What Are The Pros And Cons Of Marcellus And Utica Shale Gas Drilling Boom

Although we do not know the long term effects of fracking for natural gas just the short term effects can be seen. We may be jeopardizing our children’s future. It would be more prudent to understand all we can about fracking before it is expanded across the country. Many believe the short term ramifications of fracking is only the beginning of a devastating destruction of our

These individuals are more than willing to risk oil spills, water pollution, reliance on fossil fuels, and higher unemployment rates. There are several environmental concerns that should be known. “If constructed, the pipeline, known as Keystone XL, will carry one of the world’s dirtiest fuels: tar sands oil. ”(1) It has been shown that the tar sand oil from this region of Canada is some of the dirtiest fuel on the planet; the extraction and refining process is just as dirty.

The Energy East Pipeline is a 4,600 km pipeline that will transport crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick. The project is in place from TransCanada which is a Canadian company that builds oil pipelines. This essay will explain the benefits and negative effects that can occur if Canada goes through with the installation of the pipeline across Canada. It will also discuss how all three levels of the government influence the subject and who ones to make the final approval is. Currently, the energy east pipeline is still being discussed because there are people who are against the installation of the pipeline and who are fighting to stop this from happenings because they are afraid of what the risks can cause.

Opponents of the project argue that the negative effects of the pipeline on the environment would outweigh the economic benefits of the pipeline. Since the pipeline would be built over several important landmarks including the Ogallala Aquifer, the “most heavily used aquifer in the United States [which] supplies about 30 percent of the groundwater pumped for irrigation nationwide” as well as provide a major source of drinking water, the potential for leaks and spillages in the pipe could cause the water to become contaminated (Song). Nearby plants and animals would also be affected by the chemicals of the oil sands. The issue of greenhouse gas emissions also raises concerns. According to Janna Palliser’s, The Keystone XL Pipeline:

Having an access pipeline in North Dakota will make transporting oil to Iowa much safer and less costly than it has been, since there won’t be as much need for trucks and railroads. In a study conducted about whether the Bakken wells, the main pipelines throughout Iowa that the North Dakota Access Pipeline would connect to, are energy efficient, the scientists wrote that they “do not see evidence that Bakken wells are unsustainable, unproductive or “subsidized” from a physical or energetic basis.” (Brandt). This means that the wells are high quality and no energy is wasted, further meaning that the wells are cost efficient and safe for the surrounding areas, so that North Dakota’s economy can grow. The pipeline will directly effect North Dakota’s economy, since it will add, “33.000 temporary Hill-time jobs[,]SI.9 billion in income [,] Nearly $5 billion in increased production and sales[,] [$]156 million in state and local taxes.

Introduction (Hook…. need to think this through better) The Keystone Pipeline has been debated for sometime now. Why is it so controversial? Many worry that it will intrude on property rights, while others believe that it will be a danger to the environment.

The Keystone XL Pipeline and other parts of it that stretches across the U.S and Canada and has good benefits for both countries ; it provides job security, economic stability, and also gives the U.S the opportunity to stop importing oil from foreign countries. The country, like never before, has an oppressive government that doesn’t allow for companies to grow and make The state representatives continuously discuss matters but rarely follow through. The Keystone XL should be the end of that era and be put to good

My perceptions regarding Alaskan drilling have not changed, I believe that the Alaskan Wilderness should not be drilled for oil. My decision rests on the fact that the Alaskan wilderness is an irreplaceable natural resource and the possible oil resources it may or may not yield, are not worthy of its destruction. Viewing this situation as a dispassionate observer, there is no overwhelming motive for the U.S. to drill in Alaska. Scientists have largely stated that the oil reserves in Alaska may not yield the amount or quality of oil once believed, therefore it does not warrant the expenditure of time, money, and resources to disrupt the environment. Advocates argue that drilling would decrease fuel prices, create new jobs, and end our foreign

The main way that oil and natural gas reserves are acquired are through the means of Fracking. Also known as hydrofracking, this method utilizes a drill that drills down thousands of feet underground, which is then flushed with millions of gallons of water along with additive chemicals at high pressures to break the rocks sheltering the reserves. This method of attainment is quite risky as it comes with many unfavorable consequences that are quite unbeneficial. Like fossil fuel plants, fracking also releases greenhouse gasses like methane(Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana), which is worse than carbon dioxide and causes air pollution. Alongside that, pollutants like Benzene and Xylene also leak out during the fracking process, which is known to cause serious health conditions and even death in some cases due to the long exposure to the pollutants(Potential Health and

With the rise of natural gas on the market, and shale oils becoming last week’s news, fracking companies are looking towards the gas for their next money pot. Hydraulic fracturing leaves acres of farmland contaminated and the people on that land sick. Should Fracking companies get the ability to continue their endeavors fracking for natural gas, then many more wells will pop up all across the company, destroying the land and contaminating the inhabitants who live there. Overall, The U.S. shouldn’t bother with allowing major fracking companies to frack for natural gas, for the U.S. runs the risk of: the major usage of natural resources, major land damage, and an increase of sick people. With these many problems that fracking causes, there

Boom or Bust Just a few years ago Williston, North Dakota, was a quiet small town, with a population of around 12,000. Due to the oil prices and drilling, Williston is America’s biggest oil boom and had over 40,000 residents. The oil boom has caused many problems in North Dakota such as increasing the crime and social problems, housing and roads. There is a lot of wear and tear on the roads, because of the thousands of trucks that are hauling oil, water and other fracking components. According to the Department of Transportation, the state has invested $1.16 billion into the roads.

In the U.S. hydraulic fracking has been a main source of energy during today’s times, it 's cheap effectiveness makes us think this . People should know how hydraulic fracturing is not as clean and amazing as we think it is. Hydraulic fracking cannot be a sustainable option for America. There are too many faults for it to be upheld in the long run and we cannot depend on it as our main resource of energy forever.

Some people say fracking is harmful to the environment by damaging nature and by causing water pollution. Some claim that fracking is damaging nature and the landscape; however, there is actually a new technology that help reduce the amount of wells that have to be made. In addition, some people claim that fracking contaminates the groundwater, even though there is no scientific evidence that fracking contaminates groundwater. As a result the National Groundwater Association and the government agency which represents the states have found no evidence that fracking is ruining the drinking water. (No Evidence of Groundwater Contamination from Fracking)

Since its construction in 1977, the Trans Alaska Pipeline has transported almost 17 billion barrels of oil, and currently transports about 527,323 barrels a day. It celebrated its 40th Anniversary last year, and, even after all this time, is still facing controversy. The pipeline is highly debated as economically inclined citizens of Alaska are clashing with more environmental types. The Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, signed by President Nixon in 1973, protected the pipeline by banning all legal challenges against the construction of the pipeline. However, this law did not stop the critics of the pipeline from speaking out.

Researchers have “requested data from Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Texas, all states heavily involved in the recent surge of oil and gas drilling, about complaints related to hydraulic fracking for oil and gas” for their research on fracking (Dechert).   The research collected was shocking, over 2,000 complaints in Texas alone and several cases on well water contamination within the states mentioned in Decherd’s article. People need to be alerted about how real fracking is and the damages it is doing. These complaints and cases should be a wakeup call to the world and say that we should put it to a