” says Bruce McKenzie Everett. “This means electricity prices would go up, heating prices would go up.” Photo: Kelvin Ma$

In New York State, they’ve put a moratorium on fracking, basically saying, “I don’t know what to do, so I’ll study it and see what happens.” I think that’s unfortunate, because most of New York is quite economically depressed, and they are denying people economic opportunities.

I have taken a very strong position that it’s a bad idea to federalize regulations. If you leave it at the state level, local governments will tend to strike a balance between the economic benefits and the environmental safety issues. If it is left to the federal government, you’ll have the same problem you had with the Keystone oil pipeline: people who are not impacted, who will not enjoy the economic benefits, will be allowed to come in and say they don’t like it.

What are the economic benefits of fracking?

Everett: It creates jobs, but that’s not the most important way to measure its economic effect. The cost of everything we purchase has an energy component to it, either in its manufacture or its shipping or its packaging. So it is very important to the economy to have energy prices that are relatively low.

Natural gas has become incredibly inexpensive, way beyond what we ever thought possible. We’re talking about prices going from $10 or $11 per thousand cubic feet 10 years ago down to $3.77 now, because the supply that has been released by this innovative fracking production technique is just so large. It is a simple consequence of supply and demand. These natural gas prices are the equivalent of oil prices falling to $21 per barrel from their current $86 per-barrel price.

Rumpler: First of all, any discussion of economics needs to deal with costs as well as benefits. This fall, our Costs of Fracking report detailed the dollars drained by dirty drilling—from property damage to health-care costs to roads ruined by heavy machinery. In Pennsylvania’s last extractive boom, the state was stuck with a $5 billion bill to clean up pollution from abandoned mines. What happens when the fracking boom is long gone and communities are stuck with the bill?

In contrast, energy efficiency, wind and solar all provide great economic benefits with no hidden costs. But the oversupply of cheap gas is driving wind and solar out of the market. It’s long been fashionable to say that natural gas can be a bridge to clean energy, but in fact it’s become a wall to clean energy, because investors don’t want to put money into wind and solar when gas is so cheap.

What danger to the environment or the economy is caused by the billions of gallons of fresh water each year that are “consumed” by fracking operations? How might this affect the economic benefits or environmental concerns?

Everett: The water from fracking can be handled in one of several ways: storing, reinjecting and recycling. The real problem we have is that water is not properly priced. As a landowner, you are entitled to draw water from underground aquifers at whatever rate you wish, even if that water is only flowing through your land. We therefore tend to treat water as a free good. Putting a price on it or, alternatively, finding a way to assign property rights would probably fix this problem. As a third alternative, government could regulate it. In any case, it’s a solvable problem.

Rumpler: Each fracking well uses millions of gallons of water. And that water mostly winds up either staying down in the well or being injected deep into the earth as wastewater. So unlike other sectors that use much more water by volume, including agriculture and residential, the water used for fracking is mostly consumed, gone to us forever.

Does the current low price of natural gas affect fracking or conventional gas production?

Rumpler: Take a look at Chesapeake Energy, which is one of the biggest fracking operators out there. By the accounts of some analysts, they are massively overextended, with too much land and too many drilling leases. With the price at $2 per million BTU, there was some risk that Chesapeake could at some point lose enough money to risk bankruptcy—and then what would happen to these communities where fracking has taken place? If not Chesapeake, it will be another driller—probably one of the smaller ones—that goes under, and the communities will be left holding the bag. And gas companies don’t tell landowners leasing property that oil and gas operations are violations of most standard mortgage agreements, because that is not a risk that the lender is willing to take. Likewise, homeowners’ insurance may not cover damages from fracking. Nationwide insurance announced just this summer that their standard policy does not cover damage from fracking. That tells you something. The risk analysts who did the math figured out this is not a safety winner for them.

Everett: The price of natural gas has now gotten so low that some are saying they can’t produce it economically—but this is a good thing for all of us, because it will force them to explore new markets and uses. The United States has an open economy and is a large global trading player. Americans pay the global price for the many things we buy and sell, and energy is one. There are several directions that natural gas production, both fracking and conventional, can take.

One is that people just stop producing it at the current rates, and the price returns to a more stable level and just stays there, likely at the $10-to-$12-dollar level of a decade ago. We could also start exporting. The world price for natural gas is $15 to $16 per thousand cubic feet. By selling it on the global market, that money would come into the U.S. economy. It would require some expensive infrastructure to support it, but the profit margin is so huge, some $12 per thousand cubic feet, that it would be well worth it and a positive impact on our economy.

We could also begin to shut down older coal-fired power plants and replace them with cleaner natural gas plants, and natural gas could find its way into the transportation sector. With engine modifications, it could be used as fuel for cars, or it could be used to produce the battery power for electric cars.

What if we halted all fracking right now?

Everett: If we stopped right now, or placed a moratorium on new fracking, the price of natural gas would go up to the previous $10 to $11, or worse case, to the global price of $15 to $16. This means electricity prices wouldl go up, heating prices would go up, and we’d lose the economic activity the industry is generating through jobs and lower prices. Basically we would be giving up an opportunity.

Hazards can be controlled through solid regulations that include monitoring and quick responses to problems that arise. Any risks are outweighed by economic benefits. It’s not even a close call.

Rumpler: There’s a difference between not starting fracking in new areas and halting it everywhere immediately. If we don’t open new places to fracking in New York, Pennsylvania and Texas—just stop where we are now—the impact would be minimal. As Bruce notes, there is so much gas being produced right now that some gas companies are aggressively seeking export licenses, because they want to get rid of the excess and earn a profit. We don’t need it to fill energy needs.

In North Dakota they are flaring off the gas, just wasting it into the air. If we need this gas to meet our energy needs, then they should make gas flaring a federal crime and should immediately ban any and all exports of natural gas. The industry would fight tooth and nail against this.

Until we know more, the risks to our health and environment far outweigh any possible benefit to our economy or energy future.

Gail Bambrick can be reached at [email protected] .

$fracking pros and cons essay$

What to Make of the Earthquake that Rattled the Northeast

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Tufts Students and Alum Receive Prestigious Scholarships

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Empowerment, Community, and Empathy in the Social Media Era

$fracking pros and cons essay$

32 Decisive Pros & Cons Of Fracking You Have To Know

“The issue of fracking is a stick in the hornet’s nest.”

Titus Welliver, Actor

Advantages & Disadvantages of Fracking

$advantages and disadvantages of fracking$

Fracking (also sometimes referred to as hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking) is a technique that aims to fracture the bedrock by using a pressurized liquid.

This liquid is often a mix of water and other components like sand or additional chemicals.

The aim of fracking is to inject this fluid with high pressure into the wellbore in order to create cracks in rock formations.

In turn, natural resources like gas or petroleum can be exploited easier.

While fracking has become quite popular over the past decade, it also implies serious problems.

In this article, the pros and cons of fracking are shown.

Audio Lesson

Advantages of fracking, fracking can provide easy access to fossil resources, additional fossil fuel deposits, may give us more time to transit to renewable energies, fracking can help countries to become more independent, may strengthen the economy of some countries, rather cheap process to exploit fossil fuel deposits, lower prices for gas and oil, use of natural gas may be less harmful than coal, numerous jobs depend on the fracking industry, fracking technology can be optimized even further, energy production companies can profit as well, increasing tax revenue for local municipalities, most of the processes happen underground.

One important advantage of fracking is that it gives us rather easy and efficient access to fossil fuels like natural gas or petroleum.

We as a global society are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels to ensure our energy supply.

Hence, until we finally completely switched to alternative energies, we will have to rely on fossil fuels like gas.

Therefore, fracking can help us to make this access as easy as possible so that we have a secure and reliable supply of fossil fuels for the next decades.

Fracking also gives us the opportunity to exploit additional fossil fuel deposits.

Many people don’t know it but our fossil resources only last for a rather limited period of time.

This also implies that we would run out of fossil fuels sooner or later.

