Fracking Should Be Banned

CAP English 9 Arjun Blum Red Group 5/22/13

Americas dependence on oil threatens its economic dominance and national security (Kenworthy and Weiss). Many machines used in our everyday lives run on or were created by using oil; however, there is a finite amount of oil in the earth and as the time that oil will no longer be readily available draws closer, more efforts are being put in to discover alternative energy sources. One of these alternative resources is natural gas which is being extracted by hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Fracking is the process of releasing natural gas trapped in the rocks like shale by pumping pressurized water mixed with chemicals to fracture it. This process is harmful to the environment. Hydraulic fracturing is known to create seismic risks (Chambers), allows chemicals used in the process to leak and poison the water supply, and contributes to air and water pollution; therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should immediately step up regulation of hydraulic fracturing under its groundwater control laws and conduct a comprehensive analysis of the impact of fracking on the environment. In addition, Congress should pass legislation banning the use of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas until the environmental impacts of fracking are understood and fully regulated. There have been many attempts to solve the world energy crisis, but none have been an answer to oil. During 2010 and 2011, the United States government supported the use ethanol, a fuel made by distilling starch plants, as an alternative to gasoline through subsidies for corn farmers and incentives for companies manufacturing ethanol. Ethanol's use of potential food resulted in raised food prices (Tverberg) and was implicated in contributing to a global food crisis and causing pollution. By late 2011 support for corn-to-ethanol policies dwindled. Another, attempt to solve the energy crisis involves algae biodiesel. However, it costs $32.81 to the gallon (Kanellos), so biodiesel

is not cost efficient. More recently, there has been a surge in access to natural gas to address our growing energy needs, because of new techniques that have been developed to extract natural gas from shale rock. The boom in natural gas production across the United States takes advantage of a process called hydraulic fracturing. Fracking now accounts for more than 30 percent of the supply of natural gas and has created jobs in economically distressed parts of the United States (Goldman). Access to natural gas by fracking is the latest attempt to solve the worlds energy crisis, but is dangerous to the environment. Kenworthy and Weiss argue that Pennsylvania is an excellent example of the promise and peril of fracking. They note that the size and extent of the natural gas development boom in Pennsylvania57,469 producing wells at the end of 2010, up by more than 8,000 in four yearsposes new challenges and necessitates new safeguards to protect public health and the environment (Kenworthy and Weiss). Others argue that safeguards are not sufficient because fracking is inherently unsafe (Food & Water Watch). Hydraulic fracturing poses dangers to both the environment and people by causing earthquakes, contaminating water supply, and affecting air quality. One of fracking's key dangers is that it has been linked to earthquakes (Casey). In addition, the EPA has found chemicals used in extracting natural gas through hydraulic fracturing in a drinking-water aquifer (Efstathiou). Fracking liquids contain dangerous chemicals that can poison the water system and render towns uninhabitable. In addition, fracking requires truck transportation of chemicals, some known to cause cancer, to the fracturing site, and truck transportation of toxic waste away from the site, creating a risk for toxic spills which contribute to air and water pollution risk and devaluation of land (Food &

Water Watch). Fracking poses a danger through seismic activity, poison in drinkingwater, and pollution. There are many ways to mitigate the harmful effects posed by hydraulic fracturing. One of these would be for Congress to pass legislation allowing the EPA to regulate hydraulic fracturing. This approach would allow the government to ensure proper care of the hazardous chemicals and waste caused by fracking. It would also allow the government to mandate selection of fracking locations that do not endanger drinking water supplies. Nationally, advocates want to repeal a 2005 congressional exemption of fracking from oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Many activists also want to require drilling companies to publicly disclose the chemicals used, as other industries do under the Community Right to Know law (Kenworthy and Weiss). Unfortunately, these remedies merely regulate the use of fracking and do not fully protect our environment for future generations. The fracking industry has a history of negotiating exemptions from laws designed to safeguard our environment. For instance, the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is often referred to as the Cheney or Halliburton Loophole, because it was negotiated by then-Vice President Dick Cheney with Congress in 2005 (Food & Water Watch). In addition, the fracking industry is fighting local efforts to regulate fracking by buying influence and initiating lawsuits to challenge such regulations. That is why fracking cannot be made adequately safe through government oversight or regulations. Fracking is inherently unsafe and we cannot rely on regulation to protect communities water, air and public health (Food & Water Watch).

