Fracking: A Problematic Solution

            In recent years, exploitation of unconventional oil and natural gas reserves in the United States has generated much controversy. At the height of the debate is a relatively new fossil fuel mining method called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Unlike conventional drilling, fracking utilizes water and chemicals under pressure to fracture underground shale rock, thus releasing, what is referred to as shale gas or oil, which may be trapped within it (King). While the technique has existed for over a century, new chemical and drilling advancements have caused it to boom since the 1990s. The method has proven successful at tapping once inaccessible reserves throughout the country and the world, but has also posed several new risks to the environment and public health. In response to numerous cases of contaminated land and water supplies as result of fracking activities, states have begun to regulate the relatively new industry. Supporters believe strongly that the benefits it would have for United States energy security far outweigh the disadvantages and that regulations should be lifted to increase access to public and private land. However, considering evidence from past fracking accidents, it is hard to say that promoting it would be in the best interest of the American people. Due to its potentially damaging effects on the environment and public health, fracking should not be pursued as a method to reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign energy.  

            According to advocates, bans and regulations on fracking should be loosened, in order to decrease the United States’ dependence on foreign energy and boost the economy. According to the American Petroleum Institute, “fracking has been used in more than one million U.S. wells, and has safely produced more than seven billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas” (“Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow”). Advocates maintain that even with so much past production, environmental impact has been minimal. It is also believed that with further exploitation of once inaccessible oil and natural gas reserves, the United States will significantly reduce oil imports from foreign countries. Domestic fracking has the ability to make trillions of cubic feet of natural gas available for our use (“Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow”). Considering that natural gas is a relatively clean fossil fuel, it would not only improve our energy security, but could help usher in a new gas-powered economy. With conventional oil supplies on the decline, it seems to some, that fracking will be our best option to supply our future energy needs.

To some degree, advocates of fracking have a point. History has shown us that when we depend too much on foreign oil, we are susceptible to the instabilities of the countries we import from. In 1973, OPEC countries, angered about United States support for Isreal in the Yom Kippur War, embargoed all petroleum shipments to the United States and its allies, causing an energy crisis. The result quadrupled the cost of oil per barrel, and caused massive shortages of gasoline, diesel, and other essential oil based products (“1973 Oil Crisis”). To avoid such crises again, we would logically need to become more self-reliant in the energy sector. While the United States has been decreasing oil production since 1970, fracking is one way that we could slightly rebound that decline (EIA). According to the United States Energy Information Administration, there is an estimated 862 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable natural gas from fracking within the borders of the United States (EIA). Natural gas from fracking could be a good alternative to oil as supporters of the drilling method often highlight. With oil steadily increasing in price and decreasing in supply, there will come a time when we will no longer be able to use oil to power our economy. The massive natural gas resource the United States has would clearly make us one of the world’s leading producers, but in turn may severely damage our own land.

The use of fracking would in part increase our overall supply of oil and natural gas, but only at a cost of the local and global environment as well as public health. In the words of Laurie Gral, “Fracking has caught the public's attention by raising concerns about the contamination of water wells, air pollution, above-ground spills, earthquakes and property damage it may cause” ("Who wants to be a Shaleionaire? Hidden concerns of fracking"). There have been numerous reports recently regarding questionable drilling practices by fracking companies, some of which have to make us question whether it is worth the potential damage. There is also the issue of global environmental harm, in which the exploitation of shale gas could delay innovations in renewable energy. By making a massive fossil fuel source available, there will be little reason for people to begin moving toward alternative energies like wind or solar. With climate change becoming more and more of a threat, a delay in reducing carbon dioxide emissions could be very problematic for future generations.

The hydraulic fracturing process requires the use of various chemicals that have proven to be very damaging to the local ecosystem and especially drinking water supplies. Above ground spills of chemical laden fracking fluid have led to numerous reports of animal and plant deaths surrounding the spill according to the non-profit group Earthjustice. In one 2009 report, “nearly all of the aquatic life was wiped out along a 30-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek” in Blacksville, Virgina. (“Fracking Across the United States”). The cause was later tied to fracking fluids which were disposed of in the creek. Along with this, there have been thousands of reports nationwide of water contamination by fracking activities (Gral). The potential for water contamination is highest for underground water supplies as shown in figure 1.  

