Nathan Yacobi

Adam Padgett
English 102
April 2, 2017

Fracking the Future: Benefits and Cost of Hydraulic Fracturing

In 2009 a revolutionary new practice swept the fossil fuel industry. This new practice called
hydraulic fracturing, dubbed fracking, allowed access to previously out of reach shale formations
brimming with natural gas. Fracking has grown at an unprecedented rate. This highly debated
practice is hailed as a new age of American energy or rape of the planet depending on who is
asked. It cannot be denied that fracking has many benefits, it creates jobs and is a cleaner fossil
fuel than oil or coal. However it is not without cost. Fracking operations require immense
infrastructure to function and can cause serious, often irreparable damage to the environment. This
begs the question; does the long-term cost of fracking outweigh its immediate benefits? While
fracking has great economic benefits, the long term cost related to environmental damage outweigh
the benefits, unless something changes.

Fracking is a much of political issue as it is an environmental one. Unlike oil which can
only be found en-mass at a few locations around the world natural gas can accessed all over the
world with relative ease using fracking. This had drastically cut the need for the US to import oil
from other countries. This has boosted energy security, something many proponents of fracking
are quick to point out. In North Dakota fracking companies make up the largest employer in the
state. So much so that North Dakota has lowest unemployment rate in the country at 2.6% per
statistics from the Bureau of Labor. Opposite to this New York voted to ban fracking in 2015.
Maryland recently followed suit passing a bill which bans fracking in the state for 30 months to
allow for research and standards to regulate the practice to be done. Much of Europe has banned
the practice as well. The exception there is the UK, which is set to begin exploratory fracking
at the end of 2017. The other political issue related to fracking is on of geography. The Marcellus
shale formation in the northeast is one the largest on the continent. This land contains 50 trillion
cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. That amount of natural gas would provide enough energy
to power the United States for two years and has a market value of nearly one trillion dollars
(King). The Marcellus shale is a very valuable resource that spans into six different states. It has
no concept or respect for state borders. This creates an issue of how to distribute and regulate a
resource when several have reason to lay claim to it.

In 2000 fracking accounted for less than 2 percent of American oil production, there were
23,000 fracking sites creating 102,000 barrels of oil a day. In 2016 fracking accounted for over
50 percent of American oil production with 300,000 sites pumping out 4.3 million barrels each
day (Egan). Hydraulic fracking has also reduced energy cost for consumers in the United States.
Because of the abundance of natural gas rich shale formations gas is cheapest point in the last
two decades. Natural gas significantly cleaner fuel to burn than crude oil resulting in far less
emissions. Research by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded natural gas based power
stations emit significantly less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than coal based power
stations. The fracking boom has also created tens of thousands of jobs. Reuters reports on the
economics of fracking found that between 2005- 2012 hydraulic fracturing technology added
725,000 jobs nationwide.

The modern world runs on fossil fuels. Despite all recent advances in renewable or
alternative energy sources they do not even come close to meeting global energy demand that is
sated by fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource; they will inevitably be exhausted
and alternative energy methods must be able to meet demand. Coal and oil resources have been
used at a breakneck pace over the past two centuries. Most of the oil in the world has been
discovered, coal mining has consistently been in decline for decades. Society is approaching the
point where fossil fuel supplies will be exhausted and there is no viable alternative. Hydraulic
fracturing provides natural gas stores that give more time to research safe and effective ways of
powering the planet using renewable technologies.

All of this considered there is still significant opposition to fracking, with legitimate
reason. Disposal of spent fracking fluid, wastewater, is the common criticism of fracking. In
2014 alone 14 billion gallons of wastewater were produced as a byproduct of fracking
(Ridlington 21). Disposing of the wastewater is a major issue. To have wastewater purified
would exceed the profits of fracking, a nonviable solution. An emerging technique to dispose of
wastewater is to force it underground, into so called disposal wells. The effects of this are not
yet fully understood. In Oklahoma the United States Geological Survey (USGS) found evidence
to link an increase in earthquakes to disposal wells. The creation of these inadvertent earthquakes
is referred to as induced seismicity. The USGS report suggested that forcing wastewater back
into the ground increased pressure on surrounding faults triggering earthquakes.

Fracking in Oklahoma began in 2009, since then the number of earthquakes has increased on an
exponential scale. Coupled with the fact that the magnitude of these earthquakes also displays an
increasing trend. More and more often stronger earthquakes are rattling Oklahoma. Though no
deaths have been attributed to fracking induced earthquakes the cost of damage to infrastructure
has been great. The splitting of roads, breaking of underground lines and structural damage to
buildings is adding up. If this induced seismicity continues to worsen there is no way of
predicting what sort of damage could be done. Induced seismicity is perhaps the most serious
consequence posed by fracking. Air pollution is a long term danger, water contamination can be
treated but earthquakes are unpredictable and unstoppable.

