Statement of the Problem
The problem of petroleum depletion has since posed problems to the global demand for energy, thus driving related costs to rise to unbearable proportions and economic crashes affecting all other sectors. Efforts to counter the foregoing have since resulted to the emergence of viable energy options using alternative resources to supplement what would otherwise require petroleum to operate. Natural gas obtained through hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has become a much-sought alternative to petroleum currently supplied in known oil-rich areas such as the Middle East and Russia. In the United States (US), specifically in California (Siegel), fracking has recently attracted considerable criticisms as it is touted to pose environmental effects, despite the fact that engineers have practiced it to extract natural gas in the nation for over 50 years. The problem associated with the current charges against fracking does not center on the practice itself, but on the use of more sophisticated techniques it involves for extracting natural gas (Mooney 80-85).
In practice, fracking involves the insertion of fluids and proppants inside a hole on a ground pointed to have natural gas underneath. Such is done to “fracture” the ground in order to provide ease in extracting natural gas underneath. Engineers frequently use sand and nitroglycerine as their usual proppant and fluid, respectively, since their combination is known to cause high pressure that can break the ground that contains natural gas. Water soon replaced nitroglycerine as the usual fluid used for fracking, alongside a composite of materials making up the proppant in order to make natural gas extraction more viscous. The use and advancement of the borehole became an integral factor behind the improvement of fracking in terms of efficient natural gas extraction. At the same time, however, it is the changes in the borehole that has caused the growth of criticisms against fracking as an environmentally harmful practice, despite its emergence as an economically viable way of contributing to the production of natural gas (Mooney 80-85; Negro 1-16).
Context and Importance of the Problem
Fracking, specifically through its borehole usage, became the subject of several critics due to its harmful effects to the environment. Residents living near mines with fracking operations have complained that their water has become contaminated by natural gas. Thus, the increasing flammability of water coming out of taps became a major concern for residents, particularly in terms of quality of life and safety. The alleged mixture of fracking composites with the groundwater supply of nearby residential areas has also raised concerns for carcinogen contamination in running water. Regardless, engineers working for the natural gas industry noted that they do not conduct fracking near the groundwater supply, suggesting instead that the flammable water residents complain of comes from coalbeds infused with biogenic methane. Yet, evidence against the foregoing have emerged, pointing out that biogenic methane may have actually emerged as a material produced by fracking (Manuel A199; Mooney 80-85; Negro 1-16).
The contamination of water supplies near residential areas surrounding fracking mines have also stood as a cause of concern against the practice. Certain plants designed to treat wastewater used as fluids for fracking have failed to treat chemicals properly, yet such has found apparent resolution through recycling. The natural gas industry has recently made it a point to recycle fracking fluids instead of leading it to wastewater treatment facilities in order to make natural gas production through fracking more efficient and less harmful to water supplies. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the House of Representatives are seeking to determine whether or not fracking has adverse effects to the integrity of drinking water. California, in particular, currently has an ongoing debacle on a proposed ban to fracking, as against the known goals of the incumbent administration of Governor Jerry Brown supporting fracking as a way of raising revenues from the energy sector of the state (Kiparsky & Hein 5-46; Siegel).
Critique of Policy Options
Advancements made to improve fracking have since compelled Congress towards regulating it to become a viable contributor to the economy and the demands of the energy sector. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) became a legislative tool of the EPA in ensuring that fracking is conducted in an environmentally sound manner. However, in a bid by Vice President Dick Cheney to remove restrictions on fracking due to his touted connections with natural gas company Halliburton, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPA 2005) amended the SDWA, specifically Paragraph 1 of Section 1421 (d), in order to remove restrictions on fracking fluids and proppants. Under EA 2005, the regulation of underground injection to prevent contamination of water supplies exempts fracking fluids and proppants (Manuel A199; Negro 1-16).
