Running head: THE PROS AND CONS OF FRACKING 1 THE PROS AND CONS OF FRACKING 10 The Pros and Cons of Fracking Toni Stewart Rasmussen College Author’s Note: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the two-sided debate of the Pros and Cons of Fracking. Written for Instructor Aisling Kane, on December 16, 2016 for course G328, Human Uses of the Environment. The Pros and Cons of Fracking The Controversy Oil and natural gas are highly essential commodities since they provide energy (fuel and electric) to drive industrial machinery, light up houses, businesses and drive motors among other uses. Oil drilled from the underground is processed to produce petroleum products and diesel which are utilized in operating vehicle engines. Therefore, every country requires oil and gas to maintain continuous economic development as well as steadily increase its revenue and productivity. These products are garnered from underground rocks that require the use of technologically advanced and sophisticated machinery to drill very deep wells into the ground. Fracking is a process used to extract natural gas and oil from shale rocks situated in great depths. This process incorporates the pumping of massive amounts of fluid with tremendously high pressure into the oil and gas- rich rocks. This research will offer detailed elucidations of information about fracking while reducing its advantages and disadvantages. Herein, a controversy arises between two adversary sides in which one side supports fracking while another opposes it by leaning on the disadvantageous realm of subject matter. The reason as to why fracking has triggered hot debates on a global scale is that it is highly beneficial and efficient in obtaining vast amounts of oil and gas while at the same time constitutes hazardous effects on the environment and earth’s geography. For instance, fracking has been evidently proven to contribute significantly to earth tremors and quakes. On one side of the controversy, the environmentalists and geologists oppose fracking due to its adversity against the traditional livelihood of wildlife and humanity. They tend to value environmental wellness as an essential aspect than economic development which the other side dearly values. The Major Players The major players in this controversy are associated with the advantages and disadvantages of the fracking process and include individuals or parties which have differing ideologies about whether fracking is a good thing or not. The first side bases its arguments on the numerous benefits that fracking brings forth to a country. Some of these include the creation of more job opportunities and reduction in the price of energy. This prospect considers economic development as a highly important prerequisite that should be mandatorily adopted whenever necessary. This side incorporates economists, financial organizations, large corporations (governmental and non-government owned) and industrial sectors s ...

1. Running head: THE PROS AND CONS OF FRACKING 1
THE PROS AND CONS OF FRACKING 10
The Pros and Cons of Fracking
Toni Stewart
Rasmussen College
Author’s Note:
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the two-sided debate of
the Pros and Cons of Fracking. Written for Instructor Aisling
Kane, on December 16, 2016 for course G328, Human Uses of
the Environment.
The Pros and Cons of Fracking
The Controversy

2. Oil and natural gas are highly essential commodities since they
provide energy (fuel and electric) to drive industrial machinery,
light up houses, businesses and drive motors among other uses.
Oil drilled from the underground is processed to produce
petroleum products and diesel which are utilized in operating
vehicle engines. Therefore, every country requires oil and gas to
maintain continuous economic development as well as steadily
increase its revenue and productivity. These products are
garnered from underground rocks that require the use of
technologically advanced and sophisticated machinery to drill
very deep wells into the ground.
Fracking is a process used to extract natural gas and oil from
shale rocks situated in great depths. This process incorporates
the pumping of massive amounts of fluid with tremendously
high pressure into the oil and gas- rich rocks. This research will
offer detailed elucidations of information about fracking while
reducing its advantages and disadvantages. Herein, a
controversy arises between two adversary sides in which one
side supports fracking while another opposes it by leaning on
the disadvantageous realm of subject matter.
The reason as to why fracking has triggered hot debates on a
global scale is that it is highly beneficial and efficient in
obtaining vast amounts of oil and gas while at the same time
constitutes hazardous effects on the environment and earth’s
geography. For instance, fracking has been evidently proven to
contribute significantly to earth tremors and quakes. On one
side of the controversy, the environmentalists and geologists
oppose fracking due to its adversity against the traditional
livelihood of wildlife and humanity. They tend to value
environmental wellness as an essential aspect than economic
development which the other side dearly values.
The Major Players
The major players in this controversy are associated with the
advantages and disadvantages of the fracking process and
include individuals or parties which have differing ideologies
about whether fracking is a good thing or not. The first side

