The Instigator
Matthew51
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dwmiller
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should fracking be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,038 times Debate No: 36582
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Matthew51

Pro

Fracking was invented in the 1940's and yet there are reports of methane in the water in the 1930's.
dwmiller

Con

I will accept pros debate on this topic. I will argue against fracking mostly because of environmental concerns. I will wait until pro makes their opening argument before I determine how I will go about arguing this debate. I do feel that pro will carry the BOP in this debate to show that fracking should be legal, and carries no harm.
Debate Round No. 1
Matthew51

Pro

Methane-
The reports in the 1930's show that there is methane in the water. Fracking is invented in the 1940's.
Earthquakes-
Many scientist can agree that many different things can cause earthquakes it doesn't have to be fracking.
Economy-
Fracking has created thousands of jobs and it is just starting to become a big industry.
dwmiller

Con

So far in this debate, Pros argument goes the following:
1. Methane was found in 1930s before Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracking) was invented in 1940's.
2. Fracking has created jobs.

The above arguments do not prove pros main case that Fracking should be legal.

I will argue that Fracking has many different concerns for the environment, and should not be legal because of these environment concerns, and health risk.

1. Air Emission Concerns

Studies have shown that higher, unhealthy, air emissions are are result of hydraulic fracturing methane leaks. These leaks originated from wells, drilling rigs, and pumps.

http://www.netl.doe.gov...


2. Water Consumption

Hydraulic fracturing uses 1.2-3.5 million US gallons of water. Larger projects can even use up to 5 million US gallons of water. The huge use of water by fracking is becoming a major concern in drought prone areas. In drought prone areas water supply is becoming a huge issue, and water may not be available to the general public.

http://pubs.cas.psu.edu...
http://www.politico.com...


3. Contamination Issues

Methane gas is a huge issue to our water supply. Many studies have found that methane gas has caused contamination to the US water supply. Because of this contamination to the water supply, our drinking water is becoming unsafe. In extreme cases the methane gas can cause an explosion releasing harmful methane gas into the area.

http://www.pnas.org...
http://trib.com...


4. Health Impact Issues

Methane gas, even at lower levels can cause a person to become dizzy, tired.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov...
http://www.nrdc.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Matthew51

Pro

Methane gas in the water is natural. So if it is in the drinking water they can do two things- sue the company killing millions of jobs, but getting free water, or let the methane naturally bubble out. methane cant get in the water due to fracking because of the pipe is made of four layers each layer containing steel and concrete. the water is neccary otherwise they would get much less methane. this methane is use as energy and gives much less emissions than oil. source-Dewey Gerdom, CEO
PDC Mountaineer, LLC

If fracking is made illegal then where would we get our energy needs?
dwmiller

Con

In the last round, pro has left many of my arguments against fracking unanswered. In this round, I will rebuttal the arguments that he has made in the last round.

1. "Methane gas in the water is natural."

Of course it is. That is the whole reason we are drilling. We want to get to the methane gas in the water to use it as a natural energy source.

2. "or let the methane naturally bubble out."

I hope that pro is not saying just allow the methane gas to bubble out into my home. Methane gas is an aspyxiant. At higher concentrations, methane gas can cause high pulse, lack of muscular coordination, emotional upset, vomiting, and respiratory collapse.

Methane gas is also highly combustible. When methane gas is mixed in the air, even the smallest spark can cause an explosion. There are numerous cases where this has happened because of methane drilling.

"Health Effects of Methane". Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety. December 11, 2006
http://mining.about.com...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...

3. "methane cant get in the water due to fracking because of the pipe is made of four layers...."

I fully disagree with pro on this statement. A very recent study by Duke University has linked fracking to methane gas found in water wells, and the public's drinking water. Because of the drilling, the methane gas leaks into the ground water, and hence into public drinking water.

http://www.ewg.org...

4. "the water is neccary otherwise they would get much less methane."

Pro has clearly stated a large amount of water is needed to get the methane. As I stated earlier, this amount of water needed is becoming a problem in drought areas of the country.
Debate Round No. 3
Matthew51

Pro

Con is clearly misinformed "We want to get to the methane gas in the water to use it as a natural energy source.". Fracking has nothing to do with the water table. The drill goes down below the water table so it can reach the SHALE that has the natural gas. For more on why people are misinformed check out this http://fracknation.com.... Con- if you are unhappy with the water then the fracking company must give you good water by law. In Josh Fox's film Gasland it has a famous scene of the water catching on fire. But when the government tested it, it was fine.Also when it was privately tested it came back fine. when I said "methane cant get in the water due to fracking because of the pipe is made of four layers...." you fail to recognize my source. I learned about what is in the fracking fluid and what the pipe looks like simply by asking. My source Dewey Gerdom, CEO
PDC Mountaineer, LLC . Thanked me for asking questions and not simply believing the bias media. Also "becoming a problem in drought areas of the country." you have never seen a map of Delaware.
dwmiller

