Time and again, fracking has proven to be detrimental to our environment. From air and water pollution to soil spill contamination, it is obvious that we need to find less harmful sources of energy to satisfy our energy needs. However, a substantial portion of the public advocates for the continuation of hydraulic fracturing.
One notable explanation for this lack of effort is that putting a stop to fracking would raise petroleum prices. Oil prices have been plummeting, in part because the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries, or OPEC, are insisting on increasing production, making it the highest we have seen in years. The increased oil supply in the U.S. (from fracking and such) also help drive prices down.
In addition, the U.S. currently relies heavily on Saudi Arabia for its petroleum needs, but with increased domestic output, many believe we can become much more self-reliant in petroleum.
If we place more restrictions on and eventually stop fracking, our domestic output will drop substantially, increasing oil and gas prices and strengthening our dependence on Saudi Arabia, both of which are disagreeable for the vast majority of Americans. For the consumer, cheaper gas is always better, and for the average American, self-sufficiency is preferred to dependence on monarchial countries.
Even so, the benefits of stopping hydraulic fracturing far outweigh these benefits. If we slowly add more restrictions on fracking, it will make the transition to more environmentally-friendly methods much easier. If we allow ourselves to remain dependent on Saudi Arabia's oil in the short-term, we can focus on finding better ways to extract energy sources or even move toward renewable energy research so that we are completely self-reliant in the long run. In addition, fracking is extremely expensive, so the plunging gas prices have already caused some fracking wells to downsize activity or even go out of business. By beginning fracking restrictions now, we may have to pay a bit more for gas for a while, but it is worth the cost because we can also ensure an independent United States and save the environment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn one of my classmate's blog post, Hit the Road, Frack (part 2) by Deena Ismail, she talks about the consequences of fracking, which is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks in order to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas. The author suggests reducing fracking slowly, and I completely agree with her.
DeleteNot only is fracking bad for our environment, I personally think that fracking is not very efficient or effective. It takes around one to eight million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job, approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing (which can NOT be good for the environment), and in the process, methane gas and toxic chemicals contaminate groundwater. These are only some of the cons of fracking, listed by Dangers of Fracking. Although fracking may have some benefits, like have alternative sources of fuel and lower energy costs, I think that the cons outweigh the pros.
Some of the possible solutions include: solar and wind technologies and "green" fracking, but I think that the potential solution that Deena proposed is good, which is slowly reducing the act. The government may not have placed restrictions on fracking, because it will decrease the total supply of natural resources by 9 percent. Fracking also provides more jobs for people, so the unemployment rate for the country will increase if the government prohibits fracking.