
Fracking is currently a highly controversial subject that has many parties arguing for it, and many arguing that the negative impacts that it causes are too great of a risk to continue its use. Many people have attempted to tackle this issue, but there is still speculation upon whether the positive results of fracking has outweighs the negatives impacts that it causes. Fracking is currently one of the cleanest energy sources that are available to us, it does not pose a risk to the drinking water that surrounds the wells where it is extracted, its emissions are also much lower than other high-yield sources, and it creates jobs in regions where unemployment is high. Because of these factors, the side of the debate arguing that fracking is one of the most environmentally and economically stable methods of energy production is the most based in fact.

The actual process of fracking is important to understand in order to form a valid opinion on the process. Hydraulic Fracturing, more commonly known as "Fracking", is in simplest terms splitting shale rocks with water to release the natural gas that is trapped inside of it. This being said, the actual process is controversial, land must be procured by the fracking company. Often times this is purchased or rented from farmers or locals who own large quantities of land. The land will then be drilled at depths up to 8,000 feet (Felker). From here many horizontal wells are dug into the ground rock to expand the surface area that can be used for fracking. Once this is complete a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals is pressured into the rocks in order to fracture then releasing the gasses. Throughout all of this process the gas and waste water is being collected and removed from the site. This is the basic idea of Hydraulic Fracturing and how it was planned to be executed.

One of the main arguments claiming that fracking is disastrous toward the environment is the claim that it contaminates drinking water with the runoff that is produced from hydraulic fracturing (EPA). This claim is one of the most popular arguments and is often blown out of proportion when the topic is brought up. Many claims have been produced of natural gas being found in water, and locals even being able to light their tap water on fire (Dermansky). These claims were later refuted and found to be false because the town was built on a naturally occurring pocket of methane gas (Dermansky). This argument has become nearly synonymous with the dangers of fracking being one of the main points that is always brought up when a counterargument is produced. A study was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether or not groundwater contamination as a serious concern with fracking (EPA). This study showed that when using correct procedures that are outlined by the EPA contamination should not occur (EPA). These regulations include the substances that are allowed to be used, including what chemicals and in what quantities are allowed to be used. The regulations also include how the waste water should be transported, and discarded of. Many of the regulations that are in place were made because of improper use of equipment and chemicals that caused spills and contamination. If all regulations are followed then there should ideally be no contamination of drinking water, ground water, or soil surrounding the fracking site (EPA). 

Another argument that is popular among the opposition to fracking is that the process could cause seismic activity (Zeller). There have been reports of small earthquakes occurring around fracking wells and sites. Many of these reports raise concern with people living in the surrounding area because they are scared of contamination of their drinking water, and a large amount of natural gas being released into the surrounding environment. While these are valid concerns, there has been no conclusive data linking hydraulic fracturing to seismic activity in the area (Bryant). Nearly all reports of this has been refuted and proven false, there has not been a report of a seismic activity that has been proven to be caused by fracking (Bryant). While this is not an issue yet, it is a valid issue. There is a concern that disrupting the bedrock could cause seismic activity, this could happen, but the chances are very slim. Another concern is that possibly an earthquake could cause large amounts of damage to fracking sites and equipment. An earthquake could rupture pipes transporting waste materials, or it could release gas into the atmosphere in dangerously large quantities. Currently there is no data linking Fracking to seismic activity, but there are still dangers if there were to be seismic activity in an area that has fracking sites.

Emissions is another point where hydraulic fracturing is argued. There is definitive data showing that the burning of natural gas is much cleaner than other traditional sources of energy. The two main high-yield sources of energy that cause the most air pollution and greenhouse gasses is petroleum and coal burning. Not does the process of burning petroleum and coal produce many more greenhouse gasses than natural gas, the extraction process is much cleaner and safer (Plumer). Petroleum extraction is a process that is both dangerous toward the environment, and the workers that are extracting the oil (Plumer). Coal extraction has many of the same issues as petroleum, many of the mines have health concerns that could cause unsafe work environments. There are still a few greenhouse gasses that are released from the process of burning natural gas, but the amount that is released is negligible compared to petroleum and coal burning. Because of this natural gas is one of the cleanest ways to mass produce energy.

Another important outcome of fracking is the fact that it produces massive amounts of job opportunities for the country. Many regions that have high concentrations of natural gas in the shale deposits are in areas that is populated with people willing to work for the fracking industries (Fetzer). From data that has been collected in England where fracking was introduced into the community. The introduction of fracking wells brought an average of 8% increase in income for every person in the county (Fetzer). This demonstrates the severe economic increase that introducing fracking into a community causes. An 8% increase of income is a massive portion of the economic revenue of the county. One source estimates that just in England, if there was an increase of fracking wells in the country, there could be a total of 500,000 to 600,000 jobs that could be added (Fetzer). Based on the data, one can see that if the same process was administered to the United States that it would drastically improve the economy. If there was an average increase of 8% income per person, then it would help dramatically with the economic decline that the US has been facing over recent years. With the population of England being only approximately a sixth's of the United States there is a massive job market that would open up for Fracking. If the ratio stays the same there would be over three million new jobs added to the United States economy purely based of hydraulic fracturing. At this time the current unemployment rate in the United States sits at around 5 percent of people in the US being unemployed. Fracking would open up enough jobs to drop that number down an entire percent, down to 4 percent. 

