After doing some research on hydro-fracking, and weighing the pros and cons I feel that it it necessary for this process to continue to happen. Economically, this process has lead the US to discovered large deposits of natural gas and other fossil fuels that our country relies on in order to commute in cars, heat homes, just to name a few.
What is it? Here is a picture that shows the basics
“According to the International Energy Agency, the remaining technically recoverable resources of shale gas are estimated to amount to 208 trillion cubic metres (208,000 km3), tight gas to 76 trillion cubic metres (76,000 km3), and coalbed methane to 47 trillion cubic metres (47,000 km3).” In order to reach these gases hydro-fracking must happen. More than 70% of the US natural gas will be tapped into due to this process. Natural gas is already becoming a better alternative, and in the future will be the only form of energy provided.
In order to break into the Earths crust, or fracking, there are certain chemicals that raise some concern to the environment. Volatile organic compounds or VOC’s are emitted during this process and cause harm to the water sources and the Ozone layer. The question “is it worth hurting the atmosphere?” arises. Many people attribute increased CO2 levels to hydro-fracking, and in result global warming is caused.
Financed research shows that exposure to such contamination has led to birth defects, cancer, and other long-term health defects. I think it is a little extreme to make these accusations but it is possible.
Realistically, hydro-fracking is a process that is a necessity for our economy. If companies do not extract the Earth’s precious fossil fuels many small business will suffer. The transportation business alone with not be able to operate without having oil and gas. Since 2008, carbon emissions have actually decreased due to businesses and consumers having a large amount of natural gas to use rather than oil. Although the short-term effects seem grim, hydro-fracking’s long-term benefits outweigh the risks.
Sources
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/goldenrules/WEO2012_GoldenRulesReport.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817691/
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/12/3801578.htm
I think that what you posted made a ton of sense. However, think on
this, what if you typed a catchier post title? I am not suggesting your content is
not good, but suppose you added a post title that makes people desire
more? I mean Hydro-Fracking: Beneficial or Harmful? |
chrisboyd is kinda boring. You could peek at Yahoo’s front page and watch how they create news headlines to get viewers interested.
You might add a related video or a picture or two to grab people excited about what you’ve
written. In my opinion, it might bring your blog a little bit more interesting.