The Pros And Cons Of Fracking
Can Fracking Solve the Global Energy Crisis?
Hydraulic fracturing or better known as fracking is a very contentious and cost-saving procedure in which fossil fuels are extracted from the earths crust. Instead of conventional oil drilling, it is used to exploit any possible sources of oil and natural gas, beyond the major known well sites. It was introduced in the 1940s and since then the practice has become increasingly controversial regarding its environmental impact. The pros and cons of this procedure are very much linked, making it hard to rationalise or justify either opinion. Fracking can potentially be a solution to the global energy crisis, but only if we, as humans stop procrastinating and focus on searching for more sustainable …show more content…
and reliable source of energy. The first step of fracking is determining an appropriate geographical location.
It is important to be located in a shale dense area because that is the rock type that commonly yields most resource (sandstone/ limestone also applicable). A drill is then inserted into the ground as by a conventional drilling, to about 1,800m to 3,000m underground where is is then rotated 90° to drill though the shale layer. Fracking itself, is a “well-stimulation technique”, wherein a pressurised hydraulically liquid (chemicals and sand mixed in water) is pumped into the well, creating microscopic fractures or ‘fissures’ in the deep-rock. The sand in the liquid then travels into the fractures and keeps them propped open allowing natural gas and crude oil to escape the rock more easily. Fracking is generally applied to drilling wells in order to exhaust the capabilities of the site because more resources per well is equivalent to more money which essentially fuels todays world. Even though, this has been proven to not be effective, people often still see it as justified in order to exploit any further resources whilst effectively prolonging the dilemma and detrimentally damaging the …show more content…
environment. The obtained resources from fracking are natural gases and crude oil. This oil needs to be further processed before being able to be used as an energy source (such as petrol etc. see fig. 1) or as a refined material like plastic. This is done through a process called distillation in which the crude oil is heated up in a fractional distillation tower where the various lengths of hydrocarbon chains condense in their corresponding chamber (see fig.1).
(Fig. 1) These separations are called fractions, each fraction can then be further refined into more specific categories of hydrocarbons including Bitumen, used for roads and roofing, Kerosine, used as
(Fig.
1) Jet fuel and Naphtha, which is often used as a chemical foundation. There are plenty of suitable and sustainable alternatives for energy sources (solar, hydro, nuclear etc.), however refined products such as plastic are much harder to come by otherwise. Plastics play an important role in innovating technologies used in the space advancements, bulletproof vests and prosthetic limbs, as well as in a myriad of everyday products and more importantly, packaging. However, it is possible to e.g. create corn bioplastics that are biodegradable and, when incinerated, don’t emit toxic fumes unlike their oil-based counterparts. The main issues is that its structural rigidity is lesser than that of conventional plastics as well as the fact that bioplastic's packaging has a limited shelf time, however these issues are easily solvable by technological
advances. In order to fully understand the concept of fracking, it is critical to investigate and understand the benefits and drawbacks. The main benefit of fracking is that is opens the doors to a very significant amount of natural gasses and oil that were not previously accessible. The environmental factors are a much current concern of critics, debating the short term and longterm effects of it. As expected, there are two sides to these types of controversies; the fossil fuel industry states that hydraulic fracturing is with out hazard simply because the desired rock formations lie far below the groundwater levels and supposedly sets a minimal danger to it. This may or may not be true, however, what is certain is that this claim highly depends on the geographical structure of the chosen location (depth of shale layer, ground water elevation etc.). The next point relates more to the usage of natural gases in general, being that the usage of natural gasses for heating and for powering vehicles would release far fewer harmful greenhouse carbon emission than coal. Enthusiasts claim the growing natural gas industry as an environmentally smart “fuel bridge” that postpone the collapse of the global energy crisis until we can harness the power of wind, solar and hydro on a mass scale. The question is just how long this collapse can be postpones for. Essentially as the demand for energy exponentially increases the supply of resources will correspondingly exponentially decrease. The main worry of influential innovations such as fracking, is that their drawbacks are often overlooked and undervalued by society because of their more immediate and apparent benefits. While fracking is an alternative way of creating energy, it also has harmful environmental factors, influencing regional air pollution, earthquakes, and most importantly, the clean water supply. Contrasting the industries claims, environmentalists and private landowners worry