However, through the technology of fracking, we have access to additional fossil fuel deposits.

In turn, our overall global access to those fuels improves significantly and chances are that fracking provides us with the opportunity to supply humanity with natural gas for many additional years.

Another benefit of hydraulic fracturing is that it gives us more time to transit to renewable energy sources.

While politicians often claim that we have to transit to alternative eco-friendly energies as soon as possible, the reality is that it will take many years or even decades until we will accomplish this energy transition process on a global scale.

Hence, in order not to run out of energy in the near future and to supply us with sufficient energy during this transition process, fracking can also be a great way to help us in this regard.

Fracking can also help many countries all over the world to become more independent.

Many countries currently rely on other countries to ensure their supply of fossil fuels.

However, this creates an enormous dependence and dependence is often not a good thing at all since the party that is dependent on another party will often have to accept quite poor trading conditions.

Through the technology of fracking, more countries could become independent from other countries regarding their energy supply since they would now be able to exploit natural gas deposits in their own country.

If a country is able to produce higher amounts of fossil fuels, the economy of this country will likely also benefit from this development since the country can export more fossil fuels and will have more money for important infrastructure projects.

In turn, the general public would likely also benefit from this development since people would get better access to medical treatment or also get better education opportunities.

Another upside of fracking is that it is a rather cheap process to extract fossil fuels out of the ground.

In fact, significant amounts of natural gas and petroleum can be extracted with the help of this technology at a rather low price.

Hence, fracking can also be considered to be a cheap and reliable way to supply humanity with fossil fuels until we finally managed to transit to renewable energies on a global scale.

Since the worldwide production costs for fossil fuels like natural gas can be lowered through the use of fracking, chances are that also the overall world-market price for gas will drop as well.

In turn, this can be quite beneficial for many companies and also for private persons who rely on products that are manufactured with the help of natural gas .

Consequently, numerous people all over the world could profit from hydraulic fracturing, at least to a certain extent.

Proponents of fracking also often claim that the use of natural gas that is extracted with the help of fracking is still far less harmful to our environment compared to the use of coal.

Since it will still take many years or probably decades until we finally complete the transition from fossil to renewable energy sources, we have to rely on the fossil fuel alternative that is the least damaging for our environment.

Hence, fracking may also be justified from this perspective since alternatives like coal would be even more harmful to our planet.

Since fracking has become quite popular over the past decade, numerous jobs had been created in this industry.

In fact, many people all over the world profit from job opportunities related to hydraulic fracturing.

Especially in poor regions with high unemployment rates, fracking companies are often the main employer in a region and without this industry branch, many people would lose their livelihood and would have to migrate to other regions in order to survive.

Thus, fracking can also be important to reduce the overall level of poverty in poor parts of our planet.

While fracking has been around for a while, the processes behind fracking are still not fully optimized yet.

In fact, since our technology progresses at rapid speed, chances are that scientists will be able to improve those processes even further in the future.

In turn, fracking may become less harmful to our environment and may become an important tool to supply us with energy until we finally made the transition to renewable energy sources.

Another benefit for fracking is that not only the general public can profit from it, this technology can also be beneficial for energy production companies which get access to an easy and cost-efficient way to extract large amounts of natural gas and petroleum out of the ground.

In turn, chances are that also the profits of those energy production companies increase significantly.

Consequently, those companies may also be able to employ even more workers and more people may be able to get out of poverty due to that.

If energy production companies make higher profits due to fracking and more people are able to earn higher wages, chances are that also local municipalities could profit from higher tax revenue .

In turn, many municipalities all over the world may be able to get out of debt and may have additional money to invest in important infrastructure projects.

Since most of the processes related to fracking are done underground, there will also not be too much visual pollution from the fracking process.

In fact, the general public will often not even realize that this technique is used.

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Disadvantages of Fracking

Harmful chemicals are used in the fracking process, noise pollution, fracking can lead to water pollution, fracking can contribute to soil pollution, earthquakes become more likely due to fracking, destruction of habitats, endangerment of species, hydraulic fracturing can lead to ecological imbalance, water consumption related to fracking can be enormous, fracking is not sustainable in the long run, fracking may lead to local air contamination, methane emissions related to fracking, health risks for workers, locals may not profit too much from this technology, water scarcity related to fracking can become a serious problem, lax regulations regarding fracking in many countries, lower prices for fossil fuels may create flawed incentives for consumers, focus should lie on renewable energies instead of fossil fuels, unclear long-term effects of fracking.

Apart from the many important advantages of fracking, there are still some problems with it.

For instance, one disadvantage of fracking is that harmful chemicals are often used in the extraction process of natural gas.

Those chemicals can alter the structure of the soil and can also lead to the contamination of local ecosystems, with rather unclear effects on the local flora and fauna.

Fracking also implies significant noise pollution.

In fact, the process of fracking is quite noisy and many people who live nearby those fracking stations way be affected by this noise in a quite negative manner.

Imagine you live in a region where you are bothered by the sounds of fracking stations all day long.

Chances are that you will become quite annoyed over time and also the resale value of your property may suffer quite a lot since not too many people want to experience this noise pollution .

Thus, fracking can have significant negative effects on people who live nearby those fracking facilities.

Another problem with fracking is that it can lead to serious water pollution .

The chemicals that are used in the fracking process will often be disposed of right in the middle of nature instead of disposing of them in a proper manner.

In turn, this can lead to serious contamination of nearby rivers and lakes.

Consequently, also the aquatic life will suffer quite a lot in those regions and in order to protect those aquatic animals, fracking should only be done with great care.

Fracking may also significantly pollute the soil .

The chemicals that are used in the fracking process will often end up in the nearby soil sooner or later.

Moreover, since large amounts of rocks are fractured during the fracking process, chances are that harmful elements that had been contained in those rocks will be released into the soil as well.

Hence, fracking can lead to significant soil pollution over time.

Additionally, if the soil gets polluted, also the nearby groundwater will suffer sooner or later.

Due to heavy rain, harmful elements in the soil will be washed through the soil into the groundwater and can lead to serious groundwater pollution.

This also implies that the local population may run out of clean water in the near future and may lose their livelihood due to that.

Studies have shown that also earthquakes become more likely if fracking techniques are applied.

Even though this has not been entirely proven yet, there are strong indicators that fracking can actually increase the risk of earthquakes in the specific region.

Earthquakes are natural disasters that can destroy whole regions and the livelihood of thousands or even millions of people.

Therefore, we as humans should do everything to minimize the chances for earthquakes and this should also include refraining from using fracking techniques.

Another downside of fracking is that it can also lead to a significant destruction of natural habitats .

Large amounts of soil have to be processed and altered in the fracking process.

Moreover, significant amounts of chemicals have to be used as well, which in turn contaminate the soil and our water bodies.

All this leads to a state where natural habitats are in fact no longer natural, but had been altered in an adverse manner.

In turn, many animals will have to relocate and find a new home while many plants may eventually die off.

If natural habitats get destroyed due to fracking, this also contributes to the endangered species problem .

In fact, many animal and plant species have become endangered or even extinct over the past years and chances are that if we continue like that, we will lose many additional species over the next years.

Hence, in order to protect our animal and plant species from extinction, we have to protect our natural habitats as well and therefore, we may want to refrain from using fracking techniques when it comes to the extraction of natural gas.

Due to the many sorts of pollution related to fracking, chances are that also the local ecosystems may get out of balance.

Due to the use of chemicals in fracking, numerous microorganisms in the soil may die off.

Moreover, also bigger animals will drop in populations.

In turn, chances are that the balance between predator and prey species will be altered in a way that leads to significant ecological imbalance in the long run.

Opponents of fracking often also claim that this technique is also quite water-intensive.

In fact, significant amounts of water have to be used in the fracking process, which in turn can lead to water shortages for the local population.

Hence, especially in areas that currently struggle with their local water supply, fracking might not be the way to go.

While the technology of fracking may be a valid short-term solution, it will not be suitable from a sustainability perspective in the long run.