One method for the companies to procure land to fuel their fracking industry is to purchase or rent land from farmers in the local area. Many people are not willing to sell or rent their land, while others are more than happy to make a quick buck. With people being able to rent the land for amount varying to above $5,000 per acre this is a very easy and profitable way to make money without doing much. Often times there is a royalty fee that the renters also gain from their land (Felker). This royalty fee can be about 12.5% of the profit that the company makes from the current well. Recently there have been royalties that have been up to 20% (Felker). This makes renting land extremely profitable, renters can make hundreds of thousands of dollars if they are sitting on large amounts of shale deposits. This can be very profitable to a community and can add large amounts of money into an area that was beforehand not as wealthy. Many towns complain that once fracking wells settle into their community they lose much of the peace. There are reports of hundreds of trucks passing through small towns every day disrupting the peace and inconveniencing everyone in the town in order to transport the vast amounts of water and chemicals that are required to extract the gas from the rocks (Bryant). These are ways that fracking influences small communities around the country, both in positive and negative ways there has been influence in these small towns.

There are many more arguments that fracking can negatively impact the environment. One of the main arguments is that it diminishes and contaminates an extreme amount of water. Based on data gathered from 1500 wells spread around Pennsylvania, there were 12-20 million gallons of water being used daily (Brzycki). Based on figures this seems like a massive amount of water. But, looking at the daily consumption of water that Pennsylvania uses the percentage is negligible. Out of the 9.5 billion gallons of water that are used daily it is only approximately .5% of the water consumption. Because of this it is obvious that the amount of water that is being used is not an issue that is even worth mentioning in an argument.

Another issue that is commonly brought up is that only about ten to thirty percent of the water that is pumped down into the wells is returned to the surface (Howarth). Many people arguing that fracking contaminates ground water have their basis on the fact that over 70% of the runoff is left in the ground. While in reality this water is left in fissures thousands of feet under the ground, far away from any source of water that is being used for human consumption, or even being used for anything (Howarth). 

These counter arguments that are being posed by activists attempting to stop the spread of fracking are nearly all based on speculation and fiction. There is not enough data to even slightly insinuate that there could be ground water pollution from fracking runoff. The water that is being used is not required for anything else, so this is also not a valid argument. Water is one of the main concerns among opponents to fracking and based on studies conducted by the EPA, there was no evidence that there was any water contamination, or that there was a high risk of water contamination. The only real argument that has value and could hold up is the fact that seismic activity could be devastating to a fracking operation. Although the argument that fracking is the source for seismic activity is still based on fiction and has no fact value.

There are regulations that are set up by the government to regulate fracking. If these regulations are followed then there should not be any issues with the containment of the gas, the runoff water, and the transportation of the chemicals. Although many of the issues arise when fracking companies do not adhere to these regulations. There have been many reports of fracking wells using chemicals close to the ones found in paint thinner in order to fracture the shale. This is both illegal and it causes harm to the environment. These are exceptions though, mostly fracking wells are clean, organized locations that do not interfere too much with the surrounding environment and the community.

Overall fracking is not the permanent answer to the clean energy crisis. With petroleum and coal reserves running out at an alarming pace natural gas might be one of the only options that the United States has left in order to become energy independent. Utilizing fracking the United States could be completely energy independent by the year 2050(Plumer). Through converting from petroleum and coal to natural gas would lower emissions that is expelled into the atmosphere. One of the main issues is that still it is not a renewable resource, once the natural gas is gone we will have to find a new source of energy, hopefully one that will lower emissions even further. 

Based on all of the data presented one can see that fracking is indeed not as hurtful to the environment as many people make it out to be. Not only does it pose a miniscule risk to the environment, it also has a quite substantial effect economically on countries where it is widespread. Contrary to popular belief, it does not contaminate drinking water, it does not cause seismic activity, and it is not a waste of fresh water. Currently it is one of the cleanest high-yield energy sources readily available, it does not have the high emissions that are so closely related to burning of other fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum. And it would help the economy. It does this through the fact that it brings money to the community when corporations purchase or rent land to start fracking wells. It creates jobs, and would drastically lower the unemployment rate, if fracking were to become widespread across The United States of America. Overall, fracking is one of the most efficient energy sources that is readily available, it does not have immense impacts on the economy, and it would help the country out economically. Natural gas is the current solution to the clean energy crisis.