that the chemicals dissolved in the hydraulic liquid could in fact reach and poison the groundwater, given the increased amount of volatile organic compounds and air toxins in the area. There is evidence of this happening in some cases where research has shown that 10-40% of the injected chemical mixture flows back to the surface during well development and decompression. What makes this matter worse, is that it is not compulsory for companies to publicise the chemical mixtures they utilise for the fracking procedure. This potentially makes the subject even more dangerous because no guidelines or rules have been made regarding chemicals that may be in fact too environmentally damaging. It also makes it harder for scientists to gauge the level of damage being done. The water and other resources necessary for fracking are often transported though massive construction-site trucks, turning rural roads into industrial highways. This process is conducted day and night causing both heavy light and sound pollution for neighbouring residents. However, pollution is not the only worry concerning fracking. In Michigan 132 million litres of drinking water are essentially contaminated per frack well - this is the highest in the country. Michigan environmental conservation group worries that this drastic consumption of freshwater will deplete and potentially dry up rivers that are key to Michigan’s ecological health. Furthermore, the demand is increasing, and further innovations are arising, suggesting the concept of “resource play hubs” that are essentially fracking sites with multiple drilling wells, which would exponentially deplete the local water supply. This is highly inconsiderate, considering the severe lack of freshwater, unavailable for millions on earth. This is also where the wastewater disposal comes into play, it is one of the biggest issues in correlation with fracking. The entire fracking industry is based on money, which is what essentially fuels our world as we know it, as well as the fuel itself that we extract from it. Once blinded by the revolutionary idea of the “quick buck” it is hard to take a stand back and evaluate the matter in terms of its benefits but more importantly its longterm environmental side effects. When acting in a populous society, it is easy to feel unaccountable for certain concerns that may arise in the future, this is why it take a dangerously impending warning, in order to mobilise the human population and its governments. Fracking can potentially be a solution to the global energy crisis, but only if we as humans stop procrastinating and focus on searching for more sustainable and reliable source of energy. This is because fracking, in terms of natural gas can only be a temporary solution due to fact that it is exponentially decreasing, yet more importantly, has a finite supply of ‘frackable’ material.
Hydraulic fracturing or better known as fracking is a very contentious and cost-saving procedure in which fossil fuels are extracted from the earths crust. Instead of conventional oil drilling, it is used to exploit any possible sources of oil and natural gas, beyond the major known well sites. It was introduced in the 1940s and since then the practice has become increasingly controversial regarding its environmental impact. The pros and cons of this procedure are very much linked, making it hard to rationalise or justify either opinion. Fracking can potentially be a solution to the global energy crisis, but only if we, as humans stop procrastinating and focus on searching for more sustainable …show more content…
and reliable source of energy. The first step of fracking is determining an appropriate geographical location.
It is important to be located in a shale dense area because that is the rock type that commonly yields most resource (sandstone/ limestone also applicable). A drill is then inserted into the ground as by a conventional drilling, to about 1,800m to 3,000m underground where is is then rotated 90° to drill though the shale layer. Fracking itself, is a “well-stimulation technique”, wherein a pressurised hydraulically liquid (chemicals and sand mixed in water) is pumped into the well, creating microscopic fractures or ‘fissures’ in the deep-rock. The sand in the liquid then travels into the fractures and keeps them propped open allowing natural gas and crude oil to escape the rock more easily. Fracking is generally applied to drilling wells in order to exhaust the capabilities of the site because more resources per well is equivalent to more money which essentially fuels todays world. Even though, this has been proven to not be effective, people often still see it as justified in order to exploit any further resources whilst effectively prolonging the dilemma and detrimentally damaging the …show more content…
environment. The obtained resources from fracking are natural gases and crude oil. This oil needs to be further processed before being able to be used as an energy source (such as petrol etc. see fig. 1) or as a refined material like plastic. This is done through a process called distillation in which the crude oil is heated up in a fractional distillation tower where the various lengths of hydrocarbon chains condense in their corresponding chamber (see fig.1).
(Fig. 1) These separations are called fractions, each fraction can then be further refined into more specific categories of hydrocarbons including Bitumen, used for roads and roofing, Kerosine, used as
(Fig.
