Fracking policy evaluation and recommendations for United States policymakers

While the extraction of natural gas by means of hydraulic fracturing is a decade- long practice, of late, it has witnessed immense development owing to advancements in the area of horizontal drilling which enables gas and oil operators to now harness earlier- unprofitable natural gas reserves within rock formations. Extant extraction- related policies combine state-federal alliances and voluntary endeavors by private organizations. More unprejudiced, scientific studies providing details on how fracturing and extraction potentially affect environmental media like water and air are essential, in addition to those focusing on natural gas surges’ long- term effects on local societies. Primary models and hypotheses may offer a basis to reasonably discuss possible effects.

Maintenance of the current state of affairs with regard to free market rules and governmental policies will potentially continually check short- run public expenses; however, it will not contribute sufficiently to furthering response to concerns regarding about hydraulic fracturing’s possible negative impacts on communities and nature. Supplies of natural gas will grow constantly, constraining growth of energy rates or lowering them and possibly generating income from forex. If community and environmental concerns go unsubstantiated, at the very least, economic growth will not be impacted and public expenditure will have been curbed. But the substantiation of the above concerns will render extant policies ‘too little too late’, leading to potential acute environmental damage or bankruptcy of communities addressing bust- boom impacts. Relevant policy alternatives include federal laws, conditions mandatory for fracking operators, chemical disclosure conditions, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supervision and monitoring, drilling site limitations, water supply- linked requisites and the procurement of an ample number of competent regulators.

Numerous policies which may be implemented have been put forward. Decisions pertaining to degree of regulation of extraction need to balance public safety and health, energy requirements, and the unavoidable associated bureaucracy. Research reveals horizontal drilling, shale- gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing would, on the whole, profit from 1) More organized, sustained scientific research; 2) taking into account a more robust federal or state law; 3) reviewing hydrocarbons’ (including methane’s) likely impacts on health if they enter drinking water supplies; and 4) industry- specific strategies for the development of securer, more consistent techniques of extraction.

Fracking or hydraulic fracturing constitutes a major issue plaguing America’s energy industry over the last ten years (Clark et al., 2012). It may be described as a way to increase natural gas and oil well production by opening or breaking rock formations through the utilization of high- pressure fluid injections (Finkel, Hays & Law, 2013). The above extraction mode has garnered significant focus within America as it allows extraction of gas and oil from shale rock. The process has elevated gas and oil yield in the nation, rendering it one among the world’s largest natural gas and oil producers. Estimates reveal that it will eliminate the nation’s reliance on other countries for energy by the end of this decade. In this paper, America’s fracking policy will be addressed through a review of problem background, presentation and analysis of potential policy alternatives, and recommendation of a suitable policy in this respect.

Policymakers have given much emphasis to the area of fracking with the government at the federal level, in particular, initiating numerous administrative and legal fracking- related programs for over ten years (Clark et al., 2012; Finkel et al., 2013). Coal- bed methane gas fracking went unregulated under the 1974 SWDA (Safe Drinking Water Act), which regulates underground injection endeavors via an Underground Injection Control Program. This program covers Class II natural gas/ oil- production related wells. Fracking constitutes a national- level problem but, at present, it isn’t integrated into SWDA requirements and federal environmental regulation (Finkel et al., 2013). Considering the above exception, fracking regulations have largely been affected by state governments. But America’s energy industry has demanded amendments in fracking legislation, serving as the political and historical basis for formulating federal laws on the subject.

A majority of federal laws put forward on the topic of fracking haven’t been ratified. Sponsored by a number of senators and House representatives, these laws have been taken up by appropriate committees. Committees have been acquainted with and received referrals of recommended fracking- related resolutions, discussed prior to being forwarded to the entire chamber. Ever since the first introduction of the 2009 Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, it hasn’t been ratified despite being re- introduced four more times (Cotton, 2017). Challenges linked to the implementation of these federal rules may be ascribed to state policy establishment and control over drilling undertakings (Spence, 2014).

