Friday, January 11, 2013
To Frack or Not to Frack
One of the biggest environmental issues facing our generation today is the question of whether hydrolic fracturing should continue to be allowed, or if it should be outlawed. Primarily in the American Northeast, where the natural gas reserves have been described as the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. There is a lot of fight for both sides and reasons for both the be instated or kept.
On the pros side, it does provide a huge monetary boost for those who have drilling done on their land. Often there is a lease involved based on amount of acres, and the amount ranges usually from $1,000-$2000 dollars, plus 12.5% of the company's profits. Some are even lucky enough to become millionaires from this. So, there is a benefit for the average citizen. It means also that natural gas is used more instead of gasoline which is more environmentally friendly. It also generates millions of jobs and profits for the gas companies.
On the con side, there have been reports of the drilling affecting the water, with the effects even making the water flammable in some rare situations. While the gas companies refuse to admit that there are negative effects that even result from drilling, there are many sources that say the opposite, and not much proof of the contrary. It also, just by nature, is dangerous because it involves contaminated water, pulling out radioactive materials from the ground, and explosive gases like methane (watch video attached to picture for more).
In conclusion there are many studies that go for both sides, but many of them were sponsored by highly partial parties like the drilling companies, or anti-drilling organizations. When an impartial study comes out, it could change my decision, however, just for the safety of people, fracking shouldn't be allowed. It's also because it would give less power to gs companies, so that also helps.