by Jelani Ramsay

The Problem

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a process of drilling into the earth and extracting oil and natural gas by forcefully injecting a mixture of water and chemicals.  Hydraulic fracturing poses an environmental and health risk to the ecosystem and all Americans living in the vicinity of a fracking well.  The severity of the dangers posed by fracking is evident through the extensive list of public complaints and allegations of illnesses developed and reported in various areas throughout the United States. Some of these states include Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, Alabama, Virginia Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. Many of the residents in the aforementioned areas noticed various issues since the establishment of gas wells. Some residents claim to have unpleasant taste and odor in the drinking water, loss of water in wells and aquifers, discharge water developing swamps and ponds, and an impact on wildlife, fish and vegetation.[i] These incidences are said to cause collateral damage to the surrounding areas, which can consist of a decline in property value, limited mortgage loans for prospective homebuyers and possible loss of revenues for farmers.[ii] In addition, the Associated Press found thousands of complaints from the following states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Texas.[iii]

These public complaints express the severity of the dangers fracking poses to the environment, the ecosystem, and the American public. These dangers affect people from all walks of life. Residents like Jacki Schilke (a farmer) and her sixty cattle living in Bakken Shale, North Dakota have been drastically affected by fracking. Schilke once ate and shared her black Angus beef, but no longer does since fracking began near her 160-acre ranch. This is due to the spontaneous death of her five cows. In addition, Schilke began to develop poor health; She feels lightheaded when she goes outside, has chronic pain in her lungs, as well as rashes that have lingered for a year. A certified environmental consultant analyzed the air quality around Schilkes ranch and detected high levels of “benzene, methane, chloroform, butane, propane, toluene and xylene—compounds associated with drilling and fracking, and also with cancers, birth defects and organ damage.”[iv] In addition to the poor air quality, Schilkes water well tested high for “sulfates, chromium, chloride and strontium; her blood tested positive for acetone, plus the heavy metals arsenic (linked with skin lesions, cancers and cardiovascular disease) and germanium (linked with muscle weakness and skin rashes). Both she and her husband, who works in oilfield services, have recently lost crowns and fillings from their teeth; tooth loss is associated with radiation poisoning and high selenium levels, also found in the Schilkes’ water”[v].

Some claim that fracking is not a serious enough of a problem because there are not an abundance of national complaints statistically. Many say this is the result of non-disclosure agreements by the gas companies.[vi] These agreements have been distorting the reality of the problem thereby hiding the seriousness.

Policy Options

Increased Federal Regulation

The increased regulation should consist of: (1) eliminating the exemptions under Energy Policy Act of 2005, (2) disclosing all chemicals used in the fracking process, and (3) setting minimum environmental regulatory standards. Removing the exemption/provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 can increase the quality of water and penalize companies for their negligence if caught contaminating underground water. In addition minimum standards of operation should be set with restrictions to sensitive lands (e.g. watersheds). This option will, essentially, call for environmental federalism pertaining to fracking.

A start to addressing this matter is by passing the Fracturing Responsibility Awareness of Chemicals act (FRAC act). The FRAC act is a great law to begin the above process. It will “require disclosure of the chemical constituents used in the fracturing process, but not the proprietary chemical formula…Oil and gas companies would have to reveal the chemicals but not the specific formula. Disclosure would be to the state, or to EPA, but only if EPA has primary enforcement responsibility in the state.  The disclosures would then be made available to the public online.”[vii] This will help further the environmental research surround hydrofracking thereby effectively protecting the environment and the public.Increasing fracking regulation will help protect Americans, the land, air, and water from contamination. By eliminating the fracturing loopholes and setting minimum standards, there will be a reduction of toxic/hazardous fracking waste. This will hold fracking waste to the same standards as other hazardous waste throughout the nation.

Fracking Ban

Banning Hydraulic fracturing from being practiced in the U.S. will definitely eradicate all of the associated risk that comes with fracking. Citizens will not have to worry about their water, air, and land being polluted or having the potential to be polluted since there will be no more operating fracking wells. However, this option can put a damper on the American economy since many jobs created by fracking will we be lost, profits will diminish, and GDP will decrease. According to IHS Global Insight, “Imports of oil and natural gas would increase by 50% by 2014, resulting in a peak 2.32% reduction in GDP, relative to the Reference case, or a loss of $374 billion in 2015 alone”[viii]. In addition, the 1.7 million jobs that were created through fracking will all be lost. However, by banning fracking further research can be funded and conducted on cleaner alternative energy sources that will have limited to no impact on the environment, ecosystem, and Americans.

State and Local Regulation

The final option is to regulate fracking at the state and local level. This option allows the public along with the state and local elected officials to choose what is best for the residents. Since states are more privy to the geographical land matters and economic conditions of their states, this form of regulation can be beneficial. In addition, local governments are closest to fracking operations and the impact on the public. According to the Pennsylvania Governor Thomas W. Corbett “States have a greater interest in what is going to be in the best interest of their residents and businesses than the federal government does.”[ix] This sentiment is expressed in states throughout the nation and is the preferred regulation for the gas companies due to limited bureaucratic cost and red tape.

Many claim there is no need to change regulation since there are sufficient regulations in place to manage the fracking industry. The already established fracking regulation is perceived to be sufficient in many states since gas drillers have to abide by various state and local laws in place. Supporters of state and local regulation claim that adding federal regulations will be excessive, costly, and can diminish future profits. According to IHS Global Insight, “Implementation of [federal] regulations on oil and gas drilling would result in a 20.5% reduction of new wells drilled over a five year period and a 10% loss of natural gas production within five years. Given the tenuous balance between supply and demand, a loss of 2.1 tcf (6 bcf/day) would result in more imports of pipeline natural gas and LNG.”[x] Federal regulation can put a damper on future production and profits.

 

Endnotes

[i] Pontius, Frederick W. Legislation/regulation: Hydraulic Fracturing: Is Regulation Needed? Pontius Journal. American Water Works Association. Vol. 101, No. 9 (September 2009) , pp. 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 Web. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41313595.

[ii] Pennsylvania Community Rights Network (2010, November 16). The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund : Press Release: Pittsburgh Bans Natural Gas Drilling. Web. Retrieved from http://www.celdf.org/press-release–pittsburgh-bans-natural-gas-drilling

[iii] Begos, Kevin (2014, January 5). 4 States Confirm Water Pollution from Drilling. Associated Press via USA Today. Web. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/

[iv] Royte, Elizabeth (2012, November 28). Fracking Our Food Supply | The Nation. Web. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/171504/fracking-our-food-supply

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Drajem, Mark (2013, June 6). Drillers Silence Fracking Claims With Sealed Settlements –               Bloomberg. Web. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/drillers-   silence-fracking-claims-with-sealed-settlements.html

[vii] Degette, Diana (2011, March 14). To repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for other purposes. Web. Retrieved from http://polis.house.gov/uploadedfiles/3-15_frac.pdf

[viii] IHS Global Insight (2009). Measuring the Economic and Energy Impacts of Proposals to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing. Web. Retrieved from http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Exploration/IHS-GI-Hydraulic-Fracturing-Natl-impacts.pdf

[ix] Corbett, Thomas (2013, March 25). Fracking Rules? Leave Them to the States. Web. Retrieved from online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324103504578377950606541958

[x] IHS Global Insight (2009). Measuring the Economic and Energy Impacts of Proposals to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing.