Allred 1

J Dallon Allred

ENG2010

Blankenship

9 September, 2018

Hydraulic Fracturing in America

Hydraulic Fracturing, known more commonly as fracking, is a very controversial topic in

the modern day world economy, primarily the United States. As such, there are many areas of

disagreement on this topic. For clarity purposes, this synthesis will take a close look at three

common arguments pertaining to fracking: the potential environmental impact, the level of

legislative action being taken either for or against hydraulic fracturing, and the potential

economic benefit. It is necessary to consider the ways that fracking can affect different people in

different ways, as it is a complex social justice issue. Understanding the intersectionality of these

impacts can help others to understand the arguments for and against fracking.

In the early 1990s, George P. Mitchell pioneered a technique of drilling into the earth to

extract natural gas called Hydraulic Fracturing, more commonly known as fracking(Moore,

2016). Fracking is a fairly quick process that is very financially lucrative for almost anyone

involved. The entire fracking operation is usually done and moved on in less than a month

(Scheck, 2016). The first step is to drill down into the earth approximately 12,000 feet. Once this

depth is achieved, workers and machines then start to move the path of the drill bit horizontally

in order to further expose the shale which contains the precious natural gas. Once the hole is

drilled, the workers use a hydraulic pump to fill the hole with a mixture of water, sand, and many
 Allred 2

toxic chemicals to flow through the shale at extremely high pressure. This “washing” process is

necessary to fracture the rock and release the natural gas. The wells then continue to provide oil

and natural gas for up to fifty years (Moore, 2016). Once the drilling has been completed, they

pump out as much fluid as they can and move on. The majority of the time, 30-40% of the toxic

concoction is left underground, and this is where most issues arise. There is extreme

disagreement among people, fracking companies, and scientists as to what chemicals are used

and in what quantity, which means that the unknown, so called “Frack Fluid” is left behind.

Hydraulic fracturing is thought to have a severe impact on the environment. The way

people view the environment is a broad spectrum, so there is a wide range of opinions of the

environmental harm fracking may cause. The first and most obvious point of view is that of the

environmentalist (Greenstone, 2018). The environmentalist is someone who values humans as a

part of nature rather than nature as a commodity of humans. It is a proven fact that hydraulic

fracturing causes water, air, and ground pollution and has been proven to cause a huge rise in

seismic activity in heavily fracked areas. Seismic activity is typically thought of as a natural

disaster and beyond control, but in this case it is a man-made occurrence. Seismologists have

directly linked the spike in seismic activity to the process of hydraulic fracturing (Stone, 2011)

Hydraulic fractuing has gained popularity very quickly in Oklahoma due to large shale deposits

spread across the state, Oklahoma’s earthquake likelihood has risen over 4,000% in less than a

decade. Environmentalists also claim that residual frack fluid is known to seep into groundwater

and potentially poison any unsuspecting consumer. Often times the water in homes surrounding

heavily fracked areas becomes toxic, unbenounced to the resident and can potentially harbor

severe side effects (Stone, 2011). These side effects of frack fluid can be as little as chronic dry
 Allred 3

skin, but are more often extremely severe such as birth defects, several forms of cancer, and even

death.

Those who oppose the environmentalist do so by stating that natural gas has been

scientifically proven to be much cleaner burning energy source than other heavily used fossil

fuels. Natural gas is a clean burning fuel that is seen as a suitable energy source compared to

other more polluting alternatives (Greenstone, 2018). In the United States today we consume fuel

more than almost every other nation but commonly used fossil fuels are not a renewable source

of energy than is environmentally viable, hydraulic fracturing provides us with an alternative.

Coal is the most popular fuel source in the United States and creates sulfur, nitrogen, mercury,

and particulate air pollution. Natural gas has all of the capabilities of coal with very few of the

downsides, which is why it can seem very desirable to allow fracking, despite the negative

consequences (Greenstone, 2018). Harvested natural gas has very little negative impact on the

environment; it is during the harvesting process that problems can possibly arise. Today, the

United States is completely dependent on electricity; fracking provides a fuel source that emits

three times less carbon emissions than coal and can be a substantially less polluting fuel source

for the future.

Another popular disagreement surrounding fracking in America is the level of legislative

action being taken either for or against Hydraulic Fracturing. There are only four of the fifty

states that have a legislative ban on fracking, and out of those four, only two states are believed

to have viable natural gas reserves: Maryland and New York.(Hicks, 2017) Maryland has placed

a legislative ban on fracking due to the potential for negative environmental impact. New York

was among the first to ban fracking, due partly to an enormous backlash from the public. In 2014
 Allred 4

governor Andrew Cuomo proposed a bill to ban fracking and was widely accepted by the public

(Lombardi, 2013).

Despite these states placing a ban on hydraulic fracturing the federal government has yet

to place any federal ban. Due to this fracking has become a very widespread practice that is used

in nearly every state, except where prohibited by law. Part of the reason fracking is such a

popular practice is due to the fact that is practical and it is an enormous step toward energy

independence. The environmental protection agency (EPA) claims that hydraulic fracturing plays

a key part in our nations clean energy future. The EPA supports this claim with fact; the amount

of greenhouse gas emission has plummeted nearly 20 percent within the last 14 years the United

States has dropped their greenhouse gas emission more than almost every country in the world

(Moore, 2016). The EPA also claims that fracking does, in some cases affect drinking water but,

“there no widespread systemic impact” (Burke, 2016). That statement came under a lot of

scrutiny from the media, and even from scientists employed by the Environmental Protection

Agency (Scheck, 2016). In fact, Tom Burke and the Environmental Protection Agency received

so much scrutiny that they conducted a second 29 million dollar research study and concluded

that Fracking does in fact contaminate some water sources across the country. Despite the EPA’s

recent finding there still has not been any significant national legislative action in the United

States (Hicks, 2014).