As many of us know, we have to transit from fossil to renewable energy sources as soon as possible and should not rely on fossil fuels too long anymore.

Hence, since fracking is only useful for the extraction of fossil fuels and not in the renewable resource context, this technology will simply not have a bright future in the long run.

Critics of fracking often also claim that this technique can lead to serious local air pollution .

In fact, in the fracking processes, significant amounts of gases and fine particles are emitted into the air, which could be potentially harmful for the local population who lives nearby those fracking stations.

Fracking can also be considered as rather harmful for our planet from a global warming perspective since in the fracking process, significant amounts of methane are emitted into the air.

Methane is a quite harmful greenhouse gas and the emission of methane also speeds up climate change.

Therefore, if we want to slow down global warming, we should also refuse from using fracking on a large scale.

In many countries all over the world, the protection standards related to fracking are also rather limited.

In fact, many workers in the fracking industry work without proper masks or other protective equipment, which can lead to serious adverse long-term health effects for those workers.

While big energy production corporations may be able to extract large amounts of natural gas and other fossil fuels out of the ground, the benefits of fracking for the general public may be rather limited.

Yes, there will be some employment opportunities in the fracking industry.

However, workers in those jobs will often be paid quite poorly and may therefore not be able to improve their overall financial condition too much.

Since fracking also implies the use of significant amounts of water and can also lead to groundwater pollution, chances are that people will run out of drinking water in many regions of our planet.

This is especially true for hot and dry regions.

Due to global warming, water scarcity will become an even bigger problem in the future and therefore, we should protect our natural groundwater reserves as best as possible, which also implies refraining from using fracking in those regions.

Another downside of fracking is that the rules and regulations related to fracking are rather lax in many countries of our planet.

This implies that energy production corporations will often not have enough focus on minimizing their negative impact on our environment.

Those companies may rather act in a profit-maximizing manner and may not care about the pollution related to their fracking practices at all, which can lead to detrimental environmental effects in the long run.

If prices of products that are made with the help of natural gas will drop due to fracking, chances are that consumers will also get a flawed incentive to buy more products that are made out of these fossil fuels.

However, we should not encourage consumers to buy products that involve the use of fossil fuels at all and should rather give them an incentive to avoid any products that need fossil fuels in the production process.

In general, our global focus should not lie on improving the process related to the extraction of fossil fuels, our focus should lie on the transition process from fossil to renewable energies and the money that is currently spent on fracking would be better used in research projects related to green energies.

We should also not use fracking on a large scale since the long-term effects of using this technology are still rather unclear.

In order to protect ourselves and future generations from unpleasant adverse long-term effects related to fracking, we should simply not use this technology in an excessive manner.

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Top 10 Fracking Pros & Cons – Summary List

Should we use fracking.

As we can see from the previous discussion, there are many advantages and disadvantages of fracking.

While fracking can make sense during the transition process from fossil to renewable energy sources, it is not a technology that should be used for many decades due to the many negative effects related to hydraulic fracturing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

https://www.ipaa.org/fracking/

$fracking pros and cons essay$

About the author

My name is Andreas and my mission is to educate people of all ages about our environmental problems and how everyone can make a contribution to mitigate these issues.

As I went to university and got my Master’s degree in Economics, I did plenty of research in the field of Development Economics.

After finishing university, I traveled around the world. From this time on, I wanted to make a contribution to ensure a livable future for the next generations in every part of our beautiful planet.

Wanna make a contribution to save our environment? Share it!

Terms & Privacy Policy

Affiliate Disclosure

As an associate, I may earn commissions from qualifying purchases from Amazon or other programs.

Please note that all the information I provide on this website is to my best knowledge. However, I will not take any responsibility for incorrect information and will not be liable for any negative consequences that might occur due to the reliance on this information.

Pin It on Pinterest

Skip to right header navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to secondary navigation
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Study Abroad

Pros and Cons of Fracking: Essay Tips

$fracking pros and cons essay$

June 9, 2020 // by Amit Kumar

Table of Contents

What is Fracking?

Fracking involves digging deep into the rock and elevating a highly pressured stream of water, sand, and chemicals underneath the wellbore. This forces a network of little cracks to open up and spread through the impermeable rock, releasing pockets of gas within the rock to leak out.

The breaks or ‘fissures’ in the rock are then held open with the sand and chemicals that have been added. Through these fissures, the gas or oil then escapes.

Read More: Pros And Cons Of Geothermal Energy – Essay Tips

It slowly makes its way up to the surface where it is collected carefully and stored, ready to be processed and then sent on to be used for heating homes and cooking food, amongst other things.

However, recently there have been a lot of arguments against using fracking to get access to the very deepest of the natural deposits of fossil fuels. Several environmental problems need to be taken into account to understand the full effects of fracking.

Pros of Fracking

There are many pros of fracking, which is why it has so undeviatingly come to be used for a lot of the extraction of fossil fuels in current years.

Some of the pros are as follows:

Access to more gas and oil
Lower taxes
Self-dependant
Better air quality
Reduced dependency on foreign oil
Plenty of jobs

Access to More Gas and Oil

Because fracking can reach measurements that other extraction techniques cannot, we now have a path to many more natural deposits of gas and oil than we ever made previously. This indicates that we have more gas and oil to use for food, heat, and power our cars, for the case.

Lower Taxes

A knock-on impact from having a way to more extra gas and oil is the lowering of taxes on first things like gas and oil. Oil for cars as well as gas for cookery will become easier to obtain and, hence, more affordable.

Read More: Pros and Cons of Vaping: Essay Tips

Self-dependent

Geopolitics – they can be an absolute nightmare. A lot of the international relationships between some of the most prominent and most influential countries have to do with who has the most access to fossil fuels.

Being able to access more gas and oil in our own countries, however, will give us better peace of mind should other countries start to hoard fossil fuels for themselves, for example.

Better Air Quality

Fossil fuels have long been said to be bad for the atmosphere because of the chemicals that they discharge into the air. At least, this is true of coal. Still, access to more gas may indicate that we begin to use more gas, and the burning of gas, less carbon-dioxide is discharged into the air.

Read More: HPV Vaccine Pros and Cons: Essay Tips

This means that gas is a much more decent fossil fuel, and, if more personalities begin to use gas, the state of air will start to develop.

Reduced Dependency on Foreign Oil

Fracking helps countries to explore domestic sources of oil. As the community proceeds to increase, it makes more reason to look out for alternative sources for oil and gas at home rather than depending on other nations to reach social needs.

Plenty of Jobs

The fracking industry has already generated thousands of jobs in the recent past and is expected to generate plenty of jobs shortly.

Cons of Fracking

However, fracking is not at all safe, and there are some very urgent reasons to stop fracking in favour of concentrating on cleaner techniques of producing electricity; for the case, solar or wind energy.

Some of the Cons of Fracking are as follows:

Less Focus on Renewable Energy Sources

Increased water pollution, increased number of droughts, consistent noise pollution, increased spread of toxins, nature of mixture used.

$fracking pros and cons essay$

If we are relying on fossil fuels and we have discovered a way to be able to rely on them for longer, we are going to suspend our research into dilemma (and cleaner) energy sources.

When we thought that the world was running out of fossil fuels, we had started to look into alternative energy sources such as solar energy, wind energy, and hydropower.

Although above we said that the general quality of air would be improved if more people used gas as opposed to coal or oil, fracking could end up leading to more pollution in general.

Read More: Pros and Cons of Brexit – Essay Tips

Because fracking applies so much water (as much as a hundred times what other, normal drilling uses to get to gas and oil sediments), it has been connected to a reduction in the water supplies in and nearby regions where fracking has taken place.

Because fracking, as mentioned above, uses so much more water than other techniques employed to extract fossil fuels from the earth, there has been an increased number of droughts in and around areas in which fracking has taken place.

As well as an increase in water pollution in areas where fracking is taking place, noise pollution is on the rise. Fracking is a very loud process and goes on for ages.