Figure 1: This diagram of hydraulic fracturing demonstrates the potential for contamination of underground water supplies (Stephens).

When water and chemicals are forced down a drill shaft, it causes fractures in the surrounding rock. As shown in figure 1, the fractures can reach very close to an underground aquifer. If there is not proper sealing between the shale rock and aquifer, it is then very likely that the aquifer will become contaminated with the chemicals. The situation can escalate if the aquifer is connected to several drinking water wells as the water may become toxic or radioactive (Gral). If regulations on fracking were loosened, the potential damage, as shown by past accidents, would be devastating to local communities relying on aquifers for water. In this sense, the damage that fracking could do would far outweigh its benefits it would have in improving energy security.

On a larger scale, by opening up United States natural gas reserves, fracking could inadvertently cause a century delay in addressing global climate change. Opponents and supporters of fracking agree that oil is a limited resource and that natural gas could, in theory, replace it with regards to transportation and energy production. While natural gas is much cleaner than oil, producing half the carbon dioxide emissions, it is still a fossil fuel, and would still contribute to global climate change (EPA). Some say that natural gas would serve as a good stepping stone to renewable energy. However, the United States’ current natural gas reserves are expected to last for at least a century given our current rate of consumption. A century of a natural gas economy, would also be a century with little in the way of environmental progress. With an abundant source of a fuel that we know well, investors would be less likely to invest in newer, more risky renewable energies. In a sense, by making natural gas more available, fracking would deter innovations that would help curb global climate change. The delay could be very damaging, if climate change predictions are correct.

            The disadvantages of fracking outweigh it advantage to provide enhanced energy security in the United States. Advocates of the drilling method acknowledge that a combination of foreign oil dependence and the depletion of our oil supplies will require us to reduce our demand on oil. A better solution than fracking however, would be by investing in renewable energies like windpower, biofuels, or solar. For New York, the possibility of transitioning their entire energy infrastructure to renewable energy is within reach as Rob Jordan of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, explains.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo will soon decide whether  to

approve hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the state. To

date, no alternative to expanded gas drilling has been proposed.

But a new study finds that it is technically and economically

feasible to convert New York's all-purpose energy infrastructure

to one powered by wind, water and sunlight. (Jordan)

The possibility for creating an economy entirely dependent on renewable energy is possible for not only New York, but the country. By investing in clean energy, the United States would be able to track on a path toward energy independence, all the while slowing the effects of climate change. It would have the same economic and energy security benefit of fracking, without the potential damage to the environment.

            The damaging effects of fracking does not justify the risk that it can pose to the environment and public health. Advocates propose that regulations on fracking should loosened in order to promote energy security for the United States. In truth, fracking would dramatically improve energy security by increasing the United States’ production of domestic fuel. The consequences, however, can be problematic for not only those living around drilling sites but for the world. Fracking would make an incredible natural gas resource available for our use, but may in turn delay progress to slow down climate change, and could cause dangerous land and water contamination. For that reason, a better alternative to improving United States energy security would be to promote and invest in clean, renewable energy.

Works Cited

"1973 Oil Crisis." Actionforex.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

"Fracking Across the United States." Map. Earthjustice.org. N.p., 9 May 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

Gral, Laurie. "Who wants to be a Shaleionaire? Hidden concerns of fracking." Journal of Property Management Jan.-Feb. 2013: 28+. Academic OneFile. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

"How Dependent Are We on Foreign Oil?" Eia.gov. United States Energy Information Administration, 13 July 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

"Hydraulic Fracturing | Energy Tomorrow." Energytomorrow.org. American Petroleum Institute, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Jordan, Rob. "Stanford Researcher Maps out an Alternative Energy Future for New York." Stanford.edu. Stanford University, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.

King, Hobart. "What Is Hydraulic Fracturing." Geology.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.

"Natural Gas." EPA.gov. Environmental Protection Agency, 17 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2013.

Stephens, Duane. "Hydraulic Fracking Has Rewarded Oil and Gas Investors." Technorati.com. N.p., 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2013.