Fracking is the process of extracting oil or natural gas from shale rock. Water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure which fractures the rock and allows the oil or gas to flow out to a well. While fracking has significantly boosted oil production, there are environmental concerns that the process is contaminating groundwater. The Permian Basin accounts for 43% of U.S. oil production and is currently the most productive oil shale reserve in the country. In June 2022 The Environmental Protection Agency announced that it may deem parts of the Permian Basin in Texas…
Read more@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, we should pursue more sustainable energy resources instead
@9FVBQVZ8mos8MO
Over time... sure. But those renewable sources now (and for the short-term future) are not consistently dependable. Fossil fuels are usable and efficient TODAY; nuclear would be usable and efficient (with virtually no carbon emissions) if allowed to be planned, built and operated soon.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, more research is needed to measure the long term effects of fracking
@9FQQGS68mos8MO
The only way to do the research is to do the fracking. We’ve been doing it for a long time now and energy independence can’t be under valued.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
@8HHQPHG4yrs4Y
i dont even know what that means
@8KZ52SJ4yrs4Y
Yes but only minimally and transitionally as we pursue renewables
@8D7X8VBNew Liberty4yrs4Y
Yes, apply appropriate oversight, no subsidies, and mandate cost of energy = cost to produce energy + cost to environment/cleanup .
@8N5DRPDRepublican4yrs4Y
It should be banned in some areas but not all
@98DPQVY1yr1Y
Yes, temporarily while we invest in cleaner alternatives
Yes, but not in heavily populated areas and greatly increase oversight
Deleted10mos10MO
@96BBG8C2yrs2Y
Only as a transitional energy source, until we can fully nuclear-ize our grid. It's a lot better than coal and offshore oil drilling.
@97ZMW851yr1Y
Continue fracking until an alternative is possible and proven.
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
Alternatives already exists...
@9MFX8R76 days6D
So long as people are not being harmed, the government should have no say in how energy is being produced.
@MikeRepublican6 days6D
Yes and expand oil in the U.S.
Climate change is a hoax lots of scientists will deny it and plus when donald trump was president we had more affordable oil because more drilling was happening in alaska Oklahoma Texas Colorado Wyoming Montana North Dakota South Dakota it was 1.80 a gallon when he left office now it's 4.00 a gallon we need to drill noe oil nationally instead of globally
@9M8P2KW2wks2W
Yes, but opportunities and incentives should be created for companies that provide “clean” alternatives
@9M7X92J2wks2W
I think that we should be cautious ⚠️ and open about all of the data so that we know what is going on and the regulations can be responsible enough to protect us for any short-term/long-term harm.
But otherwise get out of the way so that free enterprise can stay free.
Let's be open and transparent so that the we citizens can know what the government and business are really up to.
@9LZW3863wks3W
Yes, but if there’s proof of pollution or contamination to other resources such as water it needs to be stopped immediately.
Deleted4wks4W
Yes, but not in heavily populated areas and only temporarily while we continue to incentivise and develop more sustainable energy technologies
@9LP3TNB4wks4W
Yes, temporarily while the government provides incentives for alternative energy production, and increase regulation and oversight, allow any such operations in unpopulated or very low population areas.
@9LJ9LD21mo1MO
I would pursue more sustainable energy sources instead, but I would not mind fracking in mild locations and not excessive
@9LGL8BR1mo1MO
Yes, but increase oversight So that the fracking is not in heavily populated areas and also so that more research can be put in to measure the long term effects of fracking.
For now they should extract oil and natural gas, but once we find a new way they is more safe we should use that.
@9LD5YZN1mo1MO
Yes, but increase oversight So that the Fracking process is not taking place near population centers. Also there also needs to be more research is needed to measure the long term effects of fracking.
@9L75B7SRepublican2mos2MO
yes but require companies to compensate local populations or fix problems with wells or water supplies that result from fracking
@9L696YZ2mos2MO
don't have much information on the hydraulic fracking so I will refrain from making an immature decision
@9K9RQ6B 2mos2MO
I don’t support it and would prefer using more sustainable methods, however I’m not against it - as all other nations do it, and I don’t want to be reliant on them or have the country fall behind as a superpower because of it
@9KVMKX52mos2MO
Yes but start funds set aside for damage that could be caused, and not in heavily populated areas, and more research is needed to measure the long term effects of fracking
@9KVGYK7 2mos2MO
I do not support it, however, I do not necessarily believe that the government should prohibit it; unless it drastically affects the surrounding areas, and ot=nly then if hey are populated.
@9KPHFXJ2mos2MO
Yes, but only as a temporary fix while we convert to using geothermal heating and electric cars and appliances
@9KNJFH92mos2MO
Yes but reduce amount states can give in subsidies to allow more profits driven back into the states
@9KH7ZYH3mos3MO
Yes, but not in areas with too many people and increase restrictions when it comes to fracking. It gives us valuable natural gas but we should be looking for other more renewable sources of energy too.
@9KFZ83N3mos3MO
Yes, it contributes to U.S. status as the world's largest exporter of energy, alongside our short to medium-term energy stability. It should be phased out over a medium to long-term time horizon to reduce carbon emissions and make way for renewable sources of energy.
@9KFJSBK 3mos3MO
Yes, but we should try an limit the amount of chemicals and pollutants that are released during the fracking process.
@9KC893XLibertarian 3mos3MO
No. There are other, less destructive ways to procure natural energy resources which should be tapped into first. Fracking came about because too much government regulation prevented tapping into natural oil and gas reserves from better, less destructive sources.
@9H5SJD96mos6MO
No, we should look for more sustainable energy resources and continue the research of the long-term effects of fracking
We can continue fracking , but we should pursue more sustainable energy resources in the meantime to replace it in the near future.
@9GZG7HP6mos6MO
Only for a short period of time and not by heavily populated areas and research technology for safer options
@9GRCVCTIndependent6mos6MO
Yes, although we should oversight it more, we do not have a fully sustainable energy choice to just slowly stop the industry as a whole. We should push to find those alternatives but as of now we can't just start the stopping of the industry.
@9GNJKDD7mos7MO
Yes, but we really need to start exploring a clean, effectient and sustanable energy sources so that we can eventually stop needing oil.
@9G9H42LPeace and Freedom7mos7MO
I kinda agree because of cars but I think that it would be more environmentally safe for our atmosphere.
@9G7RZ3S7mos7MO
No and end it so that American people don’t feel attacked and families feel safe and that their health is protected
@9G7QZCW7mos7MO
Yes, it is a better alternative compared to Oil and Coal, but we should expand Nuclear energy, instead so that way, our reliance on energy source that has bad emissions would be decreased.
Yes, but it should stay away from major water resources and heavily populated areas.
@9DFCHZJPeace and Freedom9mos9MO
Not enough knowledge to provide an answer.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...