Fracking

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Definition:
Definition of 'Fracking'
A slang term for hydraulic fracturing. Fracking refers to the procedure of creating fractures in rocks and rock formations by injecting fluid into cracks to force them further open. The larger fissures allow more oil and gas to flow out of the formation and into the wellbore, from where it can be extracted.

Fracking has resulted in many oil and gas wells attaining a state of economic viability, due to the level of extraction that can be reached.



Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fracking.asp#ixzz2KKNpt6YM

Do you believe fracking should continue even with its many risks. ( please research)

[Harley Quinn]

I've been learning about this in my geography class, and while it does have it's advantages, I think there's also disadvantages. Like, how it can contaminate other people's water line making it dangerous to consume. Mainly because it can contain carcinogenic chemicals which can sometimes escape and find their way into drinking water sources. But there's a also the concern it can cause 'mini' earth tremors. The thing is, it shouldn't be used as a permanent solution as it can really only bring about short-term economic benefits.

[Human]

I agree with Kryptonite, we can't rely on it for the long term. For the long term we need nuclear power plants and renewables.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

Im agianst Fracking only becuase its negotiates out way the positives. So the below is my outline of the issue:

1) the positives
a. less air pollution (becuase methane burns cleaner)
b. less foreign dependence for oil
c. An increase in jobs
d. Economic stimulation.

2) the negitives
A. Pollution
a. Of the surrounding water from added toxins and chemicals used to break down the rock
b. the air. Yes methan BURNS cleaner by 8% of all collected methane leaks into the atmosphere. Since methane is like10x worse than Co2, any good that you may have done has already been reversed. And it may be cleaner but it still compiles in the atmosphere over time. However just at a slower rate.
B. health risks
Surrounding areas exhibit and increase in:
a. Headaches
b. breathing issues
c. Cancer cuased by carcinogens ( childhood leukemia is quite common)
C. Minimal Judicial Regulation
a. Becuase a fracking well isn't an "oil well" it's not heald to the same standard of regulation for safety.
b. the federal government has yet to get involved in this issue and its up to each individual state to decide rules and regulations for fracking. Only about 4 ( I thinks it's around 4) states have such regulations... In some cases they sent very string. A fracking site can be as close as 100 feet to civilization.
D. Hazardous Work Environment
a. Exposure to toxins
b. Noise level
c. Dangerous equipment
d. Pay is too low to support a family and pay for the medical attention from the health risks mentioned earlier.
E. Earth's Tectonic Structure
a. Earthquakes
b. sinkholes
Both cuased by the drilling in the ground.

So the negitives not only out weigh the positives but counter act them. It's not less pollution but at a slower rate. In America we have the technology to capture energy from sun, wind, and water and still be non-dependent of other countries. Becuase it creates a hazardous work invironment they aren't good jobs. And renewable read orcs like solar panels, wind mills, and (dont know the name of machine) ways of getting hydroelectric energy, will also stimulate the economic growth of the country while providing a safe work environment.

~Kyle

[Jess]

I'm pretty against it. It does more harm than good -- pollutes people's water, harms the environment etc

[Gigablue]

It might help with our fuel needs, but it isn't a very good solution. The risks are significant, and it should still be studied further. There may be some safe way to use fracking, but, at the moment, the risks are too high. I think that we should invest in better energy sources, instead of continuing to use fossil fuels. We definitely shouldn't use fracking until we are able to do it safely.

[Guillermo]

I agree with Kryptonite, we can't rely on it for the long term. For the long term we need nuclear power plants and renewables.

Well, nuclear power plants really haven't been 'perfected', per say. This is because of the waste that nuclear plants leave. Where should it be stored? And since it takes thousands of years to dissolute, who will watch over it in the future? Also, nuclear power has been on a worldwide decline in most countries ever since the 1990s. This is because the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact countries used nuclear power to a great extent during the Cold War and when it ended, so did a lot of the nuclear power plants. The power plants were not very stable (as shown with the Chernobyl disaster) and were in turn, abandoned for the most part for other means of obtaining power.


Fracking, in my opinion, needs more research and isn't the answer to a long-term alternative energy source. The practice has been around since the mid 20th century but has become more widespread (especially in the U.S.) in the past decade. With the way it is right now, there's too much environment being destroyed. Also, I don't know if anyone else touched on this, but there's also a problem with cleaning the mess up. Should the person whose land is being leased for the fracking clean up the contaminates that have polluted other areas or the ones who are being paid by the energy companies doing the fracking be the ones? Or should it even be the one whose land has been contaminated and has had nothing to do with the fracking process? It's a pretty big problem.

[Abyssal Echo]

I'm against it it pollutes the water we need to drink and ruins the eviroment

[Taryn98]

I'm for it. We need a domestic source of energy and currently, oil, coal, and nuclear are the only sources that have an efficiency that make them competitive.

If solar and wind were not heavily subsidized, they would go bankrupt immediately. I support doing continued research on them as future sources of energy, but at this time they can't compete. If you covered every square inch of Earth (including the area covered by ocean) with solar panels, you'd only generate enough power for roughly 25-30% of humans current use.

So until renewable technology advances to the point that it's significantly more efficient and cost competitive, we should contiue to use every means necessary (domestic oil, coal, nuclear) to generate our power.

[NORTH.KN16HT]

I'm for it. We need a domestic source of energy and currently, oil, coal, and nuclear are the only sources that have an efficiency that make them competitive.

If solar and wind were not heavily subsidized, they would go bankrupt immediately. I support doing continued research on them as future sources of energy, but at this time they can't compete. If you covered every square inch of Earth (including the area covered by ocean) with solar panels, you'd only generate enough power for roughly 25-30% of humans current use.

