Hydraulic fracturing can be compared and contrasted in sharply different manners; rhetoric on both sides can go over the edge, and oftentimes such extreme rhetoric ensures that any type of sane or rational discussion is rendered virtually impossible. Opponents have gone so far as to call hydraulic fracturing an "abnormally dangerous activity" (Rinaldi, 2015, p. 388) while proponents often argue that additional "EPA controls would cause energy prices to skyrocket, slow the development of natural-gas fields, and block enormous economic benefits" (Hobson, 2009, p. 19). Both sides of the issue seem to make strong points in order to support their positions. Few and far between are the calls for objective and trustworthy research such as the one in America (the magazine) that asks for opponents and proponents to at least agree on the fact that the science behind fracking should take into effect the complexity of the situation as well as the repercussions for the future (Fracturing, 2014). Ironically enough, the call for objective research is rendered almost completely farcical when the call goes on to pretend that having the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct the research would result in anything but a strong bias towards the halting of any type of fracking even if (by some small miracle) the agency took into consideration the enormous economic benefits provided by hydraulic fracturing. What this paper seeks to determine is whether there is bias on both sides as determined by the individual or group affiliation with either the Democrat or Republican political parties. Additionally, the paper will look at both the negative and the positive effects of fracking and may even attempt to analyze how fracking can be beneficial and at the same time result in less negative effects on the environment.

Political bias?

Allowing for the rhetoric that comes from both sides of the issues, it is interesting to note that many of the Democrats in both state and national roles seem to naturally fall into the anti-fracking crowd, while the Republicans seem more likely to allow for fracking in one form or the other. Many of the large fracking areas currently under production in Texas and Pennsylvania seem to be well-managed by Republican majorities. Areas adjacent to these prosperous fracturing productions do not fare as well, and many of the adjacent areas are not experiencing the same level of prosperity. Christopherson & Rightor (2012) writes that there have been a significant amount of media and scholarly attention paid to the environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing, but effects of fracking on urban planning, transportation and economies has received far less attention. This may be a valid point, in that most of today's current literature seems to be written from the Left's point-of-view (that only makes sense since many of the researchers writing the reports are life-long members of academia, a culture that is far more Democratic than Republican in nature). It's not just academia that seems to be flaunting the liberal bias of many of academia however, there are also plenty of hacks for big business competing with the fracking companies who publish negative reports as well. Assuming therefore that many of the reports touting the negative effects of fracking are somewhat biased against fracking to begin with, leads true researchers to disdain many such reports right from the start. Disdain should not be a starting point for any research, on any subject. Instead, unbiased replicable research that is both valid and reliable should be put forth as a foundation for making decisions, especially in an area such as fracking that has as many potential benefits as it does potential pitfalls.

Negative Impacts

Fracturing (2011) writes that the public can put aside moral obligations based on economic booms provided by fracturing, but the long-term negative impacts of fracturing (at some point) will have to be addressed once the boom subsides and even though ethical issues can be ignored during one generation, the following generations would likely suffer unless those issues are addressed in a substantive manner.

The negative issues and concerns include such items as the inherent danger involved in fracking, necessary road improvements and expenses related to transporting the oil, and the long-term environmental effects of the chemicals used during the fracking process. An area of big concern includes the disposal of wastewater that is always a result of fracking. One report (Rahm, Fields, Farmer, 2015) shows that recovered fracking fluids range from 15 to 100% of the volume initially injected into the fracking well based upon the site, and since the EPA estimates that the needed volume of water per well is between...

Horror stories abound in today's literature concerning the small geysers that often erupt during the fracking process, of wells poisoned with the chemicals used by fracking companies, and even the poisoning of the environment around the geographical areas surrounding the wells where fracturing is taking place. Many of the dangers involved in fracturing therefore seem to be much more long-term in scope, rather than short-term.
The long-term aspect seems to be what the Left seems to be up in arms about the most; many of the Left seem to be espousing the belief that the long-term effects are not known as of yet, and for that reason alone, fracking should be halted until studies prove its feasibility. The problem with that response is that the one thing the Left is good at; is postponing events based upon 'studies'. While the left seems to be more enamored with halting fracking production, there have been studies that have found that the wastewater from one drilling operation can be reused at other drilling sites in a cost-effective manner; Steliga, Kluk and Jakubowicz (2015) found that the fracturing process almost always results in part of the flowback water being re-used to develop another fracturing fluid which can then be used on site, or at another site. If the flowback water is being used and reused in effective and efficient manners, the question becomes what other detrimental effects fracturing has on the environment; once those effects can be determined, and if no appropriate remedies are offered, then the ensuing results should be weighed carefully against the benefits of the fracturing both long and short-term in nature.

Positive effects

There are many positive effects evident with fracturing, not least among them the economic growth in surrounding areas. A recent report (Hartman, 2015) found that the United States is now the world's largest gas producer and the third largest producer of oil; additionally, the U.S. has a level of oil production that hasn't been seen in over thirty years (according to the report). Being the world's largest gas producer generates revenues and boosts economies in an exponential manner.

Hartman also states that the fracturing continues to go on (sometimes at a breakneck pace) and that the revenues generated provides a large percentage of local and state coffers. Other recent reports including the one from Fred Dews (2015) concluded that American's gas bills from 2007-2013 dropped $13 billion per year which adds up to $200 per year for gas-consuming households. Additionally, writes Dews (2013) "all types of energy consumers, including commercial, industrial and electric power consumers, saw economic gains totaling $74 billion per year, from increased fracking." $74 billion can have a huge impact on the economy, and comparing the benefits to states that allow for fracking as compared to the ones that do not allow fracking, found that states that allow fracking benefited (on average) significantly more than states that do not.

Summary

Hydraulic fracturing is controversial to say the least. That fracking provides a boon to the local and state economies is a given, but that information should be tempered by the fact that the long-term effects of fracking have really not been determined as of yet. Local and state governments are doing their best to regulate the industry, with two states (NY and Vermont) banning the practice all together. It stands to reason that fracking will continue in some form for the immediate future; what doesn't stand to reason is the vitriol coming from both sides of issue in order to support their particular stance. Perhaps, what should take place are serious, unbiased studies that provide substantive and replicable results in order to determine at what level fracking should take place.

Another consideration may be that both sides sit down and work out the best possible solution; a compromise between unbridled growth and drilling and another over-regulated industry facing onerous requirements in order to conduct business.