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.
No comments:
Post a Comment