Orlando Sanchez Research Paper

Orlando Sanchez

English 11000-B

5/18/15

Fracking: The Economy vs. The Environment

            Today in America, we are more dependent on oil and its byproducts than ever before. It is estimated that an average of 19.05 million barrels of oil are used per day in the United States (Howarth et al). To meet this demand, oil is imported from foreign countries or drilled from American territories. One method that has seen an increase of use is Hydraulic Fracturing, better known as “Fracking”. Fracking has seen widespread use around the world for some years now but has only recently begun being used in the U.S on a large scale. This method of extracting oil allows for America to supply its own oil instead of relying on foreign imports, but it comes at a price. There has been scientific evidence that fracking is destructive towards the environment and humans exposed to the process. The topic of fracking has two sides, those who support it due to its good for the economy and those who are against it because of its harm to the environment.

            The technique of Hydraulic Fracturing has been in development since the 1860’s with the modern version we see today being introduced in 1947 by Stanolind Oil and being successfully performed in 1949 by Halliburton (Richardson). Fracking is done by first drilling vertically into the earth, then drilling horizontally into the rock layer. Then a mixture containing water, sand and various chemicals is injected at high pressures to allow the oil to flow out of the well. The horizontal drilling and injection of fluid allow greater amounts of natural gases to flow out of the fissures made. Fracking has allowed the U.S oil industry to turn to unconventional sources of gas, such as shale.

            Shale is a naturally occurring rock formation and shale gas is a natural gas that is found trapped within. Up until recent years, shale was an uncommon source of gas, only accounting for 1% of U.S gas production in 2001 (EIA). However, due to the introduction of hydraulic fracturing, shale gas accounted for 20% of gas production in 2010 and the EOA (Energy Information Administration) predicts that by 2035, shale gas will account for 46% of gas production in the U.S (EIA). Due to this newfound supply of shale gas, oil companies have shifted their operations to drill onshore in these shale formations. One of these formations is the Marcellus Formation which stretches across eastern states such as New York and Pennsylvania.

            The drilling of the Marcellus shale formation has revitalized and introduced new jobs to the states in which it is located. Pennsylvania is where the first oil well in the U.S was drilled in 1859 which prompted the first oil boom (Cruz et al). The state then went on to dominate oil production in the 19^th century until Texas took over at the start of the 20^th century (Cruz et al). Factors such as the introduction of fracking and the usefulness of shale as a gas source have given Pennsylvania a new place in the American oil industry. As a result, Pennsylvania went from being the 10th-largest state by oil and natural gas employment in 2007 to being the 6th largest in 2012 (Cruz et al).  From 2007-2012 employment in Pennsylvania’s oil and natural gas increased by 15,114 (259.3 percent) while wages in the industry rose by $22,104 (36.3 percent) to $82,974 (Cruz et al). Pennsylvania is just one example of the economic benefits fracking has.

Due to hydraulic fracturing, the oil industry supported 2.1 million jobs in 2012 and is predicted to support 3.9 million by the year 2025 (EIA). In addition an IHS study found that ‘the shale gas contribution to GDP was $76.9 billion in 2010, will increase to $118 billion by 2015, and will nearly triple to $231 billion in 2035,’ all in 2010 dollars’ (Efstathiou).The natural gas  extracted from fracking has also seen an increase in its use as an alternative energy source. For example, factories can now burn this natural gas instead of coal for energy. Because the U.S now has a large supply of gas, this in turn caused energy prices to drop. Between 2007-2013, consumer gas bills dropped by $13 billion per year as a result of fracking (Hausman et al).  In addition to more affordable energy and a boom in the energy industry, a large supply of natural gas gives the U.S less incentive to import.

The declining need to import oil from other parts of the world is a great thing for the United States. Having its own large supply of natural gas will allow the U.S to stop relying on Middle Eastern countries and Venezuela for its supply. Not only does signify economic independence from these countries, but also political independence, as these countries do not always agree with the actions taken by the U.S. According to a prediction based on current trends by the EIA (U.S Energy Information Administration), the United States will become a net exporter of oil by the year 2020 (EIA). In the event that this does occur, the U.S economy will grow even further. The ability to export oil will allow the U.S to sell oil to its allies, one prime example being the European Union. The E.U has long been dependent on countries such as Russia and Iran for its oil. This fact plays a large part in global politics, as Europe is usually hesitant to join countries such as the U.S to place trade sanctions on Russia or Iran as consequences for certain actions they have taken. The ability to get its oil from the United States will also give the E.U political and economic independence from these countries. With this and the many supporting facts that fracking is beneficial to the American economy, it is clear why people support it.