At a minimum, Congress should issue a moratorium on fracking until its environmental impact is fully understood and adequate regulation is developed; however, the preferred solution to address the dangers posed by hydraulic fracturing would be for Congress to pass legislation banning the use of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas. The United States would not be alone in adopting this drastic measure. France and Bulgaria, countries with the largest shale-gas reserves in Europe, have already banned fracking (Brantley and Meyendorff). This solution prevents seismic activity from damaging cities. It also avoids the poisoning of drinking-water and pollution. In addition to preventing dangers caused by fracking, government money being used to support fracking could be transferred for investment in researching other forms of alternative energy, such as lowering the cost of algae biodiesel. The radical solution of banning all hydraulic fracturing is the most effective solution because it not only prevents all of fracking's problems, but also frees up money for research on other forms of alternative energy. There are potentially dire repercussions to the environment of ignoring the problems caused by fracking. If companies continue to use hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas without stricter regulation, major damage will be caused to the environment. First of all, places that don't normally suffer from it will experience seismic activity which will cause damage to both public and private property and endanger lives. Poisoning of water in rivers and streams will cause needless deaths and could even render cities uninhabitable. In addition to these local effects, natural gas extraction has global environmental consequences, because the methane gas that is accessed through extraction and the carbon dioxide released during methane burning are both greenhouse gases that

contribute to global climate change (Brantley and Meyendorff). In addition to all the problems that are caused by fracking, natural gas is a fossil fuel and its supply is also finite. When it runs out, the energy crisis will not have been solved. In conclusion, Congress should pass legislation banning the use of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas. The government should make available funds for research on alternative sources of energy and encourage corporate interests to invest in alternative clean energy technologies that build Americas energy security without harming the environment. The United States is increasingly dependent on natural gas extracted by hydraulic fracturing to replace use of foreign oil and solve the energy crisis. However the environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing including seismic activity, drinking water contamination and pollution, far outweighs any short term economic gains.

List of Works Cited Brantley, Susan L. and Meyendorff, Anna. The Facts on Fracking. New York Times, New York Times. N.p., 13 Mar. 2013. Web. 19 May 2013. The article explores
whether the facts on fracking support the opposition to it.

Casey, Tina. Two New Studies Show Earthquake and Water Pollution Risks of Fracking. Clean Technica. N.p., 9 Aug. 2012. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://cleantechnica.com>. Discusses the results of two recent studies that show frackings risks in terms of seismic activity and water pollution. Chambers, Madeleine. Merkel Warns of Risks of Fracking in Germany. Reuters. Reuters. N. p., 13 Feb 2013. Web. 5 Mar 2013. <http://www.reuters.com>. General overview of seismic and enviromental risks of fracking. Efstathiou, Jim, Jr. Gas-Fracking Chemicals Detected in Wyoming Aquifer. Bloomberg. Bloomberg. N.p., 8 Dec. 2011. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.bloomberg.com>. Reports on the detection of fracking chemicals in an aquifer in Wyoming. Fracking. Food & Water Watch. Food & Water Watch. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org>. The article is an explanation of dangers of fracking. It focuses on pollution through toxic waste and chemicals. Goldman, Lynn R. Fracking: Abundant Energy, But at What Cost? The Huffington Post. N.p., 24 Oct. 2012. Web. 19 May 2013. This article discusses an approach to fracking that balances overall societal benefits with the potential for public health threats in communities.

Kanellos, Micheal. Algae Biodiesel. Green Tech Media. N.p., 3 Feb. 2009. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://www.greentechmedia.com>. Shows the process for creating algae biodeisel and explains the cost and why the cost is so pricey. Kenworthy, Tom and Weiss, Daniel J. Drilling Down on Fracking Concerns: The Potential and Peril of Hydraulic Fracturing to Drill for Natural Gas. Center for American Progress. N.p., 21 Mar. 2011. Web. 19 May 2013. This issue brief explores the ecological and economic issues of fracking.
Tverberg, Gail. What are the Problems with using Corn Ethanol for Fuel? Our Finite

World. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Mar. 2013. <http://ourfiniteworld.com>. Illustrates many reasons why ethanol cannot be used to replace oil.