Abstract
This paper analyzes different studies made by researchers in order to identify economic, environmental and political aspects of fracking and provides explanations on how fracking could be both advantageous and disadvantageous to the United States of America. Most of researchers argue that fracking activities have a negative effect on our environment and public health. For example, researchers from the Colorado School of Public Health and Brown University have found that the babies born near gas wells were 30 percent more likely to have congenital heart defects and oral clefts. In economic terms fracking is beneficial for our country as the increase in oil and natural gas production in the United States will eventually boost employment and economic growth. In political sphere there are two sides: those who support oil and energy companies and those who are sided with environmentalist groups. Fracking is also considered as one of the best methods to cut energy dependence but it will take years.
The Impact of Fracking on the Environment, Economy, and Politics
The amount of energy consumed daily in a house just to do chores is huge. In an effort to decrease energy consumption major corporations have been developing new products that utilize less energy. Even the automotive industry has been making technological improvements to their cars making these drive longer distances with less gasoline. Energy consumption is constant but our energy sources and supplies seem to be scarce. Petroleum is the primary energy source around the world with the United States as one the major oil consumer nation in the world. These energy demands have placed our nation in a difficult spots when it comes to its foreign relations with other countries, especially with those countries which supply it. Middle East nations and Venezuela are the perfect examples of some those countries of which the United States have been obtaining oil from, although our government does not share some of their socioeconomic structure systems. This is why it is important to have options when it comes to energy sources and technologies. Energy supplies from different sources ensure product availability, and allow for competitiveness. We should not demonize or worship any new ideas or possible solutions without first studying its benefits and drawbacks. Our country needs to have an equilibrated energy supply on hand in order to meet its energy demands. Natural gas is one of these energy sources that could tip the balance in our favor. Although the extraction methods are creating controversy, it is important to explore its benefits and measure its impact before discarding it as a possible solution.
Review of Literature
Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a process used to extract oil and natural gas from the shale rock formations (Nadis, 2013) first utilized in the 1940’s (Hassett & Mathur, 2013). This process involves the use of water, sand, and some undisclosed chemicals to smash these rock formations in order to force gas and oil to the surface. Horizontal drilling was a new form of drilling first introduced in the Barnett shale of Texas in 1999 (Hoffman, 2012). Since then horizontal drilling, along with deep fracking technology has made it profitable and possible to increase the production of natural gas and oil in the United States (Hassett & Mathur, 2013).
Since the 1940’s this new resurgence in production along with the new technology used in the process over the past decade has created a great deal of controversy. Questions about the effects of fracking activities on the environment, public health, and its impact on the nation’s economy has created intense debates among those in favor and those who oppose it (Nadis, 2013).
Public health concerns near drilling wells drove The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a non-profit organization between July 2010 and October 2011 to conduct a research in Garfield County, Colorado. They found evidence of 57 different chemicals, 45 of which have some negative potential for human health. The greatest number of chemicals was found during the initial drilling phase. Although the levels found didn’t exceed the current safety standards, their work was compromised because they were denied of full access to the drilling site (Sadasivam, 2014). Other researchers from the Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado also concluded that the closer people live to this drilling operation sites the greater health risk they will be exposed to (Hoffman, 2012). The oil industry has refused the studies done to date, and their claims of high rates of illness of people who live near drilling sites were regarded as “anecdotal and less than convincing” (Sadasivam, 2014). A study conducted by the Colorado School of Public Health and Brown University on babies born from 1996 to 2009, found that the babies born near gas wells were 30 percent more likely to have congenital heart defects and oral clefts. Another research also conducted in Garfield County, Colorado by the Colorado School of Public Health between January 2008 and November 2010, found benzene among other hydrocarbons (benzene is a major contributor of a small increase in cancer risk among those who live less than half a mile from fracking wells). Energy In Depth a blog by the Independent Petroleum Association of America contended the results of this research alleging “bad inputs” over the researchers assumptions that Garfield County residents will stay in the county until age 70 for their estimates on the emissions exposure (Sadasivam, 2014).
