The lecture clearly states that the arguments that consider beneficial the new drilling

technology denominated “fracking”, which consists in extracting natural gas from shale rocks
deep underground after the injection of a mix of sand, chemicals and water at high pressure,
are as safe as the industry wants us to believe they are.
If you take out the independent clause inside your principal sentence you have this:

The lecture clearly states that the arguments that consider beneficial the new drilling
technology denominated “fracking” are as safe as the industry wants us to believe they are.
The structures are ok but it doesn’t make much of a sense, does it? Maybe you can rewrite it in
a clearer way.

While the economic gain is clear, as the Gross Domestic Product increases and the natural
gas price drops almost by fifty percent, fracking is extremely controversial since it skyrockets
housing prices in the exploitation area.
The lecture states that the whole process of fracking is controversial, since the chemicals used
for it such as uranium, are known to cause cancer. Also the waste that this process generates
contaminates the air.

As the lecture says the long term effects of fracking are unknown, however in my opinion they
clearly seem to outset the benefits that the industry claims. Gas reserves have been
overestimated, the lecture says there are only 23 years of gas consumption left.
I totally agree with the lecture, solar and wind energy have not gotten the same chances and
investment as gas and coal energy did, clean energy is the way to go!