So until renewable technology advances to the point that it's significantly more efficient and cost competitive, we should contiue to use every means necessary (domestic oil, coal, nuclear) to generate our power.

It's not simply the use of 1 main renewable energy source but the combined power generated from all 3. Sun,wind, and water.
And there's only so much fossil fuels on this earth we will run out I just hope the Earth can stand it till then.

[Taryn98]

It's not simply the use of 1 main renewable energy source but the combined power generated from all 3. Sun,wind, and water.
And there's only so much fossil fuels on this earth we will run out I just hope the Earth can stand it till then.

I agree we need to research all possibilities. The point being, right now they are not cost effective to use. Also, based on the known amount of oil on Earth, we have enough supply at currect usage for ~500years. And that's just the known amount of oil. There's likely more out there that we don't know about.
I'm sure in the next 500 years, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc will develop into great sources of clean energy, but until they can compete on an even playing field (without subsidies and at greater efficiency), we shouldn't use them preferentially over sources of energy that work great and are cheaper.

[Guillermo]

I agree we need to research all possibilities.

Agreed.

The point being, right now they are not cost effective to use. Also, based on the known amount of oil on Earth, we have enough supply at currect usage for ~500years. And that's just the known amount of oil. There's likely more out there that we don't know about.

Fracking is not a cost effective use as of yet, either. Nor a long term one. Your stats on oil lasting for another 500 years may be correct, but that's for current usage. The world as a whole in terms of population is still growing exponentially. The U.S. currently has a population of around 313,000,000. Projections for 2050 show that the population will increase to well above 400,000,000. As we all know, the U.S. uses the most oil in the world - even more than all the states in the European Union combined (which equals a population of over 500,000,000). And other less developed countries such as India are still growing and will demand more and more oil in the near future. Therein lies the question - will the earth have enough oil to support all of the world's demands for 500 years more?

I'm sure in the next 500 years, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc will develop into great sources of clean energy, but until they can compete on an even playing field (without subsidies and at greater efficiency), we shouldn't use them preferentially over sources of energy that work great and are cheaper.

But why not use them over other sources of energy now? Solar power has increasingly become affordable in the home setting in recent years. Wind power also can have an opportunity to become more efficient. Hydroelectric power is a different story, however. The problem with this energy source is that it requires a dam to be built and this in itself can cause environmental and political problems. Really, it all goes to back to research. Hopefully science will find a source of energy that is completely environmentally friendly and both efficient enough to compete as an energy source for investment.

[Taryn98]

Agreed.



Fracking is not a cost effective use as of yet, either. Nor a long term one. Your stats on oil lasting for another 500 years may be correct, but that's for current usage. The world as a whole in terms of population is still growing exponentially. The U.S. currently has a population of around 313,000,000. Projections for 2050 show that the population will increase to well above 400,000,000. As we all know, the U.S. uses the most oil in the world - even more than all the states in the European Union combined (which equals a population of over 500,000,000). And other less developed countries such as India are still growing and will demand more and more oil in the near future. Therein lies the question - will the earth have enough oil to support all of the world's demands for 500 years more?



But why not use them over other sources of energy now? Solar power has increasingly become affordable in the home setting in recent years. Wind power also can have an opportunity to become more efficient. Hydroelectric power is a different story, however. The problem with this energy source is that it requires a dam to be built and this in itself can cause environmental and political problems. Really, it all goes to back to research. Hopefully science will find a source of energy that is completely environmentally friendly and both efficient enough to compete as an energy source for investment.

I think you hit the real problem on the head, population! The major problem for all human kind is over population. If we could slowly over time bring it back down to ~4billion or less we would greatly decrease polution, trash, damage to the environment, decrease world wide hunger, decrease energy needs etc.

We read a study in school that said the Earth has enough cultivatable soil to feed ~4billion people. Anything above that can only be sustained through artificial means (genetic engineered crops, hormomes in animals, etc).

We would do the environment and human species a big favor if we properly addressed the real problem, population.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

It's bad. Pollution negates the need for jobs.

[Guillermo]

I think you hit the real problem on the head, population! The major problem for all human kind is over population. If we could slowly over time bring it back down to ~4billion or less we would greatly decrease polution, trash, damage to the environment, decrease world wide hunger, decrease energy needs etc.

Very true. The only problem is to bring down the population in under-developed countries. That will be the trick. Though, there is hope. Several years back, India's fertility rate used to be 6 children per woman on average. Currently, it's under 3.

We read a study in school that said the Earth has enough cultivatable soil to feed ~4billion people. Anything above that can only be sustained through artificial means (genetic engineered crops, hormomes in animals, etc).

Even with 7 billion people now, the problem isn't whether or not we have enough food to feed the world - because theoretically, we do. The problem is distribution. It's uneven throughout the world and especially in less developed countries.

We would do the environment and human species a big favor if we properly addressed the real problem, population.

Definitely.

Pollution negates the need for jobs.

Actually, you're wrong. Large venture capitalists like Veolia and Siemens are jumping at the opportunity to cleanup the pollution that fracking creates, thus creating necessary jobs.

[TheBigUnit]

I think you hit the real problem on the head, population! The major problem for all human kind is over population. If we could slowly over time bring it back down to ~4billion or less we would greatly decrease polution, trash, damage to the environment, decrease world wide hunger, decrease energy needs etc.

We read a study in school that said the Earth has enough cultivatable soil to feed ~4billion people. Anything above that can only be sustained through artificial means (genetic engineered crops, hormomes in animals, etc).

We would do the environment and human species a big favor if we properly addressed the real problem, population.

Well said