Erin Balas
Environment and Politics Debate Paper
9/20/2013
What The Frack Is Going On With All This Fracking? The Debate Over Hydraulic
Fracturing
Large wells have been popping up all over the United States in the past decade, in a large
grid covering every known deposit of shale in the country. These wells stretch for miles, digging
deep into the Earth’s surface in order to obtain an abundance of natural gas for fuel. Wells have
been built near suburban communities, in previously protected wildlife reserves, and in other
cherished areas of America. Whether or not these wells benefit American citizens or harm them
has become a rising debate that is currently sweeping the country. Hydraulic fracturing has been
said to have many environmental and economic benefits, but also is suspected of causing
numerous health and environmental issues. Until we have further knowledge on how it can be
done safely and surely, hydrofracking is not a process that should be used in America’s energy
future.
Natural gas, obtained by a process called hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, is an
abundant energy source located deep underground in dense deposits of shale that provides
Americans with a theoretically good alternative to oil and/or coal. Experts estimate that shale
holds over 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil or natural gas (EnergyFromShale). Fracking is not
only able to provide America with enough energy for decades into the future, but also benefits
individual communities and both local and national economies. Because natural gas is such an
abundant source and can be accessed rather easily, natural gas from hydrofracking is a very
inexpensive energy source and can be obtained domestically, making it affordable for thousands
of families across the country would otherwise be unable to afford basic utilities such as heat or
electricity. The process of fracking not only fuels American households, but also fuels our
economy by creating jobs and opportunities for millions of people in areas rich with shale. 1.7
million jobs have already been created due to fracking, and 3.5 million new jobs are projected by
2035. Hydrofracking wells are also very efficient, taking only two to three months to build, but
remaining productive for over 20 to 40 years (EnergyFromShale). The process of hydraulic
fracturing claims to be a clean burning energy source than coal or oil. According to the EPA,
compared to coal, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much
nitrogen oxides, and one percent as much sulfur oxides at the power plant.
With so many benefits and promises for a better future, hydrofracking appears to be a
great solution to the current energy crisis in America. It claims to have the ability to supply
Americans with enough energy for generations to come, to be able to provide jobs for millions of
citizens, solving the unemployment problems present in this country while also adding millions
of dollars to refuel the economy. On top of all of that, natural gas is supposed to be cleaner and
greener than our current energy sources. Surely there has to be a catch to hydraulic fracturing,
and indeed there is.
In many cases across the country, fracking has been suspected of posing numerous threats
to human health and environmental health. The process of hydraulic fracturing involves injecting
fluids into shale deposits in order to force the natural gas out of the rock. The fracking industry is
not required to report the contents of these fluids, but it has been found that there can be up to 29
different carcinogens in these mixtures (Goldfarb). These chemicals are generally very
dangerous and detrimental to human health if exposed to them. Because it is extremely difficult
to contain these fluids, they are often found to leak through the cement of hydrofracking wells or
spill around them, causing deforestation, erosion, water pollution, air pollution, and many other
issues in the areas surrounding hydrofracking wells. Fracking contaminates water in towns with
wells nearby, posing serious health risks to families living in those communities. Fracking has
been suspected to cause serious environmental problems, the presence of methane is drinking
water (making it highly flammable and dangerous), and even earth quakes (most recently in
Ohio). Chemicals present in drinking water and air due to hydrofracking cause many problems,
such as disabilities, sickness, nosebleeds, rashes, etc. Without the proper technology to prevent
hydrofracking wells from leaking and destroying local environments, there is no way to avoid
these serious health issues.
It should stand out to readers that government agencies do not require the fracking
industry to report the highly dangerous chemicals they use in fracking wells, which are usually
located near populated, suburban communities across the United States. What could possibly be
so wrong with releasing these lists? Would people feel differently if they knew about the
chemicals injected into the ground just outside their doorstep? Until further regulations are made
and better technologies are developed to contain the dangerous chemicals injected in wells,
hydrofracking remains a harmful threat to the communities that it impacts.
Another article proposes a completely different view of the risks of hydrofracking. As of
now, we have no real evidence other than anecdotal reports and a lot of hypotheses that health
issues and contaminated ground water are direct results of hydrofracking. In order to prove this,
a large, widespread study would have to be done throughout the United States, but with our poor
economic state and large support of hydrofracking, no one currently has the money or will to do
so. In many cases, people are getting passed around from doctor to doctor due to inability to treat
possible hydrofracking health related issues, but because of the unknown causes, the best advice
every doctor can give is to drink bottled water, air out your house, and ultimately move if
possible (Stein).
While fracking is suspected of causing these health issues, the cause still remains
unknown. This shows that many evidence against fracking could, but might not necessarily be,
somewhat biased, as they infer that health risks are a direct result of fracking dangers. However,
this poses a simple question: is it worth it to risk one’s health for some natural gas?
There is no reason why one should put their own health and the health of others around
them at risk simply because something is more economically friendly or easier to obtain.
Whether fracking is dangerous or not, it is not worth it to take a chance. There are many other
sources of renewable energy, such as hydroelectric power or biofuels, which can be obtained
domestically like natural gas, but require slightly more work. While natural gas burns a lot
cleaner than other fossil fuels and emits about half the amount of CO2 emissions, it is clearly not
as ecofriendly as it seems. Until we have the technology and money to build wells that won’t
leak or break, hydrofracking should not continue.
References
"Enormous Potential through Fracking." Energy From Shale. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.
Goldfarb, Ben. "PolicyMic." PolicyMic. PolicyMic, 2011. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.
Stein, Rob. "Sick From Fracking? Doctors, Patients Seek Answers." NPR. NPR, 15 May 2012.
Web. 20 Sept. 2013.