Most wastewater is stored in massive open air containment pools, waiting for a viable
option for disposal to be found. This leads straight into another downside of fracking, water
contamination. With so much frack fluid stored in containment pools it is inevitable there will be
some leaks. In January 2015 three million gallons of fracking wastewater leach from a ruptured
pipe in North Dakota for days, contaminating nearby streams that fed into the Missouri River.
The effects can be disastrous, a 2014 study by scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory reported that nearly 10 percent of chemicals used in fracking fluid are known to be
toxic to humans or aquatic life (Theo). Chemicals in fracking have been linked to cancer,
endocrine disruption, neurological and immune system problems. Residual effects from
chemicals leaked into the environment can last for years after cleanup has occurred.

Adding to the issue of water contamination is the secrecy of fracking fluid. While
fracking fluid is 95 percent water and sand the remaining 5 percent is comprised of chemical
compounds not disclosed by companies operating hydraulic fracking operations. The exact
formula of fracking fluid is considered a trade secret and seldom shared. This makes cleaning of
spilt frack fluid very difficult due to the uncertainty of what was spilt. The lack of transparency
about the composition of frack fluid is a point of contention regulators and individuals often
address.

Hydraulic fracturing releases significantly less carbon dioxide than coal or oil. Many
advocates for fracking cited this fact as a major benefit, it is not however the whole truth.
Fracking releases large amounts of methane. A greenhouse gas even more potent than carbon
dioxide. Methane traps heat at least 87 times more effectively than carbon dioxide over a 20 year
period(Hughes). The benefit of less carbon dioxide is null when the release of methane is
accounted for. Using fracking as an alternate to coal or oil does very little to mitigate climate
change. Methane can also pollute groundwater. At high concentrations, such as the areas around
a fracking site, methane concentrations can be at high enough levels that methane can dissolve
into ground water. Studies from the EPA showed methane contamination of groundwater could
be attributed to fracking. This is a great source of concern for many people but it is not the
danger opponents of fracking make it out to be. Methane occurs naturally in groundwater in
small concentrations through a process called methane migration. Even at the levels found
around fracking sites that amount of methane contamination poses no serious risk. Methane is
non-toxic but it is explosive, at extremely high concentrations it could explode when exposed to
heat. Methane concentrations of that magnitude cannot be found outside of a lab. So yes,
fracking does release high quantities of methane that can pollute groundwater, does it pose a
danger to human health, no.
 Hydraulic fracturing is a very intensive process that requires significant infrastructure to
operate. This has led to industrialization of rural areas. To connect remote fracking sites into the
natural gas grid require tens of thousands of miles of pipeline. Previously untouched ecosystems
are covered with pipeline. The impact of fracking stretches to every corner of the country,
literally.

Fracking based communities have compared with gold mining towns of the 1850s. A
valuable resource is found and a community springs up around it. Once the last dregs of that
valuable resource are extracted everyone moves on leaving empty ghost towns. Natural gas is no
a renewable resource; one what gas is in the ground is extracted there is nothing left to do. As the
price of natural gas and other fossil fuels fluctuate there are times were the cost to operate a
hydraulic fracturing exceed profit. At this point fracking sites shut down laying off workers and
ceasing all operation, until such a time as it is profitable to resume.
 The practice of hydraulic fracturing is still an emerging industry. There is much that is
still not understood about its affects. Fracking brings undeniable benefits to the economy but at
the same time damages the environment. It is a question of if the ends justify the means, do the
benefits justify the damage done. In the short term the answer is yes, fracking brings immediate
benefits to industry, economy, and consumers. Those who receive the benefit of fracking today
may not even be alive when the negative effects of the practice come around. Todays America
receives the benefits and future America must bear the cost. The decision of whether to engage
in fracking should be made after careful consideration of what is gained versus what is lost.
However that is the present case. Technology is advancing at a pace never seen in history. It is
entirely possible advances in fracking technology will reduce the negative impact. Or fracking
could be an obsolete practice if there are great advances in renewable or nuclear energies. There
is no telling what the future holds. All perspectives considered is fracking worth it, that is
something the nation and world must decide.

Works Cited

Brantley, Susan L., and Anna Meyendorff. The Facts on Fracking. The New York
Times.
 Dutzik, Tony, Elizabeth Ridlington, and John Rumpler. The Costs of Fracking.
Environment America. Environment America Research and Policy Center, 20 Sept. 2012. Web.
27 Feb. 2017.

Egan, Matt. "Fracking now fuels half of U.S. oil output." CNNMoney. Cable News

Network, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2017.

Hughes, D. Will Natural Gas Fuel America in the 21st Century? (Post Carbon Institute,
2011)

Jackson, Robert, et al. The Environmental Cost and Benefits of Fracking. Annual Review

of Environmental Resources: Annual Reviews, 11 Aug. 2014. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

King, Hobart. "Marcellus Shale: Results Continue To Amaze Geologists". Geology.com.

N.p., 2017. Web. 9 Apr. 2017.

Mathur, Aparna, and Kevin Hassett. Benefits of Hydraulic Fracturing. AEI.org.

American Enterprise Institute. Oxford Energy Forum. 4 Apr. 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Theo, Colborn et al., Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective, Human
and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 17(5): 1039- 1056, 2011