SDWA- exemption has driven proposed laws and policies on fracking. As demonstrated by legal analyses, this policy problem’s development entails introducing proposals by numerous sponsors, discussions on the floor of both congressional houses and committee discourse and outcome reporting (Cotton, 2017; Spence, 2014). But lawmakers have had to encounter several challenges and have, thus far, remained unsuccessful in implementing fracking- related federal laws.

Fracking legislation within the nation dates back to 1974, the year of enactment of the SDWA which instituted novel rules and standards for the safeguarding of underground drinking water sources. In spite of its 25- year- long commercial utilization, SDWA failed to take fracking into account. In the year 1994, the LEAF (Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation) appealed to the EPA for the withdrawal of authorization to conduct underground injection control in Alabama, contending that SDWA necessitated EPA regulation of fracking (Rahm, 2011).

The 2005 Energy Policy Act provides for unintentional codification for fracking regulation by the SDWA. Three years later, large- scale sampling and examinations by the COGCC (Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission) indicated no drinking water effects of gas and oil (Davis, 2012). The year 2009 witnessed a number of house representatives, with Democrat Colorado representative, Diana DeGette, at the head, introducing FRAC, intended to rewrite SDWA goals. But it was rendered unsuccessful by opponents who claimed the proposal aimed at creating a novel, possibly- intrusive regulatory initiative (Heikkila et al., 2014).

In the year 2010, Wyoming ratified a legislation necessitating disclosing of additives utilized in the process of fracking. In the same year, Arkansas implemented novel regulations necessitating disclosing of additives utilized in the process of fracking, a step taken by Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Michigan and Montana in the following year.
During Obama’s State of the Union address in 2012, natural gas production from shale was strongly supported. A few months later, a draft report was issued by the EPA claiming no proofs existed of fracking contaminating drinking water (Konschnik & Boling, 2014).

a. Policy Options and Framework

b. Policy Options for Environmental Issues

c. Policy Options and evaluation criteria

a. Regulations

· The fracking sector in USA requires a federal law designed to regulate and govern it. One of the possible laws that should be turned into legislation is the FRAC Act. If there is no legally binding and effective legislation, both humans and animals in the USA are bound to remain unprotected.
· Environmental impact assessment should be done before all fracking and even exploration operations. Faulty wells pose a significant risk of pollution. Consequently, the quality of construction of a well must be regulated effectively (Clark et al., 2012).
· Toxic substances and effects from fracking activities such as radioactive elements need proper disposal; thus, the need for proper regulation by the US government. For instance, disposing waste waters underground should be outlawed.
· Fracking companies should be required to deposit bonds enough to cover possible compensation claims in future. Such bonds should also be sufficient to cover the cost of cleaning up once the lifecycle of a well comes to the end. Failure to have such bonds and resources for restoration and cleaning up of open coal mines is already a major environmental and social problem in the state of Colorado (Heikkila et al., 2014).
b. Operators of fracking should be required to do the following
· Build water management plans that are specific to projects so as to prevent wastage of water. They should be required to ensure that water flows can be traced. Such plans should consider the effect of the various seasons on the availability of water.
· Design plans to manage emissions into the air and to minimize the negative impact of their operations on the communities and biodiversity.
· Harness gases for later use, reduce flaring and prevent venting. Operations need to specifically make sure that emissions of air at the stages of explorations and production are reduced by gas capturing, and using it subsequently. Air pollutants such as methane should be restricted to critical operational purposes for the sake of safety (Jackson et al., 2011).
· Create risk management plans and institute measures to mitigate and reduce effects, including plans needed for response.
· Report any incidences and accidents that would affect the public to the competent authorities immediately when they happen. Such a report should incorporate the cause of the incidence, the effects and the remedial steps undertaken (Evensen, 2015).

