The Environmental, Economic, Legal, and Political Aspects of Fracking - Term Paper Example

Business 24 October The Environmental, Economic, Legal and Political Aspects of Fracking Introduction Fracking has often received a lot of criticism. Drillers always maintain that the process is well managed as it is tightly controlled and takes place far below the ground water levels, but it possesses environmental, legal and political consequences. As the shale revolution has gained fame, it has triggered a lot of protests from the Grand Rapids to Paris, as protestors call for a global frack down. Fracking is also known as hydraulic fracturing. It involves the extraction of natural gas from shale rock layers located deep within the earth. The process itself involves drilling, explosions, use of toxic chemicals and pumping millions of gallons of water at crushing pressures. In Pennsylvania alone, it has been reported that companies have planned for over fifty sites to work on. Though fracking has been conducted responsibly, the industry does not have a very good track record because from time to time, gas well blow outs, poisoned of water sources, pollution of soil and air , and compromise on the health of people and animals have been reported. Once a shale formation has fracked, it cannot be unfracked and brought together once again. It is therefore very important for thorough research to be conducted before fracking begins, especially in places where the population is very dense (Prud'homme 70). 2. The Environmental, Economic, Legal and Political Consequences of Unlimited Fracking 2.1 Environmental consequences There are many consequences that come with embracing unlimited hydraulic fracturing or fracking. In the United States, it was reported that by 2012, approximately one million oil and gas wells had been drilled and fracked. The critics and supporters of the fracking process have been left on a cross road, since none of the groups knows whether it is correct. There are risks that come with the fluids used in the drilling process as well as the effects of the natural gas that is released into the environment (Healy 11). The following are the environmental consequences that come with unlimited fracking: a. Ground water Contaminations This is the most familiar consequence of the fracking process. The potential risk to ground water contamination comes from two sources. According to research conducted in 2012 by the University of Texas, there are several incidents of possible contamination in the United States that show no confirmed evidence of ground water contamination from the subsurface fracking itself, but rather from leakage that stems from fracking related waste water above the ground (Healy 12). The potential causes of the contamination of water in the fracking process are suspected to be overweight drilling mud that causes drilling fluids to leak from the well bore to acquifers near the surface; this happens because shale contains large quantities of harmful chemical elements and compounds that are dissolved in the fracking fluid, which later returns to the surface during flow back. Solid components entering the flow back fluid from the shale leading to contamination, as well as poorly done well bore casing (Healy 12). Subsurface and surface blow outs have been recorded in the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Colorado in United States. Blow outs in the ground lead to surface spillage and this often results to contamination of water (Healy 15). b. Emissions into the atmosphere This is another aspect that shows the consequences of fracking to the environment. The gas and vapor emitted from the fluid to the atmosphere affects the environment. The methane released during the fracking process is said to have a higher greenhouse gas, for example coal. The drillers involved in these operations should thereof ore ensure that the emission of these gases is minimized (Healy 15). There have been reports of homes that have exploded in Colorado and Ohio. Wyoming has had its residents advised to run the electric fans when showering so as to avoid explosions (Perrow 12). In south east Ohio, Wayne Forest which is the only natural forest has been affected by unlimited fracking, as it has recently faced an imminent gas and oil lease sale of more than 3000 acres. This shows that this process of fracking needs careful calculations before the process itself is effected. 2.2 Economic consequences It may be argued that unlimited fracking only holds negative consequences on the economy of United States. However, to some extent, unlimited fracking has beneficial to the economy of the United States. The supporters of the fracking process have argued that economically, it provides thousands of jobs and especially to the economically depressed regions. For example, fracking has already provided jobs for many people in Southern Tier, which is a region along the northern border of Pennsylvania. The state of Ohio has also been reported to have the potential to create many jobs from fracking in the near future (Lydersen midwestenergynews.com). The United States natural gas reserves have been increased to 75% by fracking and this is advantageous to the economy (Pierce 2-3). This will increase manufacturing activity by reducing the cost of energy. It will also boost the economy as the costs of transportation will be reduced since heavy trucks, construction equipment and trains will be converted from expensive petroleum consuming machinery to machinery using cheaper natural gas. Fracking has also boosted the economy as the costs of paying for natural gas by the consumers are minimal (Pierce 5). 2.3 Legal consequences The chemicals used during the fracking process have been exempted from the federal disclosure laws. This is due to the famous language of the federal law in 2005 known as Halliburton Loophole, which exempts drillers from the Clean Water Act. There are a number of states that have passed their disclosure laws that the drillers should disclose the kind of chemicals that they use when drilling; a good example is Pennsylvania. Other states such as Colorado have not yet passed these laws, but they have reached that point since they are in the process of writing the disclosure regulations. 