USA: +1 (725) 712-1730 
Sign in
Case Study 2
Hydraulic Fracking
Hydraulic fracking is termed as the process through which gas and oil are recovered by drilling shale rock. The fracking entails applying high pressure on the rock to tear it apart providing access to natural gas. Hydraulic fracking has impacted public health negatively by contaminating the air around the fields. In Pennsylvania, the rate of childhood cancer was increased by the hydraulic fracking leading to high child death rates. In Colorado fracking of the shale rock contributed to prenatal and infant health issues affecting child developing. Also, workers working in the shale fields had cancer caused by exposure to the hydrocarbon (Burton 2014). The workers and community members living around the areas experienced respiratory issues together with dermal diseases. Some people argued that the fracking would have been carried out in a safe manner that has no negative impacts.
- Special interest groups
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advised the Congress concerning the fracking process. EPA outlined that waste drilled from the shale rock was toxic and caused harm to the public. The agency provided oversight on the rules and regulations set. The EPA offered the Congress guidance on measures and areas to address when setting policies that govern the fracking process. The agency participated in the rulemaking process, ensuring the rules placed we appropriate in enhancing water safety, cleaning air provision and protection of people living around the shale fields (Burton 2014). EPA played a critical role in improving citizen’s understanding of the hydraulic fracking process, illustrating it impacts both negative and positive.
The agency offered people clarity on rules and regulation that governed the process by use of laws applied during the period and authorities. EPA supervised how drilling permits were being issued to companies undertaking the fracking procedures through diesel fuel. The supervision was essential in making sure the group meets the required drilling standards that controlled emission of hazardous products. The agency also worked with the government to provide ways through which wastewater could be disposed of safely. EPA partnered with other shareholders and company to minimize air contamination especially from methane used in hydraulic fracking.
The agency ensured that the gas and oil drilled was appropriately stored as per the required standards preventing cases of leakage or spillage. EPA followed the transportation process of the products to make sure that transport means used were safe thus limiting any negative impacts on the health of people in surrounding communities. To prevent the spillage and leakage of waste products EPA required drilling firms to outline preventive measures that would control the toxic waste. The agency provided criteria used to identified and determined hazardous products involved in the fracking that was harmful (Manuel, 2010).
The Bureau of Land Management regulated harmful emissions into the atmosphere with the aim of reducing the effects created by climate and global warming. The bureau required drilling companies to list chemicals applied in the fracking process and their purpose. The requirement was vital in eliminating instances of water contamination by the compounds. BLM needed the companies to isolate drinking water from the shale rocks for the residents around to have enough water to consume. The groups were also to provide their wastewater estimate together with ways through which they planned to dispose of the wastewater for enhancement of safety.
The Department of Environmental Protection was also among the groups that participated in regulating hydraulic fracking. DEP demanded that drilling organization had to obtain permits to carry out their operations from the department. DEP investigated water contaminated cases to identify which company disposed of waste products wrongly. The company that caused the quality of water to decrease was supposed to offer alternative sources of water according to DEP. Also, the participating organizations were required to have water plans which controlled how water was withdrawn from the wells. The department allowed well drillers to store waste materials in pits that were designed to prevent damages caused by the toxic. The cavity was to act as storage containments before the waste was properly disposed.
The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) influenced the setting of rules and regulations of fracking by handling the process through which drilling companies obtained their permits. The group required the companies to apply for the licenses before deepening or drilling wells. A description of the fracking process was to be provided to the commission together with a fracking program that is complete, indicating chemicals used and fracking fluids. Also, the group offered permits for storage pits that were on the site and were supposed to be drilled in areas that had shallow groundwater.
- Agenda setting
According to John Kingdon, agenda setting involves three activities which are the problem at hand, a possible alternative to solve the problem and public policies. The hydraulic fracking process which requires drilling of the shale rock to extract gas and oil caused various issues that affect the public health (Willow, 2014). Residents living around the shale fields experienced respiratory problems. The respiratory effects were brought about by toxic gases emitted from fracking the rocks. Volatile organic elements were released to the atmosphere from open pits reducing the quality of the air. The low-quality air was made up of hydrocarbons that limit the supply of exchange in the breathing system. Also, the diesel pumps used to drill the gas emitted noxious chemicals that facilitate respiratory issues.