3. bases its arguments on the numerous benefits that fracking
brings forth to a country. Some of these include the creation of
more job opportunities and reduction in the price of energy.
This prospect considers economic development as a highly
important prerequisite that should be mandatorily adopted
whenever necessary. This side incorporates economists,
financial organizations, large corporations (governmental and
non-government owned) and industrial sectors such as motor
assembly industries (BBC, 2015). In fact, renowned
government officials propose fracking to be utilized to secure
more energy. For instance, David Cameron, USA Prime Minister
showed unwavering support to use the fracking method in
drilling oil and gas (BBC, 2015).
On the other side, fracking is seemingly opposed. The key
players in this side of the controversy include
environmentalists, geologists, biologists and campaigners who
opt to protect the environment adamantly. These parties utilize
the various drawbacks associated with fracking to support their
arguments. They seek to protect the wellbeing of their
surroundings since they believe that if destruction to the
environment is not barred, the future will have unfavorable
climatic conditions such as drought, floods, and storms
(Strueman, 2014). Environmentalists have done an in- depth
analysis of the matter and have reached a consensus that
fracking should end although large bulks of gas and oil can be
garnered from the process. They deem the opposition as being
oblivious to the probable consequences of polluting the
environment in the long run. Moreover, they argue that
protecting humanity and wildlife from fracking long- lasting
hazards should be a top priority (Strueman, 2014).
Important Facts:
Fracking is also known as hydraulic fracturing. It is a process
that is utilized to extract an enormous amount of oil and gas
from underground shale rocks. Fracking involves the use of
extremely high pumping pressure to force large amounts of fluid
into drilling wells to cause the shale rocks to crack at great

4. extent. These wells are dug for thousands of feet from the
surface of the earth. The fluids pumped into the wells consist of
mixtures of huge volumes of water (millions of gallons) and
chemicals meant to catalyze the fracturing process of rock
formations. enormous
The chemicals fasten the process by dissolving the stones’
minerals hence making the structures weak and fragile for
sufficient cracking. Additionally, the chemicals get rid of
bacteria that might block thin fissures within the rocks
(Brantley, 2013). 10% to 40% of these chemical mixtures are
expelled out of the wells during fracking (Iacurci, 2014). Once
these oil and gas rich rocks are fractured, more oil and gasses
flow out of them in considerably massive amounts and cracks
the rocks to greater extents. This technique of garnering more
oil and gas from the wells began in the late 1940s by USA
engineers who realized that breaking rocks would yield more oil
and gasses to pump out from the underground reserves
(GreenGarageBlog.org, 2015).
Conventionally, engineers utilized small explosives to crack up
the shale rocks to increase the flow of oil and gasses trapped
within their structures. Since its discovery, fracking has been
used to extract the valuable commodities from one million wells
in America alone. Fracking occurs by digging horizontal caves
from the original vertical shafts within the oil and gas- rich
rock layers. Horizontal wells facilitate effectual injection of
pressurized fluid directly to the long layers of rock hence
maximizing amount of fractures within the rocks (Brantley,
2013).
Side One:
On the one side of the fracking controversy, poses the
industries, economists, financial organizations, large
corporations and a proportion of Americans. They are in
supportive of the fracking process or hydraulic fracturing. This
side asserts that a country can achieve remarkable economic
growth and betterment of livelihood if it has enough energy to
run businesses, machinery and drive motors as well as light

5. residential areas. The benefits of garnering immense amounts of
gas and oil through fracking are the foundation to this side’s
arguments. Due to the essentiality of oil and gas, countries
which lack enough supplies are forced to import it them from
foreign suppliers. For example, the United States has been
purchasing oil from Middle East countries which have numerous
oil- rich wells.
Therefore, this side argues that fracking will exponentially
increase the amount of oil and gas obtained by a country hence
making it energy independent. For example, Fracking gas
constituted only 1% of the United States supplies in 2000.
Currently, the proportion has risen to 30% of gas supplies come
in the United States, and this figure is growing steadily
(Howard, 2012). In fact, the country would be exempt from the
need of spending considerable amounts of capital and resources
to import oil and natural gas. Fracking will offer sufficient
energy to prevent undesirable shortages of fuel energy in the
future, especially so that the population is increasing
dramatically. Another argument to support fracking is that it
creates employment. The increase in gas and oil supplies
triggers establishment of more companies and gas stations
which offer numerous job opportunities. Per statistics, 1.2
million new jobs were created in 2012 in the United States
alone. Also, the government gained extra 385 billion dollars
from fracking activities which further developed the economy
(GreenGarageBlog.org, 2015). This side claims that fracking
will propound energy sources that will reduce emissions of
harmful gasses such as carbon dioxide.
Side Two:
On the debate’s opposite side, the environmentalists, biologists,
and geologists backed up a considerably large lot of citizens
have opposed fracking and termed it extremely destructive.
Firstly, this side argues that fracking wastes enormous volumes
of water which can be utilized to alienate the risks of drought
and famine (Wihbey, 2015). Every well that uses fracking to
collect oil and gasses requires about 8 million gallons of water