For people living very close to places where fracking is taking place – since it can take place almost anywhere, including areas that are otherwise highly populated – the continuous noise of heavy vehicles appearing and running for days on end can have a significant influence on daily lives.

Fracking organizations are not yet legislatively obliged to confess what sort of chemicals they are inserting into their water mixture – all we understand is that water is being mixed with sand and some chemicals to perform fracking more relaxed and more effective.

There is no certainty as to what chemicals and sand organizations use to earn access to precious natural gas and oil. The wells underground have an extensive collection of oil and natural gas. It is not known how the mixture is prepared and if the combination can cause any harm to the health of workers while blasting is done.

About Amit Kumar

FreeEducator.com blog is managed by Amit Kumar. He and his team come from the Oxford, Stanford and Harvard.

At FreeEducator, we strive to create the best admission platform so that international students can go to the best universities - regardless of financial circumstances.

By applying with us, international students get unlimited support and unbiased advice to secure the best college offers overseas.

Need help with studying abroad? or need a scholarship?

Schedule a no-cost consultation today!

We help students around the world with their college applications and related scholarships. With us you can apply for college admissions and we’ll help you apply for all available scholarships with that.

$fracking pros and cons essay$

You May Also Be Interested In:

$fracking pros and cons essay$

How to Become Web Developer for Free?

Unesco calling application for international fund for cultural diversity.

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Colleges in France for International Students

Colleges in germany for international students.

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Best Ways for College Students to Make Money

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Christmas Presents for College Students

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Best Laptops for High School Students 2020

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Best Remote Jobs for College Students

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Best International Credit Card for Students

$fracking pros and cons essay$

About FreeEducator

FreeEducator is a free study abroad and scholarships resource site for international students. FreeEducator was founded in August 2007 by Amit Kumar. The main goal of this site is to provide quality support to international students that allows them to improve their chances of success in life.

Email: [email protected]

Northways Parade 28 College Cres, London NW3 5DN

The importance of storytelling in fighting climate change

In a webinar on April 19, we'll explore how climate organizations are currently using storytelling in their work, the impacts of these stories, and lessons learned from other movements.

Knowledge is power

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Stay in the know about climate impacts and solutions. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

By clicking submit, you agree to share your email address with the site owner and Mailchimp to receive emails from the site owner. Use the unsubscribe link in those emails to opt out at any time.

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Yale Climate Connections

Pros and cons of fracking: Research updates

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Key recent research findings

Two broad, peer-reviewed research papers that synthesize the vast related literature – one published in Annual Review of Environment and Resources (2014) and the other in Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences (2016) – provide the basis for some of the findings synthesized below.

Those two papers draw on hundreds of studies and are authored by leading researchers; both are useful for those diving deep into the pros and cons of this set of energy extraction techniques.

Yale Climate Connections asked the principal authors of both of those papers to weigh in on the state of fracking research. Each pointed to notable trends, and each agreed that uncertainties still plague key areas.

Robert Jackson of Stanford University, lead author of the 2014 paper, says that we now know a lot more about issues such as methane leakage and earthquakes, but it’s the larger patterns of energy use that are important in terms of understanding the role of fracking in society.

“Absolutely the biggest trend is the decline in coal use,” Jackson says. “Coal use dropped a further 20 percent from 2014 to 2016, to be overtaken by natural gas in 2016. Natural gas is now the number one fuel for electricity generation in the U.S.”

$fracking pros and cons essay$

J. Quinn Norris of University of California, Davis, lead author of the 2016 paper, says that a lot more could be learned – and fast – but such knowledge remains elusive because of the lack of cooperation from the energy industry.

“Many of the questions being asked by the research community have already been answered by proprietary research, but that research is not being shared,” Norris says. “It is not that we need more exploration, we need more openness and sharing of what is known.”

Overall, most of the points made in the earlier pros-and-cons article still apply, and many of its conclusions still stand – especially around questions relating to local air quality and community infrastructure impacts. But particularly in the areas of drinking water contamination, earthquake risks, and emissions leaks, there are some relevant updates:

Fracking and drinking water issues

Issue: There are concerns that fracking may contaminate drinking water supplies with harmful chemicals, raising public health issues.

Updates: This issue has attracted the most intensive attention to findings from the research world over the past 12 months, largely because the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finished up its six-year study of the issue in somewhat dramatic fashion. There had been heated controversy over final drafts of the report in the final months of that review, and EPA’s draft study in early 2016 had cast doubt on whether there were “widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water supplies.

However, an EPA science advisory board in August 2016 criticized that “no harm” conclusion, saying the data do not support it.

So can fracking degrade drinking water sources? When the final report was issued in December 2016, toward the end of the Obama EPA but prior to the inauguration of Donald Trump, researchers partially reversed that original conclusion. EPA concluded at that point that there are indeed risks throughout the “hydraulic fracturing water cycle” – from “water withdrawals to make hydraulic fracturing fluids, through the mixing and injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids in oil and gas production wells, to the collection and disposal or reuse of produced water.”

The overall peer-reviewed, final verdict was: “These activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. Impacts can range in frequency and severity, depending on the combination of hydraulic fracturing water cycle activities and local- or regional-scale factors.”

There is a lot of nuance in the lame-duck EPA report, and plenty of acknowledgment of uncertainties and areas where insufficient data precludes reaching hard conclusions.

In a critical review of the literature published in Environmental Science & Technology, academic researchers explored four possible pathways for contamination of water resources:

“(1) shallow aquifers contaminated by fugitive natural gas (i.e., stray gas contamination) from leaking shale gas and conventional oil and gas wells, potentially followed by water contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids and/or formation waters from the deep formations;
(2) surface water contamination from spills, leaks, and the disposal of inadequately treated wastewater or hydraulic fracturing fluids;
(3) accumulation of toxic and radioactive elements in soil and the sediments of rivers and lakes exposed to wastewater or fluids used in hydraulic fracturing; and
(4) the overuse of water resources, which can compete with other water uses such as agriculture in water-limited environments.”

In Pennsylvania, there continue to be complaints and documented small incidents , researchers say, but concerns over surface activities and well integrity remain more common than those involving deep fracking; problems arise, for example, when companies leave thousands of feet of uncemented wells. Adhering to industry best practices’ and guidelines appears to eliminate most issues with deep fracking itself.

However, research does suggest that shallower fracking, which comes closer to water resources, may require more precautions. Authors of a 2015 paper , for instance, provide one of the most comprehensive looks at the issue: “Because hydraulic fractures can propagate 2,000 feet upward, shallow wells may warrant special safeguards, including a mandatory registry of locations, full chemical disclosure, and, where horizontal drilling is used, predrilling water testing to a radius 1,000 feet beyond the greatest lateral extent.”

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Fracking and earthquakes and tremors

Issue: There have been well-publicized concerns that fracking wells, drilled thousands of feet down, may change geology in a substantial way, leading to earthquakes.

Updates: There is no longer serious doubt that activities associated with energy extraction can trigger earthquakes. Leading researchers have stated in a 2015 policy article published in Science that “[t]o a large extent, the increasing rate of earthquakes in the mid-continent is due to fluid-injection activities used in modern energy production.”

Evidence on that point involving the mechanics of these impacts has become clearer and more specific: Wastewater disposal, rather than the hydraulic fracturing itself per se, clearly causes most of the earthquakes.

The U.S. Geological Survey has sought to clear up “myths” and “misconceptions” in this regard: “Wastewater disposal wells typically operate for longer durations and inject much more fluid than hydraulic fracturing, making them more likely to induce earthquakes.”

That does not rule out the possibility that, given certain specific conditions, fracking procedures themselves can cause earthquakes; but it is worth noting that the majority of wastewater disposed in places such as Oklahoma (ground zero for the fracking-earthquakes controversy) comes from traditional oil recovery, not from fracking.

With more understanding of the mechanics of triggered earthquakes, researchers also are calling on energy companies to do more comprehensive assessments in advance of operations. Most such planning has been somewhat ad hoc. In a 2015 paper , researchers from Stanford University called for a comprehensive initial risk assessment that would focus on “site characteristics, seismic hazard, operational factors, exposure, and tolerance for risk.”

