In one of my classmate's blog post, Hit the Road, Frack (part 2) by Deena Ismail, she talks about the consequences of fracking, which is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks in order to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas. The author suggests reducing fracking slowly, and I completely agree with her.
Not only is fracking bad for our environment, I personally think that fracking is not very efficient or effective. It takes around one to eight million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job, approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing (which can NOT be good for the environment), and in the process, methane gas and toxic chemicals contaminate groundwater. These are only some of the cons of fracking, listed by Dangers of Fracking. Although fracking may have some benefits, like have alternative sources of fuel and lower energy costs, I think that the cons outweigh the pros.
Some of the possible solutions include: solar and wind technologies and "green" fracking, but I think that the potential solution that Deena proposed is good, which is slowly reducing the act. The government may not have placed restrictions on fracking, because it will decrease the total supply of natural resources by 9 percent. Fracking also provides more jobs for people, so the unemployment rate for the country will increase if the government prohibits fracking.
No comments:
Post a Comment