1) Jet fuel and Naphtha, which is often used as a chemical foundation. There are plenty of suitable and sustainable alternatives for energy sources (solar, hydro, nuclear etc.), however refined products such as plastic are much harder to come by otherwise. Plastics play an important role in innovating technologies used in the space advancements, bulletproof vests and prosthetic limbs, as well as in a myriad of everyday products and more importantly, packaging. However, it is possible to e.g. create corn bioplastics that are biodegradable and, when incinerated, don’t emit toxic fumes unlike their oil-based counterparts. The main issues is that its structural rigidity is lesser than that of conventional plastics as well as the fact that bioplastic's packaging has a limited shelf time, however these issues are easily solvable by technological
advances. In order to fully understand the concept of fracking, it is critical to investigate and understand the benefits and drawbacks. The main benefit of fracking is that is opens the doors to a very significant amount of natural gasses and oil that were not previously accessible. The environmental factors are a much current concern of critics, debating the short term and longterm effects of it. As expected, there are two sides to these types of controversies; the fossil fuel industry states that hydraulic fracturing is with out hazard simply because the desired rock formations lie far below the groundwater levels and supposedly sets a minimal danger to it. This may or may not be true, however, what is certain is that this claim highly depends on the geographical structure of the chosen location (depth of shale layer, ground water elevation etc.). The next point relates more to the usage of natural gases in general, being that the usage of natural gasses for heating and for powering vehicles would release far fewer harmful greenhouse carbon emission than coal. Enthusiasts claim the growing natural gas industry as an environmentally smart “fuel bridge” that postpone the collapse of the global energy crisis until we can harness the power of wind, solar and hydro on a mass scale. The question is just how long this collapse can be postpones for. Essentially as the demand for energy exponentially increases the supply of resources will correspondingly exponentially decrease. The main worry of influential innovations such as fracking, is that their drawbacks are often overlooked and undervalued by society because of their more immediate and apparent benefits. While fracking is an alternative way of creating energy, it also has harmful environmental factors, influencing regional air pollution, earthquakes, and most importantly, the clean water supply. Contrasting the industries claims, environmentalists and private landowners worry that the chemicals dissolved in the hydraulic liquid could in fact reach and poison the groundwater, given the increased amount of volatile organic compounds and air toxins in the area. There is evidence of this happening in some cases where research has shown that 10-40% of the injected chemical mixture flows back to the surface during well development and decompression. What makes this matter worse, is that it is not compulsory for companies to publicise the chemical mixtures they utilise for the fracking procedure. This potentially makes the subject even more dangerous because no guidelines or rules have been made regarding chemicals that may be in fact too environmentally damaging. It also makes it harder for scientists to gauge the level of damage being done. The water and other resources necessary for fracking are often transported though massive construction-site trucks, turning rural roads into industrial highways. This process is conducted day and night causing both heavy light and sound pollution for neighbouring residents. However, pollution is not the only worry concerning fracking. In Michigan 132 million litres of drinking water are essentially contaminated per frack well - this is the highest in the country. Michigan environmental conservation group worries that this drastic consumption of freshwater will deplete and potentially dry up rivers that are key to Michigan’s ecological health. Furthermore, the demand is increasing, and further innovations are arising, suggesting the concept of “resource play hubs” that are essentially fracking sites with multiple drilling wells, which would exponentially deplete the local water supply. This is highly inconsiderate, considering the severe lack of freshwater, unavailable for millions on earth. This is also where the wastewater disposal comes into play, it is one of the biggest issues in correlation with fracking. The entire fracking industry is based on money, which is what essentially fuels our world as we know it, as well as the fuel itself that we extract from it. Once blinded by the revolutionary idea of the “quick buck” it is hard to take a stand back and evaluate the matter in terms of its benefits but more importantly its longterm environmental side effects. When acting in a populous society, it is easy to feel unaccountable for certain concerns that may arise in the future, this is why it take a dangerously impending warning, in order to mobilise the human population and its governments. Fracking can potentially be a solution to the global energy crisis, but only if we as humans stop procrastinating and focus on searching for more sustainable and reliable source of energy. This is because fracking, in terms of natural gas can only be a temporary solution due to fact that it is exponentially decreasing, yet more importantly, has a finite supply of ‘frackable’ material.