Naveena Sadasivam, the author of “Drilling for Certainty: The Latest in Fracking Health Studies,” (2012) writes about a case study developed by the Geology and Human Health course in the Department of Earth Sciences by students of Montana State University in 2012 about some of the risks and concerns of fracking on the environment. Fracking operations in Montana are still in the initial stages of development. Some of the risks and concerns of fracking described here have to do with the contamination of groundwater. Each well produces millions of gallons of fluid containing toxic chemicals which with fissures created by fracking operations can create pathways for gases to reach waterways. Air pollution is another concern of fracking activities since this produces methane which is known to be 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere. But according to the Environmental Protection Agency, “natural gas-fired electricity generates half of the carbon dioxide from coal-fired production (Hassett & Mathur, 2013). Induced seismic events are also attributed to fracking. This is partly caused by the injection of fracking wastewater into the wells (Hoffman, 2012). Yet, seismic long-term studies on the negative effects of gas drilling on communities near wells have yet to be conducted (Sadasivam, 2014). Oil spills represent another alarming concern directly linked to fracking activities, with 1,000 reported in North Dakota alone. It is only expected for spills to increase in rapid numbers as the tainted soil from drilling waste also increase (Hoffman, 2012).
Although there is ongoing investigations focused on the impact of fracking activities on the environment and possible public health implications and studies like the ones discussed above have been conducted near fracking well sites (Hassett & Mathur, 2013), more comprehensive research and studies are needed to debate emerging lawsuits and create appropriate regulations (Sadasivam, 2014).
Oil companies and environmentalists have created a clear divisional line that separates one from another and politics have taken their sides too. Many of the American left have joined to environmentalists groups and denounce fracking as something dangerous while the right sees fracking as the best solution for the nation’s stressed economy (Hassett & Mathur, 2013). Naomi Klein, the author of “Why US fracking companies are licking their lips over Ukraine” (2014), argues that the oil industries are exploiting the recent events involving Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine to push forward fracking in the US to be sold in Europe so they can cut their dependency on Russia’s natural gas and oil and it is considered as the answer for our energy independence. She calls this skill by our “elites” of exploiting a crisis for personal and private gain “the shock doctrine”. Some of her arguments are based on the facts that the two recent bills introduced into the US Congress only allow for gas to be sold on the world market to any member of the World Trade Organization and not exclusively to European nations. She also mentions that export of gas at this scale will take years to develop which by that time politics might have change and Europe’s need to acquire US produced gas will be reduced.
In the article “Shale Gas Unbound: The Global Implications of Fracking” by Steve Nadis (2013) the author reported on the study conducted by the Harvard-Rice team which developed a computer model by Kenneth Medlock from Rice University. The scenario developed by the model agrees with Klein’s (2014) argument that export at this scale will take years to develop, but adds that according to the same computer model scenario, over the next two decades fracking technology will allow for gas shale production to increase around the world. The United States instead of importing liquefied natural gas may start exporting. Although Russia remains the largest natural gas supplier, North America becomes the second largest. Europe finds itself flooded with natural gas from many sources while demand soars in China and India.
In summary, more research and study on fracking and its effects on the environment and public health is needed (Sadasivam, 2014) and this polemic subject has polarized not only the public opinion but created a clear political allies on each side (Hassett & Mathur, 2013).
Fracking is a controversial mining practice. The process uses sand, water and chemicals to extract natural gas from shale rock formations and oil (Nadis, 2013). Horizontal drilling along with new fracking technology made it possible to mine oil and natural gas in places that were previously impossible to exploit (Hassett & Mathur, 2013). Natural gas production in the United States has been steadily increasing due to this new fracking technology. The controversy of fracking is due in part because of the chemicals used in the process. Those, who are in favor and against fracking, are passionate about their stand and the public have aligned themselves behind either side.