Fracking and leaky wells, methane, and climate risk

Issue: The extraction process results in leakage of some greenhouse gas emissions.

Updates: One of the chief arguments in favor of natural gas extracted through fracking is that it results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions when compared to coal. At the power plant level, natural gas emits about half the GHG emissions that coal does. However, critics point to problems of leaking methane at fracking wellpads. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas that, if leaked in sufficient quantities, undermines at least some and potentially much of the purported emissions benefits of natural gas.

Researchers have been debating this issue back-and-forth for years. Where does the controversy stand? For one thing, more datasets clearly show that emissions/leakage are higher than had been projected in previous EPA estimates.

New, more comprehensive research has brought a more empirical lens to the problem: A 2016 study based on an aerial survey of 8,000 fracking sites strongly suggests that oil-producing wellpads are more likely to leak than dry-gas pads. The research also shows a huge range (10-fold or more) in how likely leaks are across sites. Factors that can explain leaks may include geological, operator, regulatory, or other variables. In the vast majority of cases, tank vents and hatches were the culprit for leakage.

Authors of another new study , published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS , find that a “small proportion of high-emitting wells,” most of them no longer in active use, can account for most of the problem. Monitoring old wells, then, is a crucial aspect of the solution to stopping leaks, but it’s no easy task. As the PNAS study notes, the “number of abandoned wells may be as high as 750,000 in Pennsylvania alone.”

Problems and ongoing controversy on the scope of this methane leakage, or so-called “fugitive emissions,” will persist, as new research continues to uncover problems in specific regions. For example, authors of a 2017 study found that methane leaks were incredibly high across fracking operations in northwestern Canada. There is sure to be more debate over the need for further government regulations. The so-called “methane rule,” passed under the Obama administration to address the leakage problem on a more systematic basis, has thus far survived attempts by the Trump administration and some in Congress to repeal it.

John Wihbey

John Wihbey, a writer, educator, and researcher, is an assistant professor of journalism at Northeastern University and a correspondent for Boston Globe Ideas. Previously, he was an assistant director... More by John Wihbey

$fracking pros and cons essay$

26 Pros And Cons Of Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, which is commonly referred to as “fracking,” is a method of oil and gas extraction techniques that helps to quickly access a domestic resource that can be consumed for a variety of purposes. Many of the reductions in fuel costs have come because of the access improvements that fracking can provide.

There is also an argument to be made that the increased consumption of natural fuels could be leading to an environmental disaster. Although fracking has been a boon for many local economies, there is a concern that the short-term decisions made today could have long-term consequences for our planet and future generations.

Several pros and cons of fracking highlight the great divide which exists in this debate. Fracking may have rebooted many local economies, but is the threat of having flammable water coming out of a home faucet a real possibility as some critics may suggest?

Here are some examples to consider.

What Are the Pros of Fracking?

1. Fracking has greatly reduced the need for coal in the United States. In 2008, about half of the electricity that was produced in the US came from the combustion of coal. Because of fracking, by 2012 just 37% of US electricity was generated by coal. At the same time, natural gas obtained by fracking went up from 20% of the electrical base to 30%. Burning natural gas produces fewer harmful particles than coal, while there have been improvements in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.

2. Technologies exist to capture potential emissions. Clean coal technologies have helped to pioneer products that can help to capture emissions and particles as they are produced. This makes it possible for fracking and the related energy consumption to be competitive with other resources that are thought to be in the renewable category. For potentially dangerous emissions such as methane, because they tend to use a 20-year measurement instead of a 100-year measurement, the reduction technologies have enormous potential.

3. The real fracking process occurs under most groundwater tables. Most groundwater supplies are found in the first 1,000 feet of a drilling operation. Although drilling through this layer is classified as part of the fracking process, the real extractions occur much deeper in the ground. When care is taken to insert the casing, steel tubing, and cement, the chemical solutions used for fracking have a barrier between it and the groundwater supply. To contaminate the water above it, the chemicals would need to move upward through a rock layer and this is not believed to be possible.

4. Methane can contaminate groundwater supplies naturally. If you’ve watched the Gasland films, then the scene of the gentleman from Colorado lighting his tap water on fire is one of the film’s most memorable moments. Although flammable water is often attributed to the fracking process, methane does occur naturally on our planet. Pockets of this gas can contaminate local groundwater supplies when fracking is nowhere near the area. If a well is drilled incorrectly, methane contamination can occur.

5. The Environmental Protection Agency has testified that there are no proven cases of fracking affecting water. Lisa Jackson, Administrator for the EPA, testified before Congress in May 2011 that fracking has not caused any proven issues of contamination with water supplies. Thanks to advances in drilling technologies, there are several officials who have gone on the record to state that fracking is one of the safest methods of energy extraction that are used today. A 5-year study that was conducted by the EPA has even found that fracking has not led to water contamination.

6. The water intensity used for the fracking process is relatively low. The water intensity which is used for fracking is lower than it is for virtually any other type of fuel-based power generation. Oil extraction, coal, or nuclear power can use up to 10 times the amount of water that fracking uses for each energy unit that is produced. When fracking is compared to corn-based ethanol, it is 1,000 times less energy-intensive in its water use.

7. Fracking is a temporary process. Fracking wells are not a permanent process. Every well that is drilled is a targeted operation that has come about because of scouting. Drilling operations eventually cease and a well can operate independently, leaving a minimal presence on the land. Productivity levels for each well are rising too, which means more energy can be obtained for the same or a lower overall cost.

8. It is an extraction process that is stable. Whenever fracking may contribute to an earthquake, the tremors which are produced are generally minor and not destructive. Tens of thousands of wells have been drilled using the fracking process in the United States and the number of earthquakes that have occurred because of it are believed to be minimal. This suggests that the extraction process of fracking is a stable process that may occasionally trigger an earthquake that would have happen naturally anyway.

9. Much of the fracking process uses natural materials. Although some chemicals are used for fracking, more than 99% of the materials that are used to create a well are just water and sand. The chemicals which are used tend to be the same items that are used in every home, such as guar gum and sodium chloride.

10. Domestic production through fracking reduces foreign reliance on energy products. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Although new pockets of oil and gas are discovered regularly, we cannot always access them with traditional extraction methods. Fracking gives us the opportunity to tap into these resources on a local level and this reduces a country’s dependence on foreign energy resources. This, in turn, makes it possible to maintain a current lifestyle.

11. It allows for a return on an energy investment to occur. Energy industry stocks are part of many retirement plans, investment accounts, and savings efforts. Fracking in rural areas reduces costs, making it possible for all investors to see a potential return. It also creates jobs, both at the well and in supportive ways, such as in the hotel or restaurant industries. The sites where drilling may occur are often unconventional, but from a financial standpoint, households can profit by investing and through lower overall product costs.

12. Some households see lower property taxes because of fracking. Fracking in high-use areas can generate millions of dollars in revenues for cities, counties, and states in the US. $7.6 billion in wages were paid in Colorado. Nearly $200 million was received for school districts because of fracking industry property taxes. This collection kept residential property taxes stable and, in some cases since 2001, has even encouraged a reduction in those taxes. Millions have been contributed by the industry for public works, infrastructure, public safety, and more as well.

What Are the Cons of Fracking?

1. The environmental consequences of fracking are not yet known. There may be air quality improvements that are achieved when transitioned from coal-fired power plants to natural gas, but the actual extraction processes may have consequences we do not yet know. In areas where fracking is widely conducted, such as Colorado, there may be ozone issues that create a new set of health issues for communities.

2. Natural gas is cleaner than coal, but not cleaner than most renewables. The primary argument against renewable energy resources is that they require fossil fuels to be created. When operating, however, solar or wind energy can create electricity without the same particulate contamination of the atmosphere. Natural gas might be cleaner than a coal-fired power plant, but “clean” is a relative term.

