ENSTU 300: Critical Thinking & Communication in Environmental Studies

An Analysis of Fracking and United

States Energy Policy
Joshua Bowman, Environmental Studies Program, California State University
Monterey Bay

Introduction

In 2017, Americans consumed 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (EIA 2017). The largest
consumers for natural gas in the United States are electric power generation, and industrial and
residential use (EIA 2017). The boom in natural gas consumption was the result of a new
development in gas extraction technology, hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing, or
fracking, is a method of hydrocarbon extraction used to increase gas well output (figure 1). The
process of fracking consumes large amounts of water resources to break apart gas-saturated rock,
releasing more gas in the well (Vengosh et al, 2014). The process of fracking poses risks to both
surface and underground water resources (Vengosh et al, 2014). The water used for fracking
becomes toxic after use and can contaminate underground water aquifers. Fracking fluid spills
have been shown to occur at every step of the fracking process (EPA, 2015). The process of
fracking poses risks to both surface and underground water resources (Vengosh et al, 2014).
 Figure 1. An image showing the basic steps of the modern hydraulic fracturing technique
(photo from https://biomass.scienceblog.com/2012/02/20/what-we-should-know-about-
fracking-and-carbon-capture-and-sequestering/)

Fracking gives oil companies access to deep shale oil reserves, which are not extractable using
conventional oil drilling. In 2012 the United States produced 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas,
valued at $67 billion (EIA, 2015). The extraction of deep shale oil led the United States to
become the world’s largest exporter of oil and gas, passing both Russia and Saudi Arabia in 2012
(EIA, 2013). The International Energy Agency states that growth in United States oil production
could cover 80% of global demand for oil by 2021 (EIA, 2018). Part of this growth is due to
Trump policy changes which opened federal lands to oil and gas development, undermining
Obama-era fracking regulation efforts (Worland, 2018).

Countries around the world have banned fracking due to the associated risks on environmental
and human health. Currently, the United States is not among the countries to ban fracking. The

2
Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempts fracking from federal policy (2005). The deregulation of
fracking has led to widespread development of