Women living around the drilling fields experience complications during their pregnancies. The chemicals emitted from the fracking process affected the development of the fetus. Babies were born prematurely due to the toxic gases and later died as the gas caused damages in their formation, and the environment could not sustain them (Willow, 2014). Those children that survived suffered from neurologic disabilities which were expensive for the parents to cater for. The pregnant women underwent stress brought about by noise from the drilling activities which inhibited their pregnancy. The sound impacted the residents around the fields causing stress and sleep deprivation. Blood pressure and other health-related issues were observed because of fracking thus reducing the resident’s productivity. Accidents in the surrounding areas were many resulting in high death rates. Fracking caused spills that contaminated drinking water limiting the supply of clean drinking water to the community.
Alternatives
To solve the problem of spills that occurred as a result of fracking, the drilling companies would have constructed barriers that prevent the fluids from flowing into the environment. Treating the toxic waste would have reduced the carbon emissions that contaminate the air and reduce respiratory problems. Implementing an efficient transport system for the gas and oil would help in minimizing noise that causes stress to the residents and also reduces carbon emissions from the trucks transporting the extracted materials from the fields. Using a different method to extract gas from the shale would serve as an option to the drilling to prevent the gas from escaping during the process and destroying the environment. In solving water problems using an alternative fluid for fracking serve as a solution in reducing wastewater. Recycling the wastewater is effective in reducing water contamination and increase water supply for fracking.
Policies
The government implemented various systems such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) that outlined the national standards on how wastewater should be treated. The treatment was to minimize diseases and damages caused by the sewage (King, 2012) . The Clean Air Act was a regulation which was put in place to reduce the number of emissions from the fracking process to improve the quality of air. In ensuring that the residents received safe drinking water, the Safe Drinking Water acts were put in place to control how fluids were disposed of ensuring that they did not contaminate the drinking water (King, 2012). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 controlled fracking companies that used fuel pumps to reduce the toxic emissions from the diesel. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was implemented to regulate how waste was disposed of with the aim of protecting the environment and improving human health.
- Stakeholders
Hydraulic fracking activities cause different issues, but there is legislation that has been put in place to allow fracking. Consumers are the principal shareholders in the fracking business. Allowing fracking of gases enables the consumers to receive power energy in the form electricity. The power is used for different activities around homes and has relatively improved the people’s way of living. Fracking has influenced the low prices of energy which is relatively affordable to all consumers. Consumers such as manufacturing plants have significantly improved because of fracking. The facilities are using power from the drilling process to manufacture their products thus increasing their productivity. Through the energy customer satisfaction has been delivered by most companies as the power helps in offering services (Ratm 2011). Consumers on the local levels who reside around the fields are affected negatively by the emissions from the toxic waste which causes undesirable health conditions.
Oil and gas operators have been impacted positively by rules that allow fracking activities to be conducted. Access to natural gases has been facilitated by the legislation which minimizes the cost of propellants to companies. The operators earn high incomes from drilling the elements that occur naturally providing them with financial stability. The gas is in abundant entailing that there is a constant supply of the gas and oil. The fracking companies save on transport cost because they fuel their transit vehicles with the fuel manufactured from the extracted oil. Companies dealing in fracking are expanding over time because of the high demand for natural gases. The need has called for the company to adopt new technology that is more efficient and productive. The oil and gas industries have tremendously grown because of fracking activities stimulate more economic engagement with drilling companies.
The local communities around the drilling areas have been impacted both positively and negatively. The local communities received energy from the fracking activities. The power helps them in their daily activities making life easier. Some members of the local society have been able to secure jobs in the drilling companies earning themselves an income. The drilling activities have brought economic development to the regions through modern technology and increased revenue from fracking. The local communities are exposed to the world, attracting investors who deliver economic growth in the areas. People around the drilling areas are being affected negatively due to contamination of the environment by emissions from fracking. The toxic wastes cause deaths and health complications that limit one’s productivity. Also, the drilling activities affect the drinking water in case wastewater spills into the groundwater.
