Hydraulic Fracturing: Environmental Hazard, Economic Benefit, or Something in Between?

Fracking: a term heard my many people in every area of the country that has some form of natural gas and oil drilling but often with little understanding. As these drilling areas are spreading from the southern parts of America in the northeast, the debate over its benefits and drawbacks has increased. Many people feel that fracking should not be allowed because of potential effect on the environment, while others feel that it a necessary part of the process, retrieving inaccessible resources and providing an economic boost.

In fracking, or the proper term, hydraulic fracturing, water, sand, and a special mix of chemicals are injected into drilling wells. This combination of water, sand and special chemicals is injected with tremendous amounts of pressure, fracturing geological formations, such as rock, coal beds and shale underground. Oil and gas trapped beneath the rock flows into the production well through these fractures. The remaining water and chemicals are then pumped back to the surface to be disposed of through either treatment or deep well injection (“Hydraulic”). Because fracking taps into previously unreachable energy resources, it has played a major part in the growth of the gas and oil industry, especially in the development in the Marcellus Shale.

Supporters of fracking feel that it is necessary to fully access all the available natural energy reserves hidden below the surface. Without fracking, reservoirs like the Marcellus Shale are not readily accessible. Hydraulic fracturing increased the domestic production of natural gas by almost twenty percent, bringing about lower prices that are still staying steady; the prices of natural gas are almost fifty percent less than they were just five years previously (McCurdy D1). Constant and lower gas prices are better for the people, as well as freeing America from its dependence on foreign energy sources and creating economical boosts in other ways.

As new wells and drilling sites are created, there is an increase in jobs and revenue. In Pennsylvania, the drilling industry will create approximately 88,000 new jobs this year and is predicted to create 250,000 in the next ten years (“Opportunity”); Pennsylvania’s Department of Labor and Industry says that hiring is, “nearly double in 2011 than what it was in 2012” (qtd. in “No”). Companies like Somerset Welding and Steel and J&J Truck bodies and Trailers, banks like S&T and First Commonwealth, engineering firms, and law firms are increasing their hires, providing jobs for local people. Heavy truck drivers, comprising ten percent of people involved in the drilling sites, are seeing an especially high demand due to the large amounts of water that need to be transported to and from sites. (“Opportunity”). A Penn State study found that during the year of 2008, Pennsylvania received $240 million in taxes and that the gas industry had a $2.3 billion value. Pennsylvania predicts a payoff of $13.5 billion by 2020 (“No”). Water companies and local municipal authorities benefit from fracking because of massive amounts of water they sell. With the increase in people in the area, business such as grocery stores, gas stations, and restaurants also see an increase.

However, many people feel that fracking is not a method that should be used because of the negative environmental aspects, that it should be completely banned from all drilling sites. On December 31, 2011, in northeastern Ohio, a 4.0 magnitude earthquake took the state by surprise. After hiring a team of experts to study the cause, it was discovered that the earthquake was the result of disposal wells used to inject wastewater from fracking into the ground. This earth quake was not the first of the Ohio earthquakes; in 2001, a 4.2 magnitude earthquake was also caused by fracking. In the past year, Ohio has had a series of small tremors also thought to be linked to fracking, leading to a halt in fracking and drilling activity in the area surrounding the earthquakes Ohio is not alone: Oklahoma has also saw a large increase in the amount of earthquakes as drilling increases (Gingerich).

Many of the chemical added into the injection are known toxins. A 2011 study published by Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, “discovered that 25% of these chemicals were carcinogens or mutagens, and between 40% and 50% could affect the brain, nervous system and cardiovascular system” (Gingerich); however, not all chemicals are known because they are considered trade secrets and do not have to be disclosed. Chemical run off and substandard construction practices from these sites has also been thought to contaminate sites of public drinking water. Various government agencies such as the EPA have began performing studies to track whether these sites of water contamination is caused completely by fracking and no other sources; they are also demanding full disclosure of all the chemicals used in the process.

The use of fracking has both drawbacks and benefits to the states allowing the practice to be used in conjunction with deep-well drilling. To focus solely on only the positives or the negatives is not practical. The economic benefits such as the substantial amount of jobs that it creates across the United States are benefit that is extremely important in the current economic situation and high rates of unemployment. Not only do the drilling sites employ a large number of people, new businesses are created supporting the drilling industries needs and the considerable amount of employees provide revenue for the areas surrounding the drilling sites with their housing and living expenses. To the depressed economies that are often home to the drilling sites, these benefits are hard to ignore. Because these benefits are seen immediately, the possible long-term effects on the environment are ignored because they have not been fully proven; the instances of contamination are not directly leaked to the process of hydraulic fracturing but to faulty construction and failures of the well’s pipe or cement casing, as well as above-ground spills at drilling sites. Charles Groat, associate director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, says that, “These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing” (qtd. Vaughan 1A).

However, to ignore the potential environmental hazards, both short-term and long-term in favor of economic growth is hazardous. Instead of banning the process of hydraulic fracturing, more studies need to be founded to look further into the effects of fracking on the environment. As well as further studies, states need to work harder enforcing regulations uncompromisingly and creating new legislature protecting supplies of drinking water. Enforcing these regulations that are already in effect while awaiting stronger regulations to be created, states could minimize oversights or negligence by the drilling companies. As well as following the regulations, the gas industry can help minimize its impact on the environment and maintain a more positive image by taking full responsibility to any previously unintentional contamination issues, as well as having a more transparent façade by allowing the public to become familiar with its processes and disclosing the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. By enforcing regulations, maintain strict safety and quality control, and keeping the public informed, local communities can enjoy the economic benefits of hydraulic fracturing while seeing their environment preserved.

No one can fully understand the long-term damage that fracking has on the environment. The chemicals used, the gases emitted, and the changed ground structure could all have unknown side effects on the environment. However, the economic boost is an immediate benefit. By working together, the drilling industry and the people that are affected by it could create a livable median allowing for economic growth and environmental safety.

Works Cited

"An opportunity that cannot be ignored." Tribune-Democrat. 01 05 2011: n. page. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

Gingerich, Jon. “Front groups wage PR warfare in 'fracking' debate.” O’Dwyer’s. 02 2012. Web. 9 Apr 2012.

"Hydraulic Fracturing Overview." Congressional Digest. 91.3 (2012): n. page. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

McCurdy, Dave. "Is hydraulic fracturing too dangerous? NO: It's a safe process that results in needed energy." Denver Post 10 07 2011. D1.LexisNexis. Web. 1 Apr 2012.

"No: Fracking is Energy’s Economic Goldmine." policymic. 08 2011: n. page. Web. 1 Apr. 2012.

Vaughan, Vicki. "Study finds that fracking itself does not pollute groundwater." San Antonio Express-News 17 02 2011. 1A. LexisNexis. Web. 1 Apr 2012.