3. The fracking process often leaks methane. Methane is one of the most potent pollutants in our atmosphere today and it is a byproduct of the fracking process. Obtaining oil or natural gas creates a methane leak from under the ground. Distributing the harvested energy resources creates methane leaks all the way down the supply chain. Research from Cornell University suggests that the amount of methane produced by fracking, from start to finish, could negate the benefits that occur from switching to natural gas instead of coal.

4. Lower prices for fossil fuels creates more consumption. It’s nice to see cheaper prices for home heating and transportation needs. Those lower prices also mean that more fuel is going to be consumed. People drive more when gasoline is cheaper. They set a warmer thermostat in their home (or a cooler one in Summer) when natural gas is cheaper. More consumption means there is a greater potential for environmental contamination.

5. Fracking contaminates drinking water with regularity if left unsupervised. A study that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that high-volume fracking has the potential to contaminate groundwater tables, wells, and drinking water systems. If methane gets into the water supply, there is the potential for a water supply to become flammable. Because of fracking, wells have blown out and this further contaminates drinking water supplies.

6. There is much that is not known about fracking. Approximately 20% of the chemicals which are used for the traditional fracking process are still considered a “trade secret.” This means the companies using these chemicals do not need to disclose what they are to the public.

7. Fracking can have negative impacts on communities and local habitats. In the United States, there are more than 15 million people who live within 1 mile of a current fracking operation. Many of them may be property owners, but do not own the oil and gas rights that are underneath their land. This means a fracking operation can be approved on someone’s property without their permission because the company bought the oil and gas rights that are beneath the ground. If there is a large enough supply, the lives of that family could be disrupted for months or years without any compensation.

8. Slurry water can be incredibly dangerous to communities. The water that is used for fracking is laden with chemicals to encourage the energy extraction process. Many fracking operations will then store this water in an open pit or retention pond. In California, 8 billion gallons of oil were produced through fracking, but 130 billion gallons of wastewater were created to do so. This means 15 barrels of wastewater are created for every 1 barrel of oil.

9. Air emissions from oil and gas waste lack structure. According to a report from Inside Climate News, the air emissions from oil and gas waste are some of the least regulated in the US are in the states that experience the highest levels of fracking. They are also some of the least monitored and least understood aspects of the production and extraction cycles.

10. The number of small earthquakes in drilling-heavy regions has grown exponentially. From 1967-2000, there was an average of 21 earthquakes per year in the United States that were 3.0 or greater on the Richter scale in the central and eastern states. Since then, when fracking became a priority in the US, the number of earthquakes at this level have increased by a factor of 4. In 2011, there were 188 earthquakes registered at 3.0 or less. In 2015, there were more than 1,000 earthquakes that the USGS believes were artificially induced. In 2014, a 4.9 earthquake struck in Kansas and was directly linked to localized fracking operation. A 2016 earthquake in Oklahoma registered at 5.6.

11. Fracking-related air pollution creates major health threats. According to the NRDC, there are several health threats which are created by the fracking process. This includes respiratory problems, nervous system impacts, possible birth defects, blood disorders, and carcinogen exposure. These pollution events are in the highest concentrations for those who live near a well or work at one, but there are also regional and global impacts that must also be considered.

12. A reliance on fracking creates a lack of innovation. Pursuing new pockets of oil and gas through fracking may allow for households to maintain their current lifestyle, but it also encourages a lack of innovation within the energy industry. When funds are being dedicated to fracking, they are being taking away from potentially cleaner energy resources. In just one day, enough sunshine hits our planet to meet global energy needs for an entire year. In terms of total potential, fracking struggles to make the grade.

13. There are ethical concerns about using water for fracking when drought conditions exist. The average well that is created through the fracking process will take somewhere between 20 million to 30 million gallons of water to complete. Then multiply those millions of gallons of water by the tens of thousands of wells that have been drilled since 2001. With severe drought conditions striking the world today, using that water for energy instead of irrigation, drinking water, or other needs in dry areas, an ethical question may arise. Is it right to use water in such a way when people or the land is thirsty?

14. Fracking doesn’t just create air or water pollution. Fracking is a loud operation. Vehicles come into and out of drill sites on a regular basis. Many wells are operated 24/7. When they are being operated near residential areas, it creates noise pollution that can be extensive and disruptive. Those who are closest to these operations could even be at an increased risk for hearing loss over time.

The pros and cons of fracking are divisive and people on both sides of the debate are passionate about these key points. Review each one so you can decide what the merits of fracking happen to be from your perspective.

Advisory Group
Visiting Fellows
Jobs & Fellowships

Themes & Topics

Electric Power
Energy Efficiency
Fossil Fuels
Transportation
Renewable Energy
Climate Economics
Climate Law & Policy
Climate Science
Air Pollution
Conservation Economics
Environmental Health

Centers & Initiatives

Climate Impact Lab
E&E Lab
Abrams Environmental Law Clinic
Air Quality Monitoring and Data Access
Energy Impact of Russia Crisis
Build Back Better on Climate
Climate Public Opinion
Social Cost of Carbon
COP28: Insights & Reflections
India Legislators Program
U.S. Energy & Climate Roadmap
Impact Takeaways
Opinion & Analyses
Research Highlights
All Insights
In the News
Around Campus
EPIC Events
Faculty Workshops
Conference Series
EPIC Career Series
Energy & Climate Club
Climate and Energy Lunch & Learn
Search the site Search Submit search terms
View Facebook profile (opens new window)
View Twitter profile (opens new window)

$fracking pros and cons essay$

The Fracking Debate: The Pros, Cons, and Lessons Learned from the U.S. Energy Boom

Location : Saieh Hall For Economics Google Map

Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, is perhaps the most important innovation in the energy system in the last half century. The technological breakthrough in fracking, combined with directional drilling, has unleashed massive new supplies of shale oil and natural gas, cutting domestic and global energy prices dramatically, improving U.S. energy security and slashing pollution by displacing coal-fired power generation.

Tens of thousands of shale wells have been drilled across the United States over the past few years, making hydraulic fracturing a part of everyday life for many Americans. The widespread nature of the shale business has therefore raised questions about its local impacts. The Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago (EPIC) hosted an event on April 17th as part of its Inquiry & Impact Series that explored the costs and benefits of fracking based on recent research pioneered by University of Chicago scholars. The panel included EPIC’s inaugural policy fellows Sue Tierney and Jeff Holmstead and EPIC Director Michael Greenstone , and was moderated by Axios reporter Amy Harder .

The Local Costs & Benefits

Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman Professor in Economics, the College, and the Harris School, kicked off the event by presenting a pair of studies he co-authored on the local impacts of shale development and hydraulic fracturing. The first study found that development increases economic activity, employment, income and housing prices, with the average household benefitting by about $2,000 a year net of social costs. However, if additional evidence identified greater or unknown costs, such as health effects, the net benefits would change, Greenstone said.

Since health is such a critical factor, Greenstone decided to dig further by measuring infant health for children born near shale wells. He and his coauthors found that infants born to mothers living up to about 2 miles from a hydraulic fracturing site suffer from poorer health. The largest impacts were to babies born within about a half mile of a site, with those babies being 25 percent more likely to be born at a low birth weight.

Jeff Holmstead, who represents oil and gas companies in his capacity as a partner at Bracewell, LLP, said industry takes local health impacts seriously.

“From the industry perspective, most operators believe they’re better off with reasonable regulations than with no regulation at all, and I think over time we’ve seen more responsible development of shale resources,” said Holmstead, who served as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) assistant administrator for air and radiation during the George W. Bush administration.

Sue Tierney, who lives very close to shale development in Colorado, agreed that the large energy companies have improved their practices over the years.

“In the early periods of this shale gas revolution, where there were stealth entries into communities, people didn’t really know who was buying and selling things and for what purposes, and [there were] a lot of bad surprises as a result,” said Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Energy under President Clinton and a state cabinet officer for environmental affairs for Massachusetts. “I think that is changing, but that left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths.”