The government gains extensively by allowing fracking. The fracking activities provide the government with oil and gas that is exported to other countries. The exports increase countries revenue and also contribute to economic growth. Fracking contributes to countries economic and financial stability as the revenues gained from the gas and oil are used in national engagements. Drilling activities reduce unemployment rate levels in the nation because job opportunities are created by the drilling companies. The natural gas has reduced fluctuation levels in the oil and gas sectors. Fracking has increased the supply of gas hence decreasing gas prices in the county. The government has lowered taxes on energy because it is locally sourced. The government has been able to form international alliances with other countries actively trading with natural gas.
- Fracking criticisms
Fracking has been faced with criticism from various opponents who indicate that fracking activities cause water contamination. Water contamination is brought about the excess methane which is produced during the extraction process. Also, the chemicals used in the drilling activities escape quickly to the groundwater causing contamination. Waste materials disposed of in the pits contribute to spills affecting drinking water. Fracking process influences the release of radioactive elements together with the natural gases which affect the water bodies. If the features are store inappropriate, there is a possibility of them reaching the waterbodies hence contaminating water. Critics outlined that the water pollution standards and regulations provided by the EPA do not limit the contamination of underground water (Brady 2012). The wastewater used in the fracking process finds its way into groundwater because the equipment used in treating and disposing of the water is ill-equipped. Chemicals used in the fracking process are inappropriately pumped into the ground causing contamination.
People are against fracking because of the greenhouse gases that are released into environment lead to air pollution. The drilling process does not adequately capture the methane released from the shale contributing to escape of a percentage of the gas which fuels air pollution. The toxic gases have increased death rates in the areas surrounding the rock filed as the gases cause respiratory problems, the death of infants and disability among children because developments of their bones are hampered. Volatile organic compounds are emitted to the atmosphere causing urban smog. Opponents also say that the transportation of the gas and oil from the fracking activities poses a threat to the environment. The materials are transported by trucks which emit high levels of carbon contaminating the air.
There is environment pollution as a result of the disposal methods used in fracking. The waste materials are disposed of in pits near the fields destroying the ecosystem. The soil in the areas is affected. Hence the local communities cannot engage in farming activities as the soil contains chemicals that are not appropriate for plants. Earthquakes have increased around the areas near the shale fields. The shocks are as a result of the force exacted on the ground to burst the shale rocks (Willow, 2014). The effect weakens the earth surface leading to collapsing of surfaces. Also, waste materials that are stored underground corrode the ground leading to earthquakes. The corrosion has overtime contributed to the toxic gases escaping to the surfaces and facilitating spillage of the material stored.
Hydraulic fracking contributes to wastage of freshwater that is used in severe pressure on the rock. The wastage of water leads to the limited supply of fresh water for consumption among the surrounding communities. People living around the fields suffer from the lack of water increasing their expenses as they have to get water from other areas. Fracking has led to conflicts between the mineral and the surface rights. The mineral rights indicate that when land is sold the rights to the ore remain with the initial owner. The drilling companies highly compensate minerals rights owners and pay less money to the surface owners (Meng 2014). The conflict is established in instances of pollution issues because the landowner is the one who deals with the charges against the land other than the owner of the minerals being extracted. This practice is termed as unfair because those who are faced with adverse consequences of pollution problems get the least compensation from fracking companies.
- Proponents
Fracking activities have received massive support from shareholders such as the government and the oil and gas operators. The proponents propose that hydraulic fracking is a beneficial activity that has helped in the provision of energy. The energy has improved consumers lifestyle because it is used to accomplish various tasks using minimum time. Hydraulic fracking has contributed to the extraction of natural gas leading to decrease in energy prices. The prices are low enabling consumers to afford energy. Producers have also benefited from the drilling of the gases because they use the power in their production activities thus increasing their performance and output. Fracking has enabled constant supply of energy to consumers because the natural gases are available in abundant.
Hydraulic fracking has contributed to increase in revenues for the government through exporting the natural gases. The taxes have promoted financial and economic stability in different regions. Many economies have improved as business operations have increased. Fracking activities have attracted investors from different areas who are investing in the extraction operation. Business relationships between countries have been enhanced by the extracted of natural gases through drilling (Meng, 2014). Modern technology has been introduced to facilitate the drilling activities promoting the levels of innovation. Research has been stimulated in the country to find various ways that the natural gases can be used and also how the waste elements can be treated to prevent pollution.