The National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA 1969) also stands as an existing legislative tool of the EPA that regulates natural gas extraction with the help of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The FERC, under NEPA 1969, is tasked to issue Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for all natural gas sites in order to compel any extraction projects to reveal details on any environmental impacts of their activities. Such, in turn, enables the resolution of all environmental impacts arising from natural gas extraction projects (Manuel A199; Negro 1-16).
Policy Recommendations
Given the divergent sides of critics of fracking and the natural gas industry engaged in such practice, the following recommendations could provide substantial assistance to the debate on fracking, particularly in California:
Conduct further research on fracking
Conflicts surrounding the true extent of the effects of fracking have been characterized by the inherent interests of the stakeholders – the quality of life and safety of residents near fracking mines, on one hand, and the economic activities of natural gas companies, on the other. At the same time, the remarkable contributions of fracking to the production of natural gas have benefited, in turn, the growth of the energy sector. California, in particular, currently faces debates on fracking characterized by these two conflicting sides – the economic growth of the state and the well-being of residents. Such is expected to further intensify with the continuous growth of natural gas extraction activities, which are wrought with numerous economic and political interests. The EPA currently stands as the organization that is conducting an independent research on the environmental effects of fracking. The importance of other research endeavors conducted by other organizations still stands as a crucial concern to help evaluate the impacts of fracking to the environment. The perceived growth of fracking among natural gas companies should serve as a prime incentive for researchers to continue learning more about the practice (Kiparsky & Hein 5-46; Mooney 80-85; Siegel).
Support policies regulating fracking fluids and proppants
The exemptions on fracking fluids and proppants placed by the amendatory clause of the EPA 2005 to SDWA have since loosened restrictions on the practice, which is crucial at this point considering that a consensus on its environmental effects has yet to emerge. Therefore, the importance of the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act of 2009 (FRAC) stand as on with great prominence at this point, which would allow the EPA or any assigned state agency to inspect all fracking mines, including drilling processes and water treatment, and all chemicals used therein. At the same time, the FRAC ensures not to interfere with the natural gas extraction processes of natural gas companies as it ensures the safety of the public amidst fracking. The FRAC would then have the legal effect of nullifying the amendment set by the EPA 2005 to SDWA, hence putting due scrutiny on fracking fluids and proppants, as deemed necessary by current research findings (Kiparsky & Hein 5-46; Mooney 80-85; Negro 1-16).
Propose regulations that place stakeholders at a common meeting point
The case of California on fracking is a typical case in the US that presents the issue on said practice as one that involves a conflict between residents and natural gas companies. Although corporate interests to fracking have the due support of supplementary data underlining lack of proof that said practice has adverse environmental effects, such nevertheless appears biased to the interests of natural gas companies. Residents, on the other hand, have no other concern other than quality of life and safety when it comes to their interests against fracking. Yet, the fact that independent efforts at understanding fracking have yet to show a definitive stand on the environmental effects of said practice hampers residents to succeed in their cause to ban fracking altogether. Therefore, it is crucial for policymakers to introduce policies that engage both residents and natural gas companies in terms of their concerns on fracking, alongside current concerns on the lack of definitive data establishing the environmental effects of said practice (Mooney 80-85; Negro 1-16).
Works Cited
Kiparsky, Michael, and Jayni Hein. "Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California: A Wastewater and Water Quality Perspective." Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at CLEE April (2013): 5-46. Print.
Manuel, John. "MINING: EPA Tackles Fracking." Environmental Health Perspectives 118.5 (2010): A199. Print.
Mooney, Chris. "The Truth about Fracking." Scientific American 305 (2011): 80-85. Print.
Negro, Sorell. "Fracking Wars: Federal, State and Local Conflicts over the Regulation of Natural Gas Activities." Zoning and Planning Law Report 35.2 (2012): 1-16. Print.
Siegel, Kassie. “Busted Boom Challenges Gov. Brown to Halt California Fracking." The Huffington Post. 23 May 2014. The Huffington Post. 9 June 2014. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kassie-siegel/busted-boom-challenges-go_b_5377429.html >.