2.4 Political Consequences of Unlimited Fracking It is very surprising to find that fracking has consequences even in politics. Over the years, Britain has been seen to copy almost everything from America and recently, they have been eyeing the energy revolution in America that has come with fracking. The prime minister of Britain has been advocating for fracking, but this has been faced with resistance from some of the political groups. The debate on whether Britain should embrace fracking is seen to divide Britain. For example, South West Sussex is one region where fracking has faced opposition. Lord David Howell of Guildford in South London has also opposed fracking by arguing that fracking has risks, and thus the government should look for places away from any residents to conduct the process. In a way, he is indirectly opposing the hydraulic fracturing (Cowell nytimes.com). 3. Comparison between the Advantages and Disadvantages of Fracking 3.1 The advantages of fracking Although fracking has received a lot of opposition over the years, it has been found to hold a number of benefits. These include: a. Boosting the energy production In the United States, fracking has boosted the production of energy. Since 2010, the Btu amounts of energy produced by the United States have increased making the nation top among natural gas producers (Hasset and Mathur aei.org). b. Job provision Fracking has provided job opportunities especially to those who are directly employed in the process itself. In states such as New York which has high unemployment rates as well as in Pennsylvania and Ohio, fracking has contributed to many having jobs (Hasset and Mathur aei.org). c. Production of more energy for industries Fracking has benefited the industrial sector and this can be seen or felt especially in electricity generation. As the production of natural gas has increased in the United States over the years, its consumption has also increased. Fracking has increased energy generation from about 23 quadrillion Btu to around 24 quadrillion (Hasset and Mathur aei.org). d. Cheaper cost of living The coast of living has also become cheaper as natural gas prices have also decreased worldwide. Many people have used a lot of money in purchasing fuel for their transportation but with the emergence of the fracking process more and more energy is produced and thus making energy readily available for consumption (Hasset and Mathur aei.org). 3.2 The disadvantages of fracking a. Health risks Fracking poses serious risks to the health of the human beings. In 2012, an agency that worked for the congress concluded that the fracking poses great dangers to health and environment as there is the release of the methane gas (Hoffman carleton.edu). The methane gas has contributed to continuing global warming or in other words, increased greenhouse effect. A research which was done on the chemicals that are used in this process found out that 75% of the gases that are used in the fracking process affect the skin, eyes, and other sensory organs, as well as the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems (Hoffman carleton.edu). Additionally, about 45-50% of the gases are capable of affecting the brain, kidneys, cardiovascular system, immune system and the nervous system (Hoffman carleton.edu). b. Environmental risks Fracking has been associated with causing earthquakes. Wells filled with waste injection fluids at oil gas fields are at risk of small earthquakes. More earthquakes are on the rise as companies use water and chemicals in the fracking process. As the gas and oil are pumped into the sub-surface, the pressure weakens the nearby faults, and leaves them vulnerable to seismic waves from one earthquake to another; this causes stronger and stronger earthquakes (Hoffman carleton.edu). Fracking has led to contamination of water resources. The chemicals that are injected into the ground are said to migrate towards drinking water supplies. The wells that are dug are said to produce millions and millions of toxic fluids containing not only the added chemicals, but also other naturally occurring radioactive materials. The Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Geological Survey have recently confirmed claims by residents of Pavilion, Wyoming that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated their ground water (Hoffman carleton.edu). 4. Regulations and Taxing of Fracking in the States of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Colorado States such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Colorado have been trying to confront the costs and benefits of hydraulic fracturing in different ways because of the water, sand and chemicals that are injected at very high pressures. While the industries argue and maintain that fracking is safe and that it has allowed increased production of energy, the environmental groups are still not in support of it. 4.1 Pennsylvania When it comes to taxing of natural gas, by 2012, Pennsylvania was the only major gas producing state that did not tax its production. However, in February the same year, the house and the senate approved a compromise plan for a local impact fee for the drillers of natural gas. They were advocating for a bill that could allow the fee to fluctuate with the prices of gas. It has been argued that if taxes are imposed on natural gases, predicting drillers would shun Pennsylvania. The bill to allow the production of natural gas in all zonings even in residential areas has received a lot of opposition from many democrats, who have held that it was just crafted by the republicans and the gas industry (“Pennsylvania and Fracking,” Sourcewatch.org). 4.2 Ohio The governor of Ohio, John Kasich has proposed changes on how the state is to tax and regulate oil and natural gas drilling. He terms his proposed changes as leading the nation with a comprehensive energy strategy. His proposal includes a higher tax for drillers to pay (Niquette businessweek.com). Today, other states have turned Ohio to be their dumping ground, since there are more than five hundred and twenty six wells that have been drilled, and this has resulted to a proposal to increase the severance tax on oil and gas production. The administrations argue that that severance tax is even lower compared to other oil and gas producing states. Such a proposal of increasing the severance tax will not help Ohio; rather, it will be dangerous to its economic growth and prosperity (Guest Columnist Cleveland.com). 