Resolved: hydraulic fracturing should continue to be used

Clarification: Just a heads up yes it is confirmed fracking and hydraulic fracturing are 100% of the same thing just a repeat for people looking at this debate. Response to his arguments His first argument is air pollution and hyrdralic fracturing will not increase the environment but neither would Coal with the carbon admissions so we must look at which benefits the economy most. Also coal has, air particulate and mercury pollution, and water use burdens are far higher than those of natural gas so it has many other harms as well but I will restate economic benefits of fracking. The direct benefit of increasing oil and gas production includes the value of increased production attributable to the technology. In 2011, the USA produced 8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas from shale gas wells. Taking an average price of $4.24 per thousand cubic feet, that's a value of about $36 billion, due to shale gas alone. "The Yale study group also looked at the potential benefit to consumers of replacing oil consumption with natural gas by converting fleets from gasoline and diesel to compressed gas or LNG. The math works like this - It takes 6 mcf of gas to get the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil. The authors assume an average natural gas price of $5 per mcf (nearly double today"s price) and an average oil price of $100 per barrel (about $20 more than today). Thus, you need $30 worth of natural gas to replace $100 of oil, a savings of $70 per barrel. Replacing just 1 million barrels per day of oil demand with natural gas would save $70 million a day, or nearly $26 billion a year. His next argument is pollution of water from fracking which I will attack in the following points. 1. the process of fracking itself doesn't cause leaks prof backing this up A. Even though 90% of oil and gas wells in the United States (one million wells total) have undergone fracturing to stimulate production, there have been no confirmed cases of contamination of underground sources of drinking water. B. In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemical contamination of groundwater." (Fox News, April 27, 2013) c.I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water." (Congressional testimony, May 24, 2011) D. A 2011 report for the Secretary of Energy counted 19 times that water from hydraulic fracturing operations has been released, out of thousands of wells drilled. None of these instances included groundwater contamination. 2. the so called cases of fracking affecting water can be fixed with better maintance The process of fracking is not the problem, but rather poor maintenance. 6 to 7% percent of wells are built incorrectly, causing the leaks. A mobile water evaporator, for example, can eliminate the wastewater before it leaks. So the few cases that have happened from leaks have been from of course the view wells that were not built right, so my solution is to ensure construction of the wells for fracking are as accurate as possible. Conclusion: There are some negative effects of fracking undoubtedly. Of course there need to be improvements like finding a way to completely minimize environmental impact but currently this is our best option in domestic energy and also a good temporary job creator while we explore other energy avenues. Solar energy is generally useless currently as the most high tech panels are only reaching a little above 30% efficiency while wind energy requires certain conditions and windmills. Not saying they can't be improved but until they are fracking is our best option until renewable sources are optional and fully functional. Again the economic benefits of fracking are huge. 1. "There are 1.7 million jobs supported by fracking, and jobs will increase to 3 million by the end of the decade Examples of jobs provided, providing tax revenues to the government and creating much-needed high-paying American jobs. Engineering and surveying, construction, hospitality, equipment manufacturing and environmental permitting etc. 2. Replacing just 1 million barrels per day of oil demand with natural gas would save $70 million a day, or nearly $26 billion a year. 3. cheaper then coal 4."Looking at GDP growth, the IHS study found that, 'the shale gas contribution to GDP was $76.9 billion in 2010, will increase to $118 billion by 2015, and will nearly triple to $231 billion in 2035,' all in 2010 dollars. Conclusion: I am not saying environmental harms shouldn't be considered I am just saying any way to gain energy or any factory or whatever causes harm to the environment. Since their are no other alternatives that bring in massive energy then we must consider and use the best one we have which is fracking.