On the opposite side of the debate on fracking, there are those who don’t agree that the facts previously listed are worth the risk. Those who oppose fracking do so on the grounds that the damage it does to the environment is not worth the economic gains. There are numerous environmental organizations that feel that fracking needs to be stopped immediately before irreversible damage is done. In addition some politicians feel that fracking needs to be under heavy regulation, as seen by the proposed “FRAC ACT” legislation (Rosenberg et al). This proposed legislation would allow states to regulate hydraulic fracturing and would close the loopholes which allow the oil companies to operate as they please. For example, the injection of wastewater from fracking into the ground is exempt from following the Safe Drinking Water Act (1975), which regulates the addition of waste to water supplies. As of right now fracking is very loosely regulated and the oil companies can almost do as they please, such as not disclosing the chemicals which they pump into the fracking sites.

As stated before, in the process of hydraulic fracturing a mixture called “fracking fluid” is pumped into the well to amplify and expedite the extraction of natural gases. This mixture is composed of water, sand and various chemicals which include toxins and carcinogens such as methanol, lead, mercury and uranium (Howarth et al). However, companies are not required to disclose what is used in their mixtures and this in turn makes it difficult for the local resident and emergency personnel to deal with any threats that may arise as a result (Howarth et al). One of the main concerns with fracking is the possible contamination of the environment with these dangerous chemicals.

During hydraulic fracturing, measures are taken place to avoid the contamination of the environment. Such measures include, firstly lowering a steel casing then pouring concrete down the well which is being “fracked” to hold the steel casing in place (Valentine). This casing is meant to prevent any chemicals from the fracking fluid from seeping out into the ground, and when done correctly, it is effective in doing so. However, this is not always the case as there are some fracking sites where the workers are careless and do a poor job when securing the casing. Another measure taken is to drill below the water table to prevent the contamination of the water. Even so, there have been over 1,000 reported cases of water contamination in areas where fracking and gas extraction have taken place (Keene et al).

In the event where the correct precautions have not been taken, the chemicals will seep out and into the ground and water. The concentration of methane in water supplies used for drinking which are located near fracking sites have been reported to be 17 times higher than normal(Rosenberg et al). A recent study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which looked at contaminated drinking water in Texas and Pennsylvania (Valentine). This study confirmed that the contamination had taken place due to failures in the cementing and casing process. However some researchers such as Robert Poreda from the University of Rochester believed that “Many of the leaks probably occur when natural gas travels up the outside of the borehole, potentially even thousands of feet, and is released directly into drinking-water aquifers”(Valentine).Whether the actual hydraulic fracturing causes contamination or not is another controversial topic in this debate. In August 2014, Pennsylvania alone made 243 cases of contamination linked to oil and gas operations public (Valentine). In addition in September 2014, researchers at the University of Texas found that levels of “arsenic, selenium and strontium were higher than the EPA’s limits in some private wells located within about 1.8 miles of natural gas wells” (Valentine). Besides the risk of contamination due to chemicals, fracking also produces toxic wastewater which poses a threat to the environment.

After a fracking job has taken place, the toxic wastewater that is left over is often left to evaporate in pits near the fracking site. The theory behind this is that the water will evaporate and take care of the waste in a sanitary and safe manner. However the toxins found in the wastewater have been linked to air pollution (Howarth et al). There have been reports from those who live in areas in which fracking takes place who claim health issues caused by fracking, specifically in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air has compiled a list of those affected by fracking, dubbed the “List of the Harmed” (Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air). These reports include inflammation of the cornea and blisters appearing in the mouth, and also include harm done to animals which usually consists of dead cows or goats and stillborn livestock.

Another area of concern when it comes to fracking is the use of fresh water for the operation. For each fracking job, approximately 1-8 million gallons of water are used, and this water is usually acquired from a fresh water source near the area (Howarth et al). The use of such large amounts of freshwater poses a threat to not only humans who rely on those sources for drinking water, but also to the ecological health to those areas. Recently parts of the United States have been experiencing droughts and in a situation like this, abusing the freshwater sources only makes it worse. In addition to the large amounts of water, hydraulic fracturing requires also supplies such as concrete and heavy machinery. Fracking sites are usually located in more rural areas and the transport of supplies to these areas causes drastic changes. These rural areas are often transformed into industrial highways to ease the flow of materials.

Additional issues linked to hydraulic fracturing include the displacement of families who occupy these rural areas in which the drilling takes place. Reasons for these displacements usually include the need to move due to health reasons or extortion by the oil companies to sell the land. Another interesting argument against hydraulic fracturing is the theory that it can cause “seismic events”, or earthquakes. The USGS (U.S Geological Survey) has confirmed that oil and gas drilling is responsible for earthquakes in at least eight states (TheGuardian.com). According to the research, these man made earthquakes are caused when fracking is done near pre-existing faults. It has also been linked to the injection of wastewater into deep underground wells which are located near faults as well (TheGuardian.com). These earthquakes are not always minor either, as a 5.7 magnitude quake was experienced in Oklahoma in 2011 (TheGuardian.com). The rising frequency and magnitude of these quakes can potentially cause damage to surrounding homes and other structures near the fracking sites.