The government has achieved energy independence through domestic production of energy. Local extraction of oil has minimized the levels of oil imports from foreign countries. Fracking has enabled the country to avoid an energy crisis that was pending due to the high demand of energy and low supply. New technology is being implemented to drill many gas reservoirs that are beneath the shale. Fracking has enabled extraction of power cheaply and efficiently. National spending on subsidies has been cut by the hydraulic fracking. The government has reduced spending on testing and proving renewable energy as it has been substituted by the natural gases.
The government is no longer spending money on technology that facilitates renewable energy production instead the money has been shifted to hydraulic fracking. The state seeks on advancing hydraulic fracking to make sure it is safe and environmentally friendly. Some locals near the oil fields support fracking since they have secured themselves jobs in the drilling companies (Burton 2014) Job opportunities have enabled them to earn salaries thus having the ability to meet their financial needs. Fracking has reduced unemployment levels in the nation by offering all qualified citizens job opportunities in the drilling operations.
Fracking has provided cleaner energy in large positions that are from the natural gases. The fracking proponents are defending the environmental effects associated with the fracking process. Proponents’ indicate that drilling of gases does not contaminate the groundwater since the shale rocks are below the water table hence methane cannot spill into the water. Those supporting hydraulic fracking indicate that the harms associated with chemicals used in fracking have been exaggerated. According to the supporters, the substances are benign (Ratm, 2011). Claims against the fracking activities which have explained that the extraction of natural gases is harmful to have been termed false. No case or evidence has been provided suggesting that the damages encountered are as a result of toxic wastes from drilling. The government and other interested parties have set rules and regulations that govern fracking ensuring that pollution is prevented together with associated damages.
- Future of hydraulic fracking
The U.S government supports hydraulic fracking amidst the various controversies of its adverse effects and has outlined multiple rules to regulate the fracking process. Support by the state indicates that the process will be advanced and improved to increase revenues in the future. The drilling activities will enable the country to utilized natural gases that are available in large quantities (Burton, 2014). The utilization will contribute to the production of oil in U.S for both local and international consumption. Hydraulic fracking will be expanded to increase the quintiles of oil and gas fracked. Expansion of the project will ensure that all gas demands are met. Also, the development will provide job opportunities for many citizens in the future.
Hydraulic fracking will be maintained and practiced in the U.S to keep the low energy prices brought about by natural gases (Burton, 2014). The country will continue drilling gases to evade situations that would subject them to an energy crisis. Also, fracking will ensure that consumers and producers have a constant supply of energy in the future. The continuous supply will increase the level of producing and manufacturing in the country thus upholding economic stability (Burton, 2014). U.S will continue fracking activities to regulate energy prices and ensure they are affordable to citizens. Fracking operations will be enhanced to increase the country’s exports and minimize chances of energy imports in the country. The drilling activities aim at increasing trading interactions between U.S and other nations stimulating economic growth and development.
More rules and regulations will be put in place to regulate fracking to prevent pollution by the toxic waste. Agencies and programs will be established to monitors and control how drilling companies carry out their activities and also give permits for them to operate. Hydraulic fracking is a profitable activity for the government, and it will look for alternative ways of disposing of the toxic materials. The techniques include how the waste can be treated to reduce their harmful effects. Proper transport systems will be put in place to ensure that the gases and oil will be transport through safe means which are not subjected to leakages and spillages. Also, modern storage facilities will be invented to ensure that extracted material is safe and the waste products do not spill into the environment.
Although hydraulic fracking is receiving support from the government, the process may be opposed by various interest groups in the future. The opposition will be based on the effects of toxic materials from the wells. As time goes, new gases will be identified, and their impacts may cause damages calling for the protest against fracking by interest groups. Currently, there is no case or evidence that indicates that methane found in drinking water around the shale fields was brought about by fracking. In the future innovations and modern technology will provide the right techniques to test and identify the exact effects of the toxic wastes which may lead to banning of fracking activities.
