Hydraulic Fracturing: Benefits, Risks, and Political Bias

Introduction: A Polarized Debate

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 magazine that asks opponents and proponents to at least agree that the science behind fracking should take into account the complexity of the situation as well as the repercussions for the future (Fracturing, 2014). Ironically, the call for objective research is rendered almost farcical when it goes on to suggest that having the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conduct the research would result in anything but a strong bias toward halting any type of fracking — even if 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 individual or group affiliation with either the Democratic or Republican political parties. Additionally, the paper examines both the negative and positive effects of fracking and considers how fracking can be economically beneficial while also resulting in fewer negative effects on the environment.

Political Bias and the Fracking Divide

Allowing for the rhetoric that comes from both sides of the issue, it is interesting to note that many Democrats in both state and national roles seem to naturally fall into the anti-fracking camp, while Republicans seem more likely to permit fracking in one form or another. Many of the large fracking areas currently under production in Texas and Pennsylvania appear to be well-managed under Republican majorities. Areas adjacent to these prosperous fracturing operations do not always fare as well, and many neighboring areas are not experiencing the same level of prosperity. Christopherson and Rightor (2012) note that a significant amount of media and scholarly attention has been paid to the environmental consequences of hydraulic fracturing, but that the effects of fracking on urban planning, transportation, and local economies have received far less attention.

This may be a valid point, in that much of today's current literature appears to be written from a left-leaning perspective — which makes some sense, given that many of the researchers authoring these reports are career academics, and academia skews considerably more Democratic than Republican. It is not just academia that reflects this tendency, however; there are also plenty of representatives of competing businesses who publish negative reports about fracking companies for their own commercial reasons. Assuming that many reports touting the negative effects of fracking carry some degree of bias against the practice from the outset leads serious researchers to approach such reports with skepticism. Yet skepticism should not be the default starting point for any research, on any subject. Instead, unbiased, replicable research that is both valid and reliable should serve as the foundation for decision-making — especially in an area such as fracking that has as many potential benefits as it does potential pitfalls.

Negative Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing

Fracturing Logic (2011) argues that the public can set aside moral obligations during an economic boom produced by fracturing, but that the long-term negative impacts will eventually have to be addressed once the boom subsides. Even if ethical issues can be ignored during one generation, subsequent generations would likely suffer unless those issues are addressed in a substantive manner.

The negative issues and concerns include the inherent danger involved in fracking, necessary road improvements and the expenses related to transporting oil, and the long-term environmental effects of the chemicals used during the fracturing process. A particular area of concern is the disposal of wastewater, which is always a byproduct of fracking. One report (Rahm, Fields, & Farmer, 2015) shows that recovered fracking fluids range from 15 to 100 percent of the volume initially injected into the well, depending on the site. Since the EPA estimates that each well requires between 2 and 5 million gallons of water, wastewater disposal represents a major — perhaps the largest — challenge associated with the practice.

The inherent danger in high-pressure underground fracking wells is compounded by the fact that there is very little methodology available to predict in which direction injected water will travel or where it will ultimately end up. Horror stories abound in today's literature concerning small geysers that erupt during the fracking process, wells poisoned by the chemicals used by fracking companies, and the contamination of environments surrounding the geographical areas where fracturing is taking place. Many of the dangers involved in fracturing therefore appear to be long-term in scope rather than immediate.

The long-term dimension seems to be what most concerns critics of the practice. Many argue that because the long-term effects are not yet fully known, fracking should be halted until studies can confirm its safety and feasibility. The problem with that response, however, is that calling for more studies is also a mechanism for indefinite delay. There have been studies finding that 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 reused to develop another fracturing fluid, which can then be used on-site or at another site. If flowback water is being used and reused effectively and efficiently, the question becomes what other detrimental effects fracturing has on the environment. Once those effects can be determined — and if no appropriate remedies are identified — the results should be weighed carefully against the benefits of fracturing, both long- and short-term.

Conclusion and the Case for Compromise

Hydraulic fracturing is controversial, to say the least. That fracking provides a boon to local and state economies is well established, but that information should be tempered by the reality that the long-term effects of fracking have not yet been fully determined. Local and state governments are doing their best to regulate the industry, with two states — New York and Vermont — banning the practice altogether. It stands to reason that fracking will continue in some form for the immediate future. What does not stand to reason is the vitriol coming from both sides of the issue in defense of their particular positions. What should take place are serious, unbiased studies that produce substantive and replicable results, allowing policymakers to determine at what level and under what conditions fracking should proceed.

Another consideration is that both sides sit down and work toward the best possible solution — a compromise between unbridled growth and drilling on one hand, and an over-regulated industry facing onerous requirements on the other. A measured, evidence-based middle ground is not only possible but necessary if both economic development and environmental stewardship are to be taken seriously.

References

Christopherson, S. & Rightor, N. (2012). How shale gas extraction affects drilling localities: Lessons for regional and city policy makers. Journal of Town and City Management, 2(4), 350–368.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Scoping materials for initial design of EPA research study on potential relationships between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/3B745430D624ED3B852576D400514B76/$File/Hydraulic+Frac+Scoping+Doc+for+SAB-3-22-10+Final.pdf

Fracturing logic. (2011). America, 204(11), 5.

Hartman, K. (2015). Economies of shale. State Legislatures, 41(6), 28–32.

Hobson, M. K. (2009). EPA, states tangle on hydraulic fracturing. National Journal, 12/5/2009, 19.

Rahm, D., Fields, B., & Farmer, J. L. (2015). Transportation impacts of fracking in the Eagle Ford Shale development in rural South Texas: Perceptions of local government officials. Journal of Rural & Community Development, 10(2), 78–99.

Rinaldi, R. (2015). Fracturing the Keystone: Why fracking in Pennsylvania should be considered an abnormally dangerous activity. Widener Law Journal, 24(2), 385–.

Steliga, T., Kluk, D., & Jakubowicz, P. (2015). Analysis of chemical and toxicological properties of fluids for shale hydraulic fracturing and flowback water. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 24(5), 2185–2196.