Further, there are smaller companies that may not operate with the same rigorous practices as the larger companies, Tierney said.

The National Debate

With some communities banning fracking and others embracing it, tensions between its costs and benefits have turned a local issue into a national debate. Some, including former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, have called for a nationwide ban on fracking.

Tierney, now a consultant at the Analysis Group, said that would be a “terrible idea” because that would mean “coal would come roaring back.”

“It’s not as though, if you ban fracking tomorrow, that you are going to have a step-function increase in renewable energy in a way that could satisfy the nature of energy demand that we have today,” she said. “Renewable energy is already entering the market at a fast pace, and a ban on fracking would make coal more attractive in the marketplace.”

She pointed out a benefit of natural gas that often seems counter-intuitive—its role in a low-carbon future.

“Absent really great storage or other technology, you cannot integrate renewables without natural gas” serving as backup generation, she said.

But that doesn’t mean that fracking shouldn’t be regulated at the federal level, said Tierney, adding that she has little hope there would be any new regulations developed under the current administration—a challenge made more difficult by a plethora of competing state regulations.

“There’s such a history of states’ rights on this. Much of the regulation we see over oil and gas production evolved from the foundation of states’ use of their police powers, rather than federal environmental regulation. That creates a very varied playground in terms of states’ policies and enforcement,” she said. “There’s been resistance to a more standardized process across the states. I do think that there are some things associated with air quality and associated with clean water issues where there are larger spillover effects on different communities.”

Holmstead largely agreed that the federal government should lead on cross-border issues posed by fracking such as air quality and methane emissions. However, states have evolved over the past 40 years to be able to confront environmental issues in oil and gas development and should be responsible for addressing localized issues, he said.

“When it comes to oil and gas development, it’s not true that Texas doesn’t care about environmental issues,” Holmstead said. “They actually have regulators who know a lot about the industry, that are involved in addressing environmental concerns, so I think a lot of it can be done [at the state level].”

How fracking is portrayed in the media has only complicated how fracking is regulated, regardless of what level of government makes the rules.

Harder brought up “Gasland,” a documentary by an anti-fracking activist that Harder said contained inaccuracies but nonetheless stoked anti-fracking sentiment in the United States and beyond. Holmstead said films like Gasland have shifted the industry’s focus from just legal issues and regulations to public relations.

“I think it’s been a challenge, but they’re at least now putting resources in trying to figure out how to better explain what they do and better address some of the concerns that are raised,” he said.

Tierney said films like “Gasland” demonize the issue.

“I think there are legitimate problems associated with local impacts and I think there are tremendous benefits associated with it,” she said. “I just think it’s incredibly complicated, and any time you’ve got a narrative that is just picking and choosing one-sided pieces of it…it’s a real problem.”

Natural Gas & Climate Change

Because of its role in displacing carbon-rich fossil fuels like coal, natural gas plays a major role in national efforts to address climate change. As such, Harder posed the question: Is natural gas a net benefit or net positive for addressing climate change?

Holmstead said it was a net-positive, reiterating its role as a cost-effective replacement for coal-fired power generation that is being retired and as a support mechanism for renewable energy development. Tierney and Greenstone both characterized it as positive in the short term but negative in the long run.

Despite its net-negative impacts on climate change, Greenstone pointed out that climate change isn’t the foremost issue for many around the world.

“If you’re sitting in India or China, it’s the deal of the century,” said Greenstone, who has extensively researched air quality and other issues in those countries.

“In addition to wanting cheap energy…what they really care about is that they can’t breathe,” he said, referring to how the switch from coal to natural gas can significantly reduce air pollution.

Shale development can result in emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Some methane is intentionally combusted as a byproduct during fracking (a process known as “flaring”), while some can also leak out of the gas distribution system—an issue that is increasingly important as U.S. consumption of natural gas has increased substantially in recent years.

That’s an area in which industry and regulators could work together, Holmstead said.

“Within the industry…there are companies that believe it’s important to have federal regulation,” he said. “They believe that they would be better off in terms of public perception if there is reasonable federal regulation of methane or related emissions.”

“But they won’t advocate for it,” interjected Tierney.

“Actually, some are,” Holmstead said. “But they’re not going to be doing it publicly.”

This event is part of EPIC’s Energy Inquiry & Impact Series, designed to explore the latest energy data coming out of the University of Chicago and their impacts on policy discussions. Cutting-edge findings will serve as the launching pad to frame these deep-dive conversations, as researchers and EPIC policy fellows navigate ways to translate research into solutions.

Participants

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Michael Greenstone

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Jeff Holmstead

$fracking pros and cons essay$

Susan Tierney

Tuesday, april 17, 2018, registration and hosted bar (21+) opens, event begins: welcome and introductions by michael greenstone, panel: amy harder (moderator), greenstone, jeff holmstead and sue tierney, more on this topic, cepa/hea present epa geologist jeffrey mcdonald, life cycle analysis of energy systems using the greet model, advanced biofuels and the midwest market, energy policy workshop 1: what do consumers believe about future gasoline prices, bp global energy outlook to 2030, energy jewel of the caspian sea, a sustainable energy situation, economics, uncertainties and challenges, building the business case for the back-end of the u.s. nuclear fuel cycle, energy policy workshop 3: risk premia on crude oil futures prices, managing the risks of shale gas: identifying a pathway toward responsible development, energy policy workshop 4, suzanne stelmasek, policy analyst and marketing manager, clean energy trust, 2013 midwest energy forum: “rebuilding the u.s. electricity grid”, nyc harris lecture with prof. rosner, booth energy forward 2013, eric masanet: industrial sustainability through supply chain energy management, rol johnson: from muon colliders to accelerator-driven subcritical reactors, energy practicum brown bag, patricia kampling – ceo, alliant energy: generating results in an environmentally conscious world, dimitri kusnezov, department of energy: the science in policy, uchicago community (if applicable)….

Faculty/Researcher/Staff
Undergrad Student
Masters Student
PhD Student

Interested In…

General News
Monthly e-Newsletter
Student e-Newsletter (weekly)
Chicago Events
EPIC-India News & Events

IMAGES

11 Pros and Cons of Fracking
$fracking pros and cons essay$
32 Decisive Pros & Cons Of Fracking You Have To Know
$fracking pros and cons essay$
Fracking: Overview, Advantages and Disadvantages, FAQ
$fracking pros and cons essay$
Pros and Cons of Fracking: Essay Tips
$fracking pros and cons essay$
The Pros and Cons of Fracking
$fracking pros and cons essay$
32 Decisive Pros & Cons Of Fracking You Have To Know
$fracking pros and cons essay$

VIDEO

B2 First WRITING TASK: PROS AND CONS, FOR AND AGAINST ESSAY IN ENGLISH
MiddyTutorials. IELTS Writing Task 2 (Essay
Argumentative essay _ pros and cons essay.Mr. Muhammad Said 77883525
C1 ololmaysiz agar ... #multilevel #teachermuzaffar
Fracking: Pros and Cons
advantages and disadvantages of social media essay 🌟 #shorts #essaywriting #essayonsocialmedia