c. Disclosure of Chemicals used
· The companies must disclose all the chemicals used in their operations and their potential health effects on both the environment and people. No loopholes that allow companies to withhold information on the basis of commercial confidentiality should be left.
· Manufacturers and distributors of substances of chemical nature must disclose and communicate all the possible human exposure scenarios anticipated, for substances of fracking. Clear precautionary measures must be stated on any assumptions made in the calculation of the actual adequate control such as in the cases of storage and flow-back issues (Theodori et al., 2014).
· Chemical risk analysis regarding fracking should also focus on the effect of leakage from wells, the piping above the ground, storage and transportation. These are clear and predictable risks (Finkel et al., 2013).
d. Monitoring
· Fracking operators should carry out thorough water and air monitoring within the vicinity of their working sites before, during and after they have finished their operations. Such a measure will guarantee clear baselines and subsequent pollution is detected
· Independent experts in geology and protection of ground water should continuously carry out inspection to oversee well construction that does not pose a pollution risk. They should make sure that there is proper disposal of toxic materials (Evensen, 2015).
· Systems to detect emerging negative health effects of fracking activities on the workers at the site, the area residents, wildlife, plants and livestock should be set up (Theodori et al., 2014).
· It should be noted that even where wells are sealed after exhaustion, they are still potential polluters of ground water. Therefore, resources must be committed to ensure remediation of problems, if they arise.
e. Regulators
· Regulating and tracking many fracking wells, will challenge regulators. There is a need to deploy enough staff to provide resources for effective work. It has been noted with concern in the recent past that EPA staffs have been reducing over the years.
· Regulators should also have enough expertise in all issues relating to fracking including well safety (Heikkila et al., 2014).
f. Location
· Potential pollution of ground water sources should be noted with seriousness and the protected ground water zones should be shielded from fracking operations.
· Fracking activities should never be carried out near key wildlife sites or underneath, including protection areas such as special protection and conservation areas, Special Scientific interest sections and National parks (Jenner & Lamadrid, 2013; Jackson et al., 2011).
· Local communities must have input in making decisions regarding fracking in their areas.

g. Water supply
If there is no sufficient water in an area, regulation should ensure that no fracking is allowed. This should also apply if extracting such water will not augur well with the lives of people, and wildlife existence (Evensen, 2015).

Natural gas in America has been used as both industrial and domestic fuel for a century and more years. It is a more efficient energy source than coal. Gas produces almost zero mercury and sulfur dioxide or other particulates that coal burning produces. Gas does not call for destructive mining such as on top of mountains as coal mining often demands. Natural gas comes with a host of desirable qualities that are convenient; especially in the face of a future inclined to constraining carbon emissions. While these benefits are apparent, there is still a need for further research to establish how water is contaminated and how methane is lost to the atmosphere. Further, there is a need for extra oversight, to protect the environment and communities from contamination of water in areas bordering disposal and extraction sites.

The policy recommendations above are made with intention to make extraction of natural gas consistent and safer among the extracting companies at all times and locations. Making decisions relating to the extent of extraction of natural gas regulation must incorporate safety, public health, the need for more energy and regulation bureaucracy. Research shows that, hydraulic fracturing; horizontal drilling and shale-gas extraction would gain from: 1. better scientific study and coordination; 2. reviewing possible health consequences of methane and similar hydrocarbons found in water for drinking; 3. Industry guided approaches for the development of safer and consistent technologies for extraction, and 4. Possible strengthening of federal and state regulation. Other related areas of interest not discussed in this paper, but would gain from further research include disposal and treatment of waste water. The practices in existence include treatment of wastewater and release into rivers and surface streams, or injecting waste into the earth.

As USA continues to invent new methods of accessing energy resources that have not been used before, and as methods such as hydraulic fracturing increase in usage for the extraction of oil and gas reserves, questions raised in this paper are set to be asked more frequently. A holistic approach to industry regulation and supervision using empirical data, based on relevant federal and state oversight, will chart a positive direction for energy extraction technologies for the future.