Extensive fracking activities will lead to the drilling of many wells in areas endowed with the natural gases. The wells pose a danger because people are likely to fall in the open surfaces and die. The wells will contribute to environmental degradation reducing the productivity of the region. Fracking will subject the local communities to exploitation by greedy investors who will try to acquire lands with minerals. Exploitation will lead to the suffering of the local people who will be displaced out of their property (Burton, 2014). Fracking may cause various conflicts between the local, national and international governments as all will be trying to control the fracking operations.
- Additional legislation
Earthquakes are being experienced in regions near the shale fields leading to the destruction of property and loss of life. To regulate the fracking activities, a law that outlines the type of equipment to be used in the fracking process should be set. The bill will ensure that the material used does not apply a lot of pressure on the earth surface minimizes the occurrence of earthquakes. The law will provide the maximum force to be employed in the drilling activities. Application of minimum pressure on the ground will ensure that the earth is strong enough and cracks are not observed (Meng, 2014). The land and reforms group is likely to propose this law because they are concerned with matters that affect land.
The group will also propose that the fracking companies should use a specific chemical which does not contaminate the groundwater. Importance of the law is to ensure that the residents around the area do not suffer from shortages of drinking water. The land and reforms group is also likely to propose a law that outlines the minimum number of wells that can be drilled in a particular region. The restriction on drilling of wells will reduce environmental degradation enabling the communities around to engage in other economic activities and preserve the ecosystem (Manuel, 2010). The law will reduce cases of accidents of people falling into the wells and minimize the number of deaths in the area.
The land is the most affected element by the drilling activities proposing a law that will guide fracking companies on ways they can dispose of the waste material which will eliminate any form of pollution. The corporations should create facilities that are fitted with modern technology to treat the waste material. The water and regulation board is likely to propose a law that controls how water is used in the fracking process.
The law will limit the amount of water which the fracking companies use in extracting the gases. This legislation will stimulate the companies to invent an alternative component to use other than water (Manuel, 2010). Water supply will be enhanced, and also cases of wastewater will be eliminated. Even the board should propose a rule which indicates that the drilling companies should not burst shale rocks that are near the groundwater. This will prevent contamination of the groundwater by spills from the toxic wastes.
The board dealing with land reforms should propose a law that protects landowners and buyers of the land. The code should indicate that if a person buys a piece of land that has mineral he or she should hold both the land and minerals rights. This law will promote fairness whereby the fracking companies will compensate landowners the qualified amount other than paying mineral owners who have already sold the particular piece of land. The law will also protect fracking companies from incurring double cost when compensating for land endowed with minerals.
The labor unions should propose a rule that requires the drilling companies to observe safety measures that ensure their employees are not affected by the toxic material. The employers should offer the workers protective gears which prevent effects of poisonous gases on the employers’ bodies. Also, respond systems should be provided by the employer to cater for injuries that the employers encounter while working. Safety measures will ensure that the employees work in an environmentally friendly area protected from harm.
References
Brady, W. J., & Crannell, J. P. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation in the United States: The Laissez-Faire Approach of the Federal Government and Varying State Regulations. Vt. J. Envtl. L., 14, 39.
Burton, G. A., Basu, N., Ellis, B. R., Kapo, K. E., Entrekin, S., & Nadelhoffer, K. (2014). Hydraulic “fracking”: are surface water impacts an ecological concern?. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33(8), 1679-1689.
Gregory, K. B., Vidic, R. D., &Dzombak, D. A. (2011). Water management challenges associated with the production of shale gas by hydraulic fracturing. Elements, 7(3), 181-186.
King, G. E. (2012, January). Hydraulic fracturing 101: what every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells. In SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Manuel, J. (2010). Mining: EPA tackles fracking. Environmental health perspectives, 118(5), A199.
Meng, Q., & Ashby, S. (2014). Distance: A critical aspect for environmental impact assessment of hydraulic fracking. The Extractive Industries and Society, 1(2), 124-126.
Rahm, D. (2011). Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2974-2981.
Willow, A., & Wylie, S. (2014). Politics, ecology, and the new anthropology of energy: exploring the emerging frontiers of hydraulic fracking. Journal of Political Ecology, 21(12), 222-236.
Wiseman, H. (2009). Untested waters: The rise of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas production and the need for revisit regulation. Fordham Envtl. L. Rev., 20, 115.