Con

Pro keeps going back to his ONE source; Dewey Gerdom of PDC Mountaineer. I would like to show that his source is going to be clearly biased toward the fracking process. PDC Mountaineer is a West Virginia based company that is drilling in the Marcellus Shale area. The Marcellus Shale area covers areas of Maryland, Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia. This information can be found at the website listed below:

http://waytogoto.com...

PDC Mountaineer is a fracking company; therefore, the information from the CEO is going to be heavy pro fracking in order to keep his job.

1. "Fracking has nothing to do with the water table."

Pro seems to contradict himself. First pro stated "the large volume of water is needed"; then pro stated this. Pro has failed to look at my source showing that the large volume of water needed IS becoming a problem to the water table.

2. "Con- if you are unhappy with the water then the fracking company must give you good water by law."

Pros statement hear shows that contamination of the water is possible then. Con, if the water is fine as you state, why would the fracking company even need to give people better water?

3. " In Josh Fox's film Gasland it has a famous scene of the water catching on fire"

Pro admits that it is possible for the methane gas to catch on fire, or that an explosion could occur. This becomes a major safety issue, and health issue.


Pro has only quoted his one heavy biased source; the CEO of PDC Mountaineer. A Pro fracking drilling company. Pro has failed to show from unbiased sources that fracking is not a major concern, and doesn't present any safety, health, and environmental issues.

Pro one other source fracknation is a site to purchase a CD. It provides no further information.
Debate Round No. 4
Matthew51

Pro

Con misunderstood when I said "Fracking has nothing to do with the water table". I was referring to his misconception of "We want to get to the methane gas in the water". The methane we are trying to get is in shale. When I said "Con- if you are unhappy with the water then the fracking company must give you good water by law." I was referring to the fact methane in the water is natural. And when I talked about josh fox's film Gasland you FAILED TO READ THE REST OF THE SENTANCE. " But when the government tested it, it was fine.Also when it was privately tested it came back fine.". AND THE MOVIE FRACKNATION IS MY SOURCE(which I doubt you watched) my source Dewey Gerdom of PDC Mountaineer is not bias because he sent me the design of the pipe(which how is that bias). The company thanked me for trying to find my own information. The process of fracking (in the Ohio valley) is not draining water sources. All water used in the process in sucked out of the hole and left out to evaporate. It is not fracking fault if it does not rain in the west.

Sources is the direct company of PDC Mountaineer
and the Movie Fracknation.
also these websites-http://fracfocus.org...
http://oilandgas.ohiodnr.gov...
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS THE LAST ROUND DO NOT BRING UP NEW TOPICS.
dwmiller

Con

Pro seems to think that I know nothing about how hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, works. This is a big assumption on his part.

Pro also has not read many of the sources that I have quoted. I will go back to some of those sources in this closing round.

1. "And when I talked about josh fox's film Gasland you FAILED TO READ THE REST OF THE SENTANCE. " But when the government tested it, it was fine. Also when it was privately tested it came back fine."

I did read the whole sentence, and the second part is irrelevant to my argument. Pro has still proved that methane gas can catch fire, or cause an explosion risk at higher methane gas levels. This becomes a MAJOR safety issue if that gas gets around a spark.

2. "he sent me the design of the pipe."

The pipe is obviously not fail proof. Pro has not looked at my Duke University study. 115 of 141 drinking wells tested found methane gas in the water. 12 wells had hazardous levels of methane in the water. 11 of these drinking wells were within 1 kilometer of natural gas drilling rigs.

3. "The process of fracking (in the Ohio valley) is not draining water sources."

Pro is only looking at the Ohio valley with this statement. Pro fails to state that the Marcellus shale covers four different states. Fracking is causing issues to the water sources in other areas.

Pro in this debate has failed to show that fracking doesn't cause risks to its workers, and the environment. Pro has also conceded some of my arguments with the statements he has made.

1. Methane gas can catch fire, or cause an explosion - risk to workers and others. This statement was admitted by Pro

2. Fracking uses tons of water in the process causing a major problem to drinking water sources. Pro admitted that fracking uses a large amount of water.

3. Leaks into the drinking water. Pro has not refuted my Duke University study showing hazardous levels of methane gas in drinking water of wells near natural gas drilling rigs.

Pro has clearly not proved his case.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.