I wrote a paper on fracking and mentioned this in it, hopefully its not to long for the comments but here we go. Hydraulic Fracking is a relatively new, but largely used method for extracting natural gas and oil deep from underground, where it is trapped in shale rock formations. The process uses a combination of water, chemicals, and sand. This mixture is pumped at extremely high pressures into the ground in order to fracture the rock formations and release the trapped fossil fuels. There are many associated concerns with the process of hydraulic fracking, but also a few apparent benefits. When examined through the lens of Cost Benefit Analysis, it is clear what action should be taken, but most of the time, the right action is trumped by the foresight of monetary value. A primary concern associated with the method of fracking is the contamination of groundwater wells by methane. When the shale rock is fractured due to the high pressure of liquid being pumped into it, natural gas and oil is release and flows back to the surface and sometimes through the ground water table. This leaves potential for rouge methane to find its way into groundwater supplies significantly increasing the volatility of the well. It has been observed that fracking sites are predominantly located in rural areas. This is very problematic to the people who live near in these areas because they depend highly on groundwater as their primary source for both everyday use, as well as for agricultural practices. According to a peer reviewed journal Lafrance (2011), states " A study conducted by researchers at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment (Durham, N.C.), found measurably high levels of methane in well water collected near hydrofracking sites. In 85% of the samples, methane levels were 17 times higher on average in wells located within 1 kilometer of active hydrofracking sites." There are videos accessible on the internet that demonstrate homeowners that live near fracking sites, placing a lighter next to running faucet water and due to the high methane contamination levels, the water, or rather the methane in the water, combusts into a flame. As mentioned by Holzman (2011), "Reports of flammable drinking water have occurred near fracking sites says Abraham Lustgarten, a reporter for Propublica who has investigated gas drilling across the United States." Many people drink water from their faucet regularly, they trust that it is safe, as seen in a few cases it is actually flammable due to methane contamination from fracking.
Not only is the release of methane a cause of worry but the use of harmful chemicals that are mixed into the water that is pumped into the drilled well is also a concerning factor of fracking. In addition to the use of harmful chemicals, the hazardous byproducts that are generated, as well as the use of large amounts of potable water in the process are also of high concern. According to Walter (2012), "A single well uses four million gallons of water. A small proportion of this returns to the well head and contains high quantities of salts, ions, chemicals, and radioactive material. Some of these chemicals, including bromide, are known carcinogens. This water can be re-injected into old wells or taken to waste-water treatment plants." Although waste-water treatment plants are able to remove a descent amount of the radioactivity from the water, there are concerns about long-term contamination when billions of gallons of wastewater are treated at a site (Gerken and Rael, 2013). Many people have also argued that shale gas obtained from fracking is a more viable option for energy generation, as it produces less carbon dioxide emissions. Yet according the Gerken and Rael (2013), "Supporters of natural gas development point to the fuel's increased use in electricity generation in recent years as the reason for a drop in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Yet one study found that only one quarter of the four percent drop in U.S. CO2 emissions between 2011 and 2012 is attributable to shale gas."
While there are many different negative associated consequences with hydraulic fracking, many people point to the positive benefits derived from the process. One associated benefit is the prospect of the generation of jobs for American citizens. According to Efstathiou (2012), "Drilling for oil and natural gas in shale rock is supporting 1.7 million U.S. jobs this year, including workers outside the energy industry such as waiters and shop clerks, according to researcher IHS Global Insight." The promise of this many jobs is very persuading in determining whether or not to establish fracking sites. Especially since this estimate was made two years ago, at a time when American employment was very low and slowly recovering from the recession. When cost benefit analysis is used in this situation, many would say that the benefits of 1.7 million jobs most certainly outweigh the costs of potential environmental harm, especially when the costs are not always apparent until long after fracking operations have in place. Kelman argues that there is danger in putting dollar value on something like fresh ground water(Kelman, 1981) in order to determine the costs of contamination from fracking, when compared to the benefit of generated revenue. Schmidtz says that it is ignoring the costs imposed on others that makes someone a bad person(Schmidtz, 2001). In particular, these costs would be the contamination of ground water used by the people who live near fracking sites. While the promise of a large amount of American jobs is seemingly a great benefit from implementing fracking operations, the scientific data showing a high percentage of contamination of ground water wells and the effect it has on local residence seems to outweigh the potential benefits. Another positive benefit that is derived from fracking operations is the decreased dependency of the amount of imported gas and oil, used to meet the energy needs of the United States. With less dependency of foreign oil and gas, less money is generated outside of the United States. Instead of this money going to and strengthening foreign economies, money from fracking stays within the U.S. and helps strengthen our economy. In this case, the Uinted States would become an exporter of natural gas, as well as small amounts of oil, in which other countries would be giving money to us to meet their energy needs, rather than the other way around. While this is all well and good, should we be looking to the benefits of fracking in terms of less dependency on foreign fossil fuels, while we are depleting our own supplies? It would appear that the argument of less dependency is strong but looks away from the fact that fossil fuels are being depleted at greater rates every year. It would seem better that we look towards lessening our dependency of foreign energy by investing in renewable energy in the U.S. Investments in renewable energy would have the same benefits as natural gas extraction operations such as jobs and decreased dependency on foreign energy. At the same time it would be without the negative costs associated with hydraulic fracking procedures, such as air pollution, ground water contamination, and use of dangerous chemicals. While the generation of energy is essential to our everyday lives, we must consider the potential impacts that come along with the usage of natural resources at the current rate that we do. Many people would try to have others believe that hydraulic fracking is a viable method of extracting cleaner burning fuel. Yet, the adverse effects of this practice have been surfacing at increasing rates. While there are some positive benefits that come with fracking, the practices and fraudulence of certain companies involved are in need of consideration. According to Howarth (2011), "Many of the additives used in fracking are kept secret. In the United States, such secrecy has been abetted by the 2005 'Halliburton loophole' (named after an energy company headquartered in Houston, Texas), which exempts fracking from many of the nation's major federal environmental-protection laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act." There are plenty of other viable, non-harmful methods of generating energy, yet the promise of lessened dependency on foreign imports, American jobs, and generation of money seem to trump logical consideration for the environment.