With the relatively recent rise of fracking, it has become common for many people (me included) to sweep the issue under the rug and move onto subjects that seem more interesting. However, it cannot simply be ignored, and is a lot more thought-provoking than it first seems.

First, the boring part. Fracking is where a drill drills down for around 1km before turning horizontally. The drill will then continue to run for miles underground, in the hopes of finding gaps in the rock where gas molecules are trapped. Water is then run through at high pressure, causing the cracks and gaps to increase in size. This water also carries a sand-like substance called “Proppants” which too damages the gaps. The gas is then released back up the tube to the surface.

Here’s where the controversy begins: it is unclear as to whether the process is safe. To someone with no knowledge of fracking it seems dangerous; a high pressure liquid mixture breaking apart the rock under our homes. However, this is not just an ill-informed concern. In 2011, a UK energy company had to suspend their tests on fracking after 2 earthquakes (both around 2 in magnitude) hit the area and, even more recently, an earthquake (4.6 in magnitude) hit Oklahoma and has been linked to fracking operations. And this is not just an isolated incident, with Oklahoma’s earthquake rate soaring with the increase of fracking.

On the other hand, there are upsides to fracking. In the US it has significantly increased domestic oil production as well as driving down gas prices. Since 2000, its influence in America’s natural gas supply has increased, with it now providing 25 percent of the supply (in comparison to 1 percent in 2000). It also produces a lot of power, with only one shale gas play producing 25,000MW. In comparison, Texas (which has largest installed wind power capacity) can only produce 2,000MW from wind. This power is too big to ignore, surely? It also has some environmental benefits. With the continuous push to lower emission, Fracking seems to be a good alternative as it produces half the CO2 emissions of coal.

But the negative environmental effects are huge. As fracking involves water, vast amounts of it must be transported at an environmental cost. In addition, a huge risk is that it will contaminate water supplies by leaking/damaged waste storage units, with Lord Smith (former Chair Environment Agency) claiming “groundwater contamination is the biggest environmental risk in this activity”. And the risks aren’t only environmental. The state of New York has banned fracking as the Public Health Minister found there are serious health risks. Breast Cancer UK has also cited concerns claiming that the increased exposure to harmful chemicals caused by Fracking is a serious cancer causer.

The economic benefits are also not as good as they seem. While fracking companies claim that they will provide long-term skilled jobs, boosting the economy greatly, this has not come to fruition in the US, with each well providing only 4 jobs. After this, the fracking company Cuadrilla has admitted that their 6 year fracking project (based in Lancashire) would lead to just 11 jobs at each of the two sites. This is not the economic revival we were promised.

Now, with so many arguments against fracking on economic, environment and health grounds it is a struggle to comprehend why the government is backing fracking so strongly. While the power produced is high, the risks in other aspects are too large to ignore. Some have linked George Osborne’s father-in-law, Lord Howell, who has large interests in fracking, with Osbornes push for fracking. Cameron however takes a different approach, claiming that it diminished our reliance on international gas imports. Either way, it seems that the influence of fracking is ever growing, with MPs voting to allow fracking for shale gas 1,200m below national parks and other protected sites. We hope, therefore, that the damage to health and the environmental will not be too high.