Research and studies about fracking mining sites have found public health risks and environmental concerns which could be directly related to these activities. The Endocrine Disruption Exchange conducted a research in Garfield County, Colorado (Sadasivam, 2014). Research conducted by the Endocrine Disruption Exchange found evidence of 57 different chemicals and 47 had some negative potential for human health. Some of the chemicals used are not being disclosed and fracking companies have stated that they want to seal this information to keep it confidential. We can see how complicated this subject can get. In order to study if there is some public health risk near drilling sites the researchers need to know about all the chemicals involved in the process, but revealing of this information can expose confidential information used by the mining process which can be copied by competitors.
Research has been conducted to find out whether or not fracking activities have negative impacts on the environment. In the article “Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana” Joe Hoffman (2012) discusses a case study about the risks and concerns of fracking on the environment. Natural gas-fired electricity produces less CO2 than coal (Hassett & Mathur, 2013), because of this less CO2 is being released into the air. This is a direct benefit of higher natural gas consumption in the United States. But, the case study found out that fracking activities produce methane which is known to be more intoxicating than CO2. It is important for researchers to be able to measure how much methane it’s been escaping into the atmosphere during fracking mining operations. Although natural gas fired electricity produces less CO2 than coal, if during the mining process great quantities of methane escape into the air, no progress can be made to improve our air quality.
The increase in oil and natural gas production in the United States will ultimately boost employment and economic growth. There has been natural gas and oil production increase of 67 percent from 2003 to 2012 as a direct effect of fracking activities (Hassett & Mathur, 2013). Production and delivery of natural gas and oil mined by fracking technology lead to an increase in employment.
Political parties have taken their sides in this fracking controversy. The right has sided with oil and energy companies, while the right sided with environmentalist groups. Many republicans see fracking as the ticket for energy independence. If the United States is able to increase production beyond what it requires to satisfy its needs, then export to other countries (like European nations) would be possible. Recent turmoil in Ukraine has exposed Europe’s dependency on Russia’s natural gas and oil. As the media sources have reported, European nations are unable to place drastic sanctions against Russia because these nations are dependent on Russia’s natural gas and oil. Naomi Klein, the author of “Why US fracking companies are licking their lips over Ukraine” (2014), argues that even if the United States wants to increase the mining of natural gas and oil in an attempt to free Europe from Russia’s energy hold, it will take years for the US to fulfill Europe’s demands.
Conclusion
The controversy over fracking is not likely to be solved anytime soon. While supporters indicate on the economic benefits of fracturing, the opponents quickly emphasize the potential environmental dangers. I think that if fracturing is indeed economically beneficial, drilling companies must be responsible for all effects that fracking activities can have on a public. People who live near drilling sites should never suffer financially, physically or emotionally due to fracking. Monitoring bodies are also involved in these debates. Some states and even countries have prohibited hydraulic fracking because of its negative impact on health of population and the environment.
Nevertheless, the novelty of fracturing means that there is not a clear consensus on its long-term impact. It is essential for both oil and energy companies and political institutions to observe fracking activities constantly to make sure that it is not making significant health and environmental harm. It is possible for drilling companies to implement methods which are more environmentally-friendly, thereby they can support people who live near drilling sites. Due to such methods the United States will be able not only to gain a good reputation but also to achieve a competitive advantage in the world market.
References:
Hassett, K., A., & Marthur, A. (2013, April 4). Benefits of hydraulic fracking. American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.aei.org/article/economics/benefits-of-hydraulic-fracking/
Hoffman, J. (2012). Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana. On the Cutting Edge. Retrieved from: http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html
Klein, N. (2014, April 10). Why US fracking companies are licking their lips over Ukraine. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/10/us-fracking-companies-climate-change-crisis-shock-doctrine
Sadasivam, N. (2014, March 5). Drilling for Certainty: The Latest in Fraking Health Studies. ProPublica. Retrieved from: http://www.propublica.org/article/drilling-for-certainty-the-latest-in-fracking-health-studies
