Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
J Dallon Allred
ENG2010
Blankenship
9 September, 2018
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
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
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
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
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
“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.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
impact-of-fracking/.
2011, www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/environmental-impacts-
water/.
Government, United States. “Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Development.” EPA,
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.”
fracking-contamination-drinking-water.
www.heartland.org/topics/energy/fracking-facts/index.html.
Greenstone, Michael. “Fracking Has Its Costs And Benefits -- The Trick Is Balancing Them.”
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
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