When it comes to the environmental benefits of fracking, the negatives far outweigh the positives. The only positive environmental aspect of fracking is that the burning of natural gases instead of coal has caused a large drop in carbon emissions (Keene et al). However on the other hand, fracking is seen as too valuable because of its good for the American economy. This is seen by the rise of employment is the gas and energy industries, the large contribution of these industries to the GDP, and the now large domestic supply of oil and natural gas which we now have access to. The controversy surrounding hydraulic fracturing is one of profit vs. the environment; each side has indisputable facts and arguments but it is up to the American public to decide. Yale University conducted a study on the varying views and opinions of Americans on fracking. For those who had a preexisting opinion on fracking, the survey reported that 59% thought it was bad against 42% who supported it (Clarke et al). From this survey it is clear to see that the public opinion is split almost 50/50.

America today is more dependent on oil and natural resources than ever before; these are required to power our homes, vehicles and our large cities. Our way of life relies heavily on oil and how much of it we have and fracking is the answer to this. However, the Earth’s supply of fossil fuels is constantly being depleted and will eventually run out. Fracking is a short term answer but has the potential to cause long term environmental problems if it is not placed under heavy regulation. The environment is crucial to our survival, but greed is also an innate human nature. This split attitude of wanting to earn a profit and wanting to protect the environment sets the stage for the debate on the value of fracking.

Works Cited

Clarke,"C.E.,"Boudet,"H.S.,"&"Bugden,"D."(2013)"Fracking in the American Mind: Americans’

Views on Hydraulic Fracturing in September, 2012. Yale"University"and"George"

Mason"University."New"Haven,"CT:"Yale"Project"on"Climate"Change"Communication."

http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/reports

Cruz, Jennifer, Peter W. Smith, and Sara Stanley. "The Marcellus Shale Gas Boom In Pennsylvania:

Employment And Wage Trends." Monthly Labor Review (2014): 1-12. Business Source

Complete. Web. 6 May 2015.

Efstathiou, Jim, Jr. "Fracking Will Support 1.7 Million Jobs, Study Shows."Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg,

23 Oct. 2012. Web. 9 May 2015.

Hausman, Kelly, and Ryan Kellog. "Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale Gas."

 The Brookings Institution. Brookings, 2 Mar. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.

Howarth, Robert W., Anthony Ingraffea, and Terry Engelder. "Natural Gas: Should Fracking Stop?."

 Nature 477.7364 (2011): 271-275. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2015.

Keene, Doug, and Rita Handrich. "Hydrofracking & The Environment: Juror Attitudes, Beliefs, And

Priorities." Jury Expert 24.5 (2012): 22-30. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2015.

Richardson, John. "The History of Fracking (A Timeline)."Http://energywithjr.quora.com/. Quora, 23

Feb. 2013. Web. 3 May 2015.

Rosenberg, Andrew A., et al. "Exposing Fracking To Sunlight." Issues In Science & Technology 31.1

(2014): 74-79. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 May 2015.

Works Cited (Continued)

Valentine, Katie. "Study Links Water Contamination To Fracking Operations In Texas And

Pennsylvania." ThinkProgress RSS. ThinkProgress.org, 15 Sept. 2014. Web. 5 May 2015.

"List of the Harmed." Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air. Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean

Water and Air, 21 May 2012. Web. 12 May 2015.

Oil and Gas Drilling Triggers Man-made Earthquakes in Eight States, USGS

Finds." Http://www.theguardian.com/. TheGuardian, 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 1 May 2015.

"U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis." U.S. Energy

Information Administration (EIA). U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 14 Apr.

2015.Web. 6 May 2015.

Annotated Bibliography

·         “Exposing Fracking to Sunlight”- This article compiled the negative effects of fracking and gave brief explanations on each. In addition, the article mentioned some of the laws concerning the environment that fracking was able to bypass. The part of my paper which speaks about the negative views of fracking is formulated mostly off of this article. Based off of this, I was able to narrow down my research and focus on specific concerns on fracking.

·         “The Marcellus Shale gas boom in Pennsylvania: employment and wage trends”- The first half of my paper speaks about the economic benefits that result from fracking. Pennsylvania contains part of the area known as the Marcellus Shale which is an important area for fracking. This article focuses on the economic effects which fracking has had on Pennsylvania’s economy. The facts and statistics found in this article give me an example to support the statement that fracking is good for the economy.

·         “Hydrofracking & the Environment”: Juror Attitudes, Beliefs, and Priorities”- This article is interesting because it is a prime example of both the duality of fracking and the American view towards it. The article again lists some positives and negatives of fracking, but it also speaks of the attitude of the general American public. Statistics included show the shift in concern from the environment to concern from the economy.

·         “Should Fracking Stop?”- This source was helpful because it explained the technicality and actual process of hydraulic fracturing. The illustrations and explanations made it clear how exactly fracking worked. In addition, it contains supporting arguments for both sides of the controversy on fracking. With the points listed in this article, I was able to formulate what I was going to write about for each view on fracking.

·         “Study Links Water Contamination To Fracking Operations In Texas And Pennsylvania”- For the part of my paper where I speak of the possible contamination of the environment and water supplies, this article was my primary source. It contains examples of when this contamination has taken place as well as explaining the possible causes for the contamination.