4.3 Colorado Colorado has taken an interesting approach on the thorny issue of whether the oil and gas companies should keep chemicals they use private or not. Several states including Pennsylvania simply let drillers dictate whether to keep it a secret or not. In Colorado, a new regulation was introduced in the year 2012. Companies were required to sign a legally-binding form to declare a chemical proprietary and if they didn’t comply, they were to be charged with perjury (Oldham bloomberg.com). The new regulations by the oil and gas conservation commission in Colorado, which went into effect in August 2013, require wells to be at least 500 meters from the nearest building, and also demand for a pre-drilling notice for nearby landowners, and measures that will reduce noise, odors, dust and light (Oldham bloomberg.com). 5. Do We Need More Fracking Laws in Ohio? A lot is unknown and is yet to be discovered when it come to the impacts of fracking that even the regulators in Ohio have admitted that there are many unknowns. There have been developments on regulations by the OEC and the Ohio Environmental Law Centers to present to ODNR and Ohio EPA that will make sure that the environment (that is the air, water and lands) in Ohio is well protected. More laws that can quickly and cost-effectively settle disputes that come with fracking are need in Ohio. Ohio laws are similar and in some way broader than the federal laws that have been set for the environment and health. These laws do not provide for sanctions to be imposed to those who endanger the environment, for instances of pollution caused by fracking and thus they have proven to be difficult. The current laws have been criticized as being inadequate to properly regulate the business owned by the high class people, like the drillers. The 2013-2014 Ohio General Assembly has introduced bills that will see new regulations being imposed on fracking. These bills are such as requirements that an owner of a well should submit more specific information and identification of any chemicals that will be used in stimulation of a well before even being drilled (“What you should Know,” ohiobar.org). Thus the Ohio administration needs to introduce more laws so as to ensure that the environment and the people are not affected. The introduction of more laws in Ohio will be an assurance that water resources are well protected, and that drinking water will be free from both natural and manmade contaminates. For example, the Safe Drinking Water Act has ensured that ground water is not contaminated. Thus with more strict laws, the environment will be protected. 6. The Pros and Cons of introducing more Fracking Laws in Ohio The introduction of more laws will protect Ohio from being converted into a dumping site, as the already existing laws seem incapable. The environment has been endangered since more states continue to bring waste into the state of Ohio. The state has become a dumping ground for the fracking industry that has boomed in other states such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and most recently, Eastern Ohio. Records from the Department of Natural Resources have shown that the 179 underground disposal wells have absorbed more than one billion gallons of fracking waste water since 2010 (Ludwig truth-out.org). Thought the introduction of more fracking laws will have advantages on the state of Ohio, there will also be disadvantages. Any gas and oil industry with the aim of investing in this state will be discouraged as the laws will not favor them. They will keep away from investing and thus there will be shortage of jobs. The economy of such a state will not be good and thus will lag behind. Additionally, if companies do not invest, then the energy costs will rise as there will be no alternative sources of fuel for consumption, and this will increase the cost of living in Ohio. 7. My impression Fracking has both advantages and disadvantages to the environment, economy, laws and even politics. It is a very delicate process that should be carefully thought about before the actual drilling is done. This is because after the research, I have the impression that the risks are too many, especially when it comes to the environment. There are other ways that different countries and states can supplement their energy production, rather than through fracking. More laws and more strict ones should be introduced to any state which has embraced, or is planning to embrace fracking in order to counter the negative effects that come with it. The companies should also be urged to use chemicals that are not harmful because as the harm continues, the environmental hazards will continue to increase and may even result to deaths. Works Cited Cowell, Alan. “Fracking Debate Divides Britain.” nytimes.com. 15 August 2013. Web 24 2013. Guest Columnist. “Increased Fracking Tax Could Send Gas Companies Packing: Thomas Stewart, Ohio Oil and Gas Association.” Cleveland.com. 13 September 2013. Web. 24 October 2013. Hasset, Kevin A. and Aprna Mathur. “Benefits of Hydraulic Fracking.” aei.org. 4 April 2013. Web. 24 October 2013. Healy, Dave. Hydraulic Fracturing or ‘Fracking’: A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts. 2012. PDF file. Hoffman, Joe. “Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana.” 16 September 2013. Web. 24 October 2013. Ludwig, Mike. “Resistance in Ohio, Fracking’s Dumping Ground.” truth-out.org. 23 May 2013. Web. 24 October 2013. Lydersen, Kari. “U.S. Chambers Fracking Job Boom: Behind the Numbers.” 1 October 2013. Web. 26 October 2013. Niquette, Mark. “Kasich Wants Tougher Regulations, Taxes on Ohio’s Drillers.” businessweek.com. 14 March 2012. Web. 24 October 2013. Oldham, Jennifer. “Colorado Fracking Stresses Regulators as Permits Bids Soar.” bloomberg.com. 8 August 2013. Web. 24 October 2013. “Pennsylvania and Fracking.” Sourcewatch.org. 15 October 2013. Web. 24 October 2013. Perrow, Charles. The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print. Pierce, Richard J. Natural Gas Fracking addresses all of Our Major Problems. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works, 2013. PDF file. Prud'homme, A. Hydrofracking: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. “What you should know about ‘Fracking’ in Ohio.” ohiobar.org. 2013. Web. 24 October 2013. Read More