COMMENTS

Fracking Pros and Cons
The less reliant the United States and our allies are on energy resources produced by countries that hate us, the less influence they have over us.". [ 20] Fracking accounts for 95% of new American natural gas wells. [ 21] Eliminating fracking would severely hamper the US's ability to be energy independent.
Pro and Con: Fracking
To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, discussion questions, and ways to take action on the future of fracking in the United States, go to ProCon.org. Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is a method of extracting natural gas from deep underground via a drilling technique. First, a vertical well is drilled and encased in steel or cement.
Pros and cons of fracking: 5 key issues
A brief guide to sorting out the plusses and minuses of key fracking issues. There's an issue where the underlying science remains a political football, and scientists are regularly challenged and called out personally. Where energy needs and short-term economic growth are set against our children's health and future.
Fracking: Pro and Con
We're talking about prices going from $10 or $11 per thousand cubic feet 10 years ago down to $3.77 now, because the supply that has been released by this innovative fracking production technique is just so large. It is a simple consequence of supply and demand. These natural gas prices are the equivalent of oil prices falling to $21 per ...
32 Decisive Pros & Cons Of Fracking You Have To Know
Fracking can provide easy access to fossil resources. Additional fossil fuel deposits. May give us more time to transit to renewable energies. Fracking can help countries to become more independent. May strengthen the economy of some countries. Rather cheap process to exploit fossil fuel deposits. Lower prices for gas and oil.
Fracking
fracking, in natural gas and petroleum production, injection of a fluid at high pressure into an underground rock formation in order to open fissures and allow trapped gas or crude oil to flow through a pipe to a wellhead at the surface. Employed in combination with improved techniques for drilling horizontally through selected rock layers, fracking has opened up vast natural gas deposits in ...
Pros and Cons of Fracking: Essay Tips
Read More: Pros and Cons of Brexit - Essay Tips. Because fracking applies so much water (as much as a hundred times what other, normal drilling uses to get to gas and oil sediments), it has been connected to a reduction in the water supplies in and nearby regions where fracking has taken place. Increased Number of Droughts
Pros and cons of fracking: Research updates
Those two papers draw on hundreds of studies and are authored by leading researchers; both are useful for those diving deep into the pros and cons of this set of energy extraction techniques. Yale Climate Connections asked the principal authors of both of those papers to weigh in on the state of fracking research.
The Pros and Cons of Fracking Essay
Fracking or hydraulic fracturing has grown in popularity over the years. Fracking is the process of directing bursts of sand, water, and chemicals underground to obtain accessibility to oil and natural gas. This action has become rewarding but there are many environmental, social, and economic pros and cons that must be addressed.
26 Pros And Cons Of Fracking
9. Much of the fracking process uses natural materials. Although some chemicals are used for fracking, more than 99% of the materials that are used to create a well are just water and sand. The chemicals which are used tend to be the same items that are used in every home, such as guar gum and sodium chloride. 10.
Is Fracking Good Or Bad? Why Fracking Is An Emotionally ...
Figure 1. Volume of water used in fracking a single shale well. I Palmer. In certain oil and gas states, like New Mexico and Pennsylvania for example, drilling and fracking use less than 1% of the ...
The Pros And Cons Of Fracking
The Pros And Cons Of Fracking. 519 Words3 Pages. Fracking is natural gases that are release from the below ground rock formation. They have been experimenting with this for years to come. But fracking can also have its pros and cons in the future. Fracking effects air pollution, gas leaks, drinking water, communities, and earthquakes.
The Fracking Debate: The Pros, Cons, and Lessons Learned from ...
Date and Time : April 17, 2018, 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm CDT. Add To Calendar. 04/17/2018 05:30 PM 04/17/2018 07:30 PM The Fracking Debate: The Pros, Cons, and Lessons Learned from the U.S. Energy Boom. Past EPIC Event • Apr 17, 2018. The Fracking Debate: The Pros, Cons, and Lessons Learned from the U.S. Energy Boom. Saieh Hall For Economics false.
Fracking Pros And Cons Essay
Fracking Pros And Cons Essay; Fracking Pros And Cons Essay. 541 Words 3 Pages. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method used access the natural gas that exist in the shale formation layer which is around 6000 feet below ground, in a cost effective way. After fracking horizontally, they blast the water mixed with salt and chemicals into ...
Fracking and Its Pros and Cons
- Watch this YouTube video then write a persuasive essay on fracking. - The writing should clearly show the side you chose or a rhetorical stance. Pros and cons of fracking then come up with a conclusion or position about the topic. - In-text citations - Works cited page
Essay On The Pros And Cons Of Fracking
Pros for Fracking Earthquakes are naturally occurring phenomenon and even in the few instances where frocking operations likely contributed to them. Cons for fracking is Consider the facts that over half the nation is currently experiencing water droughts, the concept of using massive amounts of water to probe underground for oil is only ...
Fracking Pros And Cons
Fracking Pros And Cons. Best Essays. 3493 Words. 14 Pages. Open Document. This essay is related to the process of Fracking and its implications on the Karoo. It will provide a background on exactly what Fracking is and how the process is carried out and also how and to what extent the process will affect the Karoo.
Fracking Pros And Cons
The Pros And Cons Of Fracking 473 Words | 2 Pages. ... Fracking Persuasive Essay 796 Words | 4 Pages. One family affected by fracking says, "The tranquility was ruptured by the staccato tapping of one of her stained-glass sun catchers against the window." The tapping this family was hearing was vibrations coming from a fracking site.
Fracking Pros And Cons
Fracking Pros And Cons; Fracking Pros And Cons. Good Essays. 1981 Words; 8 Pages; Open Document. ... Hydraulic Fracking Essay. 1130 Words; 5 Pages; Hydraulic Fracking Essay. Hydraulic fracking is not only harmful to people but also toxic for the environment around the site. Extracting gasses deep in the earth's crust is not natural, neither is ...
Pros And Cons Of Fracking
Introduction Fracking is a highly debated form of removing natural gas and oil from the ground and comes with both pros and cons. Oxford Dictionary defines Fracking as "the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc., so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas: Also called hydraulic fracturing.".
Fracking Pros And Cons
Hydraulic fracturing has been around for several years as a controversial topic. Fracking is a controversial topic, because of how it might impact the environment, and the pros/cons of it. Many people think fracking is good, because of all the jobs it has created, and the money it has brought in to the economy.
Fracking Pros And Cons Essay
Like everything in life there are pros and there are cons. The media presents many issues when it comes to obtaining the natural gas using the fracking system. First, is fracking good or bad for our environment, and is it beneficial for American economy. Second, the amount of water that's being used in this process and the contamination of ...
Fracking Pros And Cons Essay
Fracking Pros And Cons Essay. Good Essays. 1103 Words; 5 Pages; Open Document Analyze This Draft. Open Document Analyze This Draft. Fracking Pros And Cons Essay. View Writing Issues. File. Edit. Tools. Settings. Filter Results. 1103 Words. Grammar. Plagiarism Writing

Get the latest news and stories from Tufts delivered right to your inbox.

Fracking: Pro and Con

What to Make of the Earthquake that Rattled the Northeast

Tufts Students and Alum Receive Prestigious Scholarships

Empowerment, Community, and Empathy in the Social Media Era

32 Decisive Pros & Cons Of Fracking You Have To Know

Advantages & Disadvantages of Fracking

Audio Lesson

Disadvantages of Fracking

Top 10 Fracking Pros & Cons – Summary List

Affiliate Disclosure

Pin It on Pinterest

Pros and Cons of Fracking: Essay Tips

What is Fracking?

Pros of Fracking

Access to More Gas and Oil

Lower Taxes

Self-dependent

Better Air Quality

Reduced Dependency on Foreign Oil

Plenty of Jobs

Cons of Fracking

Less Focus on Renewable Energy Sources

About Amit Kumar

Schedule a no-cost consultation today!

You May Also Be Interested In:

How to Become Web Developer for Free?

Colleges in France for International Students

Best Ways for College Students to Make Money

Christmas Presents for College Students

Best Laptops for High School Students 2020

Best Remote Jobs for College Students

Best International Credit Card for Students

About FreeEducator

The importance of storytelling in fighting climate change

Knowledge is power

Pros and cons of fracking: Research updates

Share this:

Key recent research findings

Fracking and drinking water issues

Fracking and earthquakes and tremors

Fracking and leaky wells, methane, and climate risk

More questions begging answers going forward

John Wihbey

26 Pros And Cons Of Fracking

What Are the Pros of Fracking?

What Are the Cons of Fracking?

Themes & Topics

Centers & Initiatives

The Fracking Debate: The Pros, Cons, and Lessons Learned from the U.S. Energy Boom

The Local Costs & Benefits

The National Debate

Natural Gas & Climate Change

Participants

Michael Greenstone

Jeff Holmstead

Susan Tierney

Interested In…

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS