Daniels, J. (2016). In Colorado, anti-fracking measures face key Monday deadline. Retrieved August 29, 2016, from http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/05/colorado-fracking-fight.html
Colorado’s ballot this fall has two initiatives that would reduce the oil and natural gas extraction operations in the future. If the initiatives were to pass, 90% of potential fracking sites would be removed from future development. Pro-fracking groups claim that the initiatives could cost the state 140,000 jobs and $217 billion in the next 15 years. Energy companies Anadarko Petroleum and Noble Energy have given millions to groups opposing the measures. Spokesman, John Christiansen, from Anadarko, claims that these measures can affect more than just a few energy companies, stating that it would carry massive consequences for the economy of Colorado.
Fracking has come to the forefront in the political world and has been the subject of heated debate. Concerns over health and environmental risks are touted as reasons against fracking. However, the US needs energy sources, and at the moment, fracking seems to be one of the most viable options. If fracking has positive effects on the economy, it will be hard for governments and corporations to ignore. More research on fracking must be done to help ease decisions on where the US will get its fossil fuels; until then perhaps stricter regulations on fracking sites may be in order.
I personally think that fracking is very dangerous for both human health and for the health of our environment. However, like the article said, some of the outcome would be beneficial, so per phase putting restrictions on fracking companies and limiting them would be a better option.
Fracking obviously isn’t ideal. It does have effects on the environment and human health. However, fracking seems to be much better than traditional coal mining. The burning of natural gas is much cleaner than coal; in the past few years, as natural gas has started to replace the use of coal, the levels of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have significantly lowered. Fracking is also supposed to be more water efficient than other drilling methods.
I agree that currently, it is economically stressful to stop fracking and stricter regulations should be enforced on fracking. If we want to find an alternative we shouldn’t just abolish what we currently have as a source of energy, but rather direct more money towards cleaner sources of energy. Do you think that we currently have an alternative method to fracking or are current cleaner methods unable to keep up with the demand?
Well at the moment, it seems impossible for us to run off of purely sustainable energy. So in my mind the question is how can we stretch the limited resources we have. Fracking is more water efficient than other drilling methods. Natural gas also burns cleaner than coal. It seems that regulations can improve the cleanliness of fracking. I believe that fracking should be replacing traditional coal mining, however, hopefully in time we will be able to replace both withe renewable energy sources like wind and solar.
Rather than banning fracking altogether creating a financial whirlwind, safety measures and precautions should be followed more strictly and new ones should be put in place as a compromise. Has Colorado considered this as an option yet?
Thanks for reading, Julien. I wasn’t able to find anything else about fracking on the Colorado ballots, but the initiatives failed to get enough votes to make the ballot.
Fracking has many downsides such as contamination of groundwater, water-deficient regions, air pollution, potential gas explosions, and more. At such a large rate, actions like this, the industries should have the obligation of managing and limiting their fracking practices.