Table of Contents
Fracking? What does that word mean? Well, within the science and energy communities it refers to a process or procedure performed to extract oil and natural gas from the ground (Union). Hydraulic fracturing, referring to fracking, has been used for over 65 years in the United States and is a process that in the simplest terms is the physical procedure of drilling downwards approximately a mile or more into the ground then turning and continuing to drill horizontally for several thousand feet. This process is performed primarily in shale rock formations and involves pumping a liquid or water under high pressure against a rock formation until it fractures.
Once fractured the gases/oil can escape upwards towards the surface for production (Perrin). In broader terms, it refers to the non-conventional processes of extraction and development of oil and gas production. Moreover, the United States Department of Energy predicts by the year 2040, approximately half of U.S. natural gas production and more than half of oil production in the lower 48 states will come from sites that use fracking. Fracking has enabled the United States to experience an energy sector boom transforming the United States into a global leading gas and oil producer (API).
In the past several years, the term “fracking” has hit the spotlight of mainstream media and is a term most Americans have added to their vernacular in recent times. Most folks, although not knowing the technicalities or industry specifics of what fracking is, do tend to similize this term with energy, gas, or oil. People appear to fall into two categories or camps when it comes to knowledge about fracking; they either have been introduced to fracking mainly via the environmental stories generated by the media regarding fracking, or have been directly impacted by fracking by way of being directly impacted with economic ties to fracking. Both camps generate conditions that position fracking into a highly controversial topic.
127 our experts are availableright now
The controversy surrounding the fracking industry can be surmised as a battle between economics and profits versus the environment and public health. Although one would also have to examine the overall mindset of the American culture and its roots in capitalism to actually grasp the whole picture in its entirety.
Opponents of fracking have ample data and studies to provide suggesting that fracking is both harmful to the environment as well as a danger to public health. In one study, conducted by the Environment America Research & Policy Center/Fracfocus database, exposure to the chemicals and caustic materials used in fracking production poses a health risk to people. Residual chemical and raw materials used in fracking report to have a lasting negative effect on the environment as well. Some of the data of chemicals and materials used are listed here (Environment):
Opponents of fracking sadly report there is no complete legal disclosure required by companies as to the exact materials and chemicals used, this mystery of “proprietary” materials fuels the controversy. Seepage of chemicals into groundwater may result in pollution and incur negative adverse effects to all living things. Lack of transparency coupled with non-disclosure agreements keep opponents of fracking pressing the questions of environmental and public hazard liability at the forefront (Union). Additionally, seismic activity can be linked to fracking and the process of fracking. This increased seismic activity can and has produced earthquakes to occur. In 2001 when shale rock gas and other unconventional, or “fracking”, energy sources experienced massive expansion the seismic activity steadily climbed to approximately 100 related earthquakes annually, with 188 taking place in 2011 alone (Kille).
Proponents of fracking have arguments in favor that are primarily tied to economics. Studies show that consumers are seeing energy savings and reduced cost of natural gas on an annual basis due to the production of fracking. In terms of actual dollars saved, over 13 billion dollars per year from 2007 to 2013 has been saved from lower consumer gas bills, with an average of $200 per year saved per household using gas. Additional economic benefits from increased fracking production have been realized over the spectrum of energy consumption – industrial, commercial, and even electric powered households saw economic gains of nearly $74 billion a year (Dews). Other proponents favoring fracking point to decreased airborne emissions as compared to other other energy sectors, such as coal production, as helping to slow the global warming process. In many ways proponents acknowledge some of the volatility of fracking but tout it’s benefit as a “bridge” energy resource as new green energy sectors develop (Union). Increased employment directly related to fracking adds a boost to local economies, and has even had a notional effect on the reduction of unemployment as a whole.
So who, or what, in particular benefits from fracking or lack of fracking? Let’s examine a few from both groups below.
The Proponents
Land owners and regional real estate values: Fracking can produce greatly increased income for landowners in the form of land sales, lease payments of rented land, and royalties paid on production of gas and oil. Local surrounding real estate values increase as land and homes become more economically valuable due to the revenue generated by fracking. Employed workers via job creation – new employees moving into an area where fracking is conducted ads to the local real estate sales and rental market (Valdmanis).
Manufacturers of equipment, parts, and supplies benefit as revenue increases due to rising demand from increased fracking production. Companies and the entire supply chain have increased demand, revenue, and profits.
Consumers and local economies benefit from savings on energy due to lower costs of fracking. Potential savings from consumers is typically injected back into the local economies.
The Opponents
Land Owners, coincidentally, can fall into this category too. Decreased value in land due to overuse of land which renders the land less viable due to fracking production. Residual chemical effects on the land can greatly decrease land value and marketability for the landowner.
Local neighborhoods, and surrounding towns have raised legitimate concerns regarding the after effects of fracking. Pollution and chemical waste degrading and harming water supplies have local communities questioning the short term assumed economic benefits of fracking.
The Environment itself. Excessive usage of resources such as water that is required to perform fracking is negating the benefit. Fracking a single well can require anywhere from 2 to 20 million gallons of water (Kille). Disruptions from fracking causing seismic events puts people at risk. Environmental protection agencies and environmental watchdog activist organizations try to measure risks versus benefits and make their case to the legislatures as well as the general public.
The modern world we live in continues to ride the fine line between innovation and exploitation. Fracking, the process itself, is quite innovative. The results of it, benefits and liabilities, are measured from both a factual standpoint as well as a philosophical perspective standpoint. Our society’s need for energy is undeniable, our economy and lifestyle largely hinges on both the ability to produce energy as well as the consumption of energy. Enhanced or even total transparency of materials used in fracking from companies would be the first and necessary big step in addressing all potential environmental challenges. With that knowledge, data could then be compiled and provided to legislatures for regulations, striking a middle ground between exploitation of the environment and providing energy. New taxes put on fracking produced energy could be applied and used exclusively towards developing greener or sustainable energy processes (Kille).
In a sense the fracking industry could have a tax imposed upon itself with the revenue going towards enhanced cleaner processes of refining newer sustainable energy technologies. These could be integrated with the existing fracking companies, the ones being taxed, so that those companies would actually be on the beneficiary side of new developments. The by-product of regulations would inevitably increase favorable public opinion of the industry as a whole, being perceived as “wanting” to do the right thing. The environment wins, the people live in a more regulated but “safer” environment, and the fracking industry joins arms with environmental agencies and organizations to lead the way of energy into the future. Innovation coupled with human survival will ultimately produce viable energy sources in the future -it just may be at the expense of the environment as we know it in the present day.
