In recent years, hydro-fracking has become an extremely important issue amongst leading conservationists, especially in the Northeastern United States, also known as the Marcellus Shale. In deciding whether or not to lease their land for hydro-fracking, stakeholders must consider the benefits associated with this method. When it comes to producing domestic energy sources, the potential for hydro-fracking in the U.S is astronomical; the amount of energy produced domestically currently pales in comparison to the potential output of hydro-fracking. The future of hydro-fracking is looking bright, as current resources seem to be diminishing each day. To meet the growing demand for energy, safer and green-er methods of fracking seem to be paving the way the future. However, fracking has a bad reputation amongst most conservationists, and furthermore, in order to change their opinions regarding hydro-fracking, authorities must look for ways to make it safer and more regulated.
As contemporary society continues to create and innovate, the need for energy resources gros exponentially every day. Most of the natural gas that could potentially be accessed by hydro-fracking is largely un-tapped and in great abundance. Numerous reports have come out noting that the amount of recoverable oil and natural gas have soared over the years; the EPA reported that from 2010-2011, global natural gas supplies rose by 40%. And, if the government allows fracking on a federal level, the number of recoverable oil will grow dramatically. Coupled with the benefits of harvesting the oil itself, are the economic benefits. Thousands upon thousands of potential high-paying jobs could be created, at a time when gas prices continue to rise.
An over-zealous campaign against hydro-fracking is taking a serious toll on fracking’s credibility and popularity. Films such as HBO’s Gasland depict hydro-fracking as life threatening and ecologically detrimental. The narrator frightens viewers with tales of flammable faucet water and over exaggerated claims of water and chemicals being shot 8,000 feet into the ground. In reality, hydro-fracking creates small fissures in the ground (roughly 1mm thick) as a result of carefully engineered electric pulses. The film also claims that a mixture of 596 harmful chemicals is mixed with water, when truthfully 99.5% of the mixture itself is water and sand. That .05% largely consists of commonly used chemicals such as guar gum, an emulsifier used in ice cream. Generally, opposition to hydro-fracking stems from the notion that hydro-fracking can lead to contaminated drinking water, groundwater depletion, toxic air pollution, radiation, etc. However, with the exception of groundwater depletion, many of these findings have not been demonstrated and no correlation exists.
Fracking currently takes place in much of the American South, Midwest, and parts of the Northeast; however, states like New York have barred hydro-fracking, for now. The benefits of hydraulic fracturing certainly outweigh the cons as our society continues to grow. Kathleen White’s article sheds light on a highly debated topic and offers the truths about a potential booming industry.
Source: “The Fracas about Fracking.” National Review; 6/20/2011, Vol. 63 Issue 11, p38-41.