6. to successfully finish one fracturing task. For example, fresh
water reservoirs in Michigan were drained off 35 million
gallons of water in a single well in the year 2014. This side
argues that if fracking isn’t banned, rivers and fresh water lakes
will be dried up in the future.
Furthermore, fracking disposes harmful chemicals to the
earth’s surface during injection of water and chemical mixture
into wells with exceedingly high pressure. These chemicals lead
to large- scale contamination of water sources such as rivers
and lakes (Sawyer, 2009). In fact, this side claims that energy
companies have not put in place proper policies to safely
dispose chemicals and prevent them from entering water
sources. The United Kingdom has enacted strict laws against
fracking for shale gas in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, and
Lancashire counties until it is undoubtedly proven to be safe.
Environmentalists adopt the government’s rationale for banning
fracking which proclaims that it is unsafe for wildlife and
humanity.
Geologists have claimed that fracturing of underground
rocks in search for more oil and natural gas renders the earth’s
crust unstable. Consequently, the surface is made susceptible to
earth tremors and earthquakes which destroy buildings, power
lines, road networks and pipelines. For example, in 2011, two
seismic earth tremors (1.5 and 2.2 magnitude) were experienced
in Blackpool due to fracking activities in a well owned by
Cuadrilla Company (GreenGarageBlog.org, 2015).
Your Opinion and Rationale
Upon exhaustive scrutiny and evaluation of the arguments from
the both sides of the controversy, I stand with the second side. I
believe that although fracking will bring remarkable growth in
economy and energy independence, we should prioritize the
wellness of the environment. If the environment is destroyed
and polluted, our future generations will have a hard time
surviving on earth. The worst-case scenario is that the earth will
be uninhabitable for humans, wildlife, and even plants. Fracking
releases highly hazardous chemicals to water bodies which

7. directly kills sea creatures such as fish. Ultimately, people who
depend on these water creatures for food and source of income
will become subjected to hard situations. Also, they will have
no clean water to drink.
These chemicals also contaminate underground water
channels/pathways which will risk the health and lives of many
people who depend on these water sources (Sawyer, 2009). I
believe that if fracking is encouraged, more wells will be dug
and the fracturing of underground rocks will increase
drastically. Thus, there will be more earthquakes characterized
with higher magnitude and intensity in future. In response to
arguments presented by the opposition that claims that fracking
will improve the economy, I feel that large- scale earthquakes
will cause extensive and colossal destruction of major cities in
future. Therefore, the profits acquired from fracking will be
leveled. Also, encouraging fracking will increase the number of
oil wells which will lead to enormous wastage of fresh water.
Eventually, fresh water bodies such as rivers and lakes will be
dried up. Fishing and irrigation activities will be halted
indefinitely hence leading to food insecurity and famine. Those
who support fracking should consider the future and forecast
these devastating aftereffects of fracking that will be tough to
resolve.

8. References
BBC. (2015, December 16). What is fracking and why is it
controversial? Retrieved December 6,
2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401
Brantley SL, M. A. (2013, March 13). The facts of fracking.
Global Opinion, 13. Retrieved
December 6, 2016, from New York Times
http://www.nwsofa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/New-York-
Times-The-Facts-on-
Fracking-1.pdf
GreenGarageBlog.org. (2015). List of top 9 pros and cons of
fracking. Retrieved December 14,
2016, from http://greengarageblog.org/list-of-top-9-pros-
and-cons-of-fracking
Hazen and Sawyer. (2009). Impact assessment of natural gas
production in the New York City water supply watershed 5.
Howard, J. (2012, January 10). Fracking pros and cons:
Weighing in on hydraulic fracturing.
Green. Retrieved December 6, 2016, from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/fracking-pros-
cons_n_1084147.html
Iacurci, J. (2014, September 12). www.natureworldnews.com.
Retrieved December 14, 2016, from
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/9011/20140912/the-
pros-and-cons-of-fracking.htm
Strueman, H. (2014, November 26). The Pros and Cons of
Fracking? Environment.
Retrieved December 14, 2016, from
http://www.hughestrueman.com.au/pros-cons-hydraulic-
fracturing/
Wihbey, J. (2015, May 27). Pros and cons of fracking: 5 key
issues. Retrieved December 15,
2016, from
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-
of-fracking-5-key-
issues/

9. Things that need to be done for final paper
Need more research on the key points to bring it up to minimum
6-8 pages for your content. Remember a minimum of one page
per key points to get a good passing grade just depending on
your research.
Important Facts: You did have them separate from side one
stated the relevant facts concerning the issue. Make sure you try
to separate fact from opinion. Try not to show your own bias.
Your Opinion and Rationale: You did list or go on to discuss
the arguments you would use to present to those who disagree
with you but you need to go more into this.