One of the most prevalent disagreements in the world of hydraulic fracturing is the

potential economic benefit for everyone involved. Although fracking has been practiced for over

a century it wasn’t until the early 2000’s that it created an economic boom. This created a huge

need for workers throughout the hydraulic fracturing process, and from that, an estimated 2

million jobs have been created in less than two decades (Dews, 2018). The reason fracking has
 Allred 5

become so widespread in recent years is due to how efficient it has become. Most fracking wells

take anywhere from 8 to 10 days to drill into the earth and additional 3 to 4 days to fracture the

natural gas rich shale. Then, each well produces clean natural gas for several decades. This

process is so quick and efficient it creates huge profit margins for nearly everyone involved. Due

to this process, the average natural gas price has plummeted in recent years which has saved

every gas using home hundreds of dollars every year (Dews, 2018).

Out of the many controversial areas of fracking, the economic benefit is usually

extremely attractive and beneficial for both parties. It is obvious that fracking has a tremendous

benefit on the economy, but the major disagreement is on the number of jobs that are realistically

being created each year. A study done at Duke University found that since its recent rise in the

popularity of hydraulic fracturing has created 1.7 million jobs, but because it is such an

extremely quick and efficient process, and nearly half of those are part time jobs, and many only

last for a few months out of the year (Waxman, 2015). Part time work alone is almost never

enough to support oneself, let alone support a family. This is the least controversial topic

surrounding the issue of fracking, but nonetheless it is essential to compare different aspects of

fracking that give different perspectives into the issue as a whole.

“Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is perhaps the most important energy discovery in the

last half century” (Currie, 2012). Hydraulic fracturing is a highly effective process that has

gained a bad reputation in today’s media due to the potential environmental side effects.

Throughout my research I have uncovered many of the proven side effects but I have also found

that overall fracking has the potential to be very useful and can possibly cut our greenhouse gas

emissions in half (Moore, 2016). I came into this research project and felt strongly that fracking

was a terrible process that was fueled by corporate greed and did nothing but harm the
 Allred 6

environment, but as my research went on I found that it is an effective energy source that emits

much less than other fossil fuels. I do believe that there should be much stricter laws to enforce

fracking regulations and the companies associated with this practice need to be held accountable

for mistakes regarding spillage, poor well integrity, and seepage into groundwater. Although

there are many more areas of disagreement I chose to focus on the three that I felt were the most

relevant that give an equal representation of the hydraulic fracturing issue as a whole.
 Allred 7

Works Cited

Dews, Fred. “The Economic Benefits of Fracking.” Brookings, Brookings, 19 July 2018,

www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2015/03/23/the-economic-benefits-of-fracking/.

Hurdle, John. “With Governor's Signature, Maryland Becomes Third State to Ban Fracking |

StateImpact Pennsylvania.” NPR, NPR, 4 Apr. 2017,

stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2017/04/04/with-governors-signature-maryland-

becomes-third-state-to-ban-fracking/.

Silverstein, Jason. “What Is the Health Impact of Fracking? | Public Health.” PLOS Ecology

Community, 19 June 2013, blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2013/06/18/what-is-the-health-

impact-of-fracking/.

Stone, Lee. “Fracking's Environmental Impacts: Water.” Greenpeace International, 11 Aug.

2011, www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/environmental-impacts-

water/.

Government, United States. “Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Development.” EPA,

Environmental Protection Agency, 14 Sept. 2018, www.epa.gov/uog.

Moore, Stephen. “How Fracking Has Reduced Greenhouse Gases.” RealClearPolitics, 16 Apr.

2016,

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/16/how_fracking_has_reduced_greenhouse_

gases_130303.html.
 Allred 8

Scheck, Tom. “EPA Reverses Course, Highlights Fracking Contamination of Drinking Water.”

APM Reports, APM Reports, 13 Dec. 2016, www.apmreports.org/story/2016/12/13/epa-

fracking-contamination-drinking-water.

Drukala, Keely. “Fracking Facts.” Heartland Institute, 28 Mar. 2017,

www.heartland.org/topics/energy/fracking-facts/index.html.

Duke, Expert Environmentalist @, director. The Economic Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing .

YouTube, YouTube, 11 Feb. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lZDS23TKJE.

Greenstone, Michael. “Fracking Has Its Costs And Benefits -- The Trick Is Balancing Them.”

Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 20 Feb. 2018,

www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2018/02/20/fracking-has-its-costs-and-benefits-the-trick-

is-balancing-them/#1498204519b4.

Hicks, Josh, and Ovetta Wiggins. “Governor Calls for Ban on Fracking in Maryland.” The

Washington Post, WP Company, 17 Mar. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-

politics/md-gov-hogan-calls-to-ban-fracking-in-the-state/2017/03/17/2ea1e00c-0b45-

11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.adeee53faaad.

Jackson, Robert D, et al. “The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking.” 11 Aug. 2014,

www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-144051.
Allred 9