Arguments in Favour of Fracking

Fracking has been present since 1947 when Standard Oil and Gas Corporation conducted the first experiment but the venture was not successful until 1950. Since then, there have been millions of fracking jobs worldwide. The United States of America (USA) is the leading fracking country in the world and accounts for about a half of the entire fracking jobs. There have been speculations that fracking could finally enable the United States to become a net exporter of gas. By 2012, shale gas, which is extracted through fracking accounted for between 20% to 25% of all the USA’s natural gas production (Boudet et al 2014, 58). Currently, fracking is carried out in about 20 states in the USA. Some states such as Vermont, New York and North Carolina have imposed bans to fracking.

In addition, European countries such as France, Bulgaria have banned fracking whereas the United Kingdom (UK) is talking a measured approach towards the controversial issue. Industry Arguments in Favour of Fracking Improved Economy The main argument that oil companies and other proponents of fracking bring forth is the spur of economic growth it has brought to the United States. One of the major ways it has improved the economy according to the proponents is by increasing the number of jobs available to the Americans. The fracking proponents also argue in favour of the activity by mentioning that the oil industry is one of the most robust in the nation. As a result, the industry currently has one of the highest hiring rates in the country.

The jobs in the fracking business and its related activities offer some of the most competitive salaries in the United States and contribute billions of dollars to the American government. In addition, when oil companies lease land for drilling purposes, they transfer monetary value for the leaseholders who are mainly farmers and other rural individuals. The leaseholders use the money that they receive to improve their economic activities and this ripple effect is felt in several industries. Around 2006, USA depended on foreign oil imports to the tune of around 10 million barrels a day (Price 2017, 56). However, since 2011, thanks to fracking the nation has been able to reduce this dependency and has even become a net exporter of oil. Fracking proponents use this data as an argument for supporting the continued exploration and development of fracking.

They argue that the money saved from not importing oil and gas from foreign countries could be channelled to other sectors of the economy for improvisation. Clean Energy The proponents of fracking argue that shale gas is a cleaner source of energy than normal oil, gas and coal. For instance, the numerous trucks that are used to transport shale gas contribute emissions to the ozone layer. It is a daily affair since fracking is continuous for 24 hours a day. In addition, the people that live in the areas near fracking sites experience much noise pollution. The heavy machinery used to drill and the trucks moving in and out of the fracking sites produce much noise that is harmful to the people living near the sites.

Long exposure to such levels of noise could have short-term and long-term effects on the hearing capability of the people living in those areas. If there are wells or other water sources close to these fracking sites, the fracking fluid or fugitive gas could find its way there and contaminate the water. A study conducted in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania discovered that there were high methane concentrations in the water wells. To make matters worse, these wells contained drinking water for the people living in the densely populated surrounding area. Twenty-seven residents in the Marcellus area exhibited signs and symptoms of possible poisoning. Some of these symptoms include rashes irritations. They used the distance of the water from the fracking sites as a method of measurement and comparison.

In areas where there was fracking and the distance between the sites and the water was small, the water had high concentrations of methane. They studied the isotopes of these methane particles and discovered that they were similar to the ones present at the fracking sites (Osborn et al 2011, 8173). Therefore, this study provides evidence for the opponents of fracking that indeed the activity is harmful to water. Members of the public could drink this water or give the water to animals and plants and this could affect them in a major way. The land on top of the fracking sites are usually left derelict after the activities are finalized. Such land has no much value. Most of these wells produce only about 10% value in the fifth year of operation.

After the wells are abandoned, they are sealed and they pose danger to the surrounding community. Such wells need monitoring, reinforcement and maintenance and thus consume monetary resources. For instance, the Middle Eastern nations that compose the majority of oil exporters to the United States could decide to hoard the product in anticipation of higher prices. In addition, a country like Russia, which is the leading natural gas supplier in the world, could decide to withhold the valuable commodity from the United States in case of conflicts or political tensions. By producing its own oil and natural gas, the United States could wield much power over such nations. The impact of fracking on the economy of the country could also improve the national security.

Eliminating the dependency on foreign oil seals a lot of loopholes that could be used against the security of the United States. No major earthquakes have proven catastrophic to the surrounding communities. At worse, these regions have only experienced some slight tremors that are not so detrimental. In addition, the proponents’ suggestion that fracking actually improved the environment by providing clean energy is a little far-fetched. The trucks that carry the shale oil and gas do use petroleum products that contribute to carbon emissions. At best, the shale oil and gas offer alternatives to coal and other fossil fuels and thus a reduced green house effect. First, the government should ensure that the fracking activities are conducted far away from human and animal life.

In case there are people living in lands that have been marked for fracking, the government should ensure that the companies compensate the residents aptly. Secondly, the fracking companies and the government should ensure that the water supply of the firms and that of residents are different. The two waters should not mix at all costs. This would help to ensure that there is minimal to no risk to residents as a result of leaking methane and fracking fluid. Goldfarb, and Douglas L. Kriner. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”. " Energy Policy 105 (2017): 407-417. Feng, Kuishuang, Steven J. globalenergyinstitute. org/us-chamber’s-fracking-job-boom-behind-numbers. Moran, Matthew D. , A. Brandon Cox, Rachel L. McClung. "Land‐use and ecosystem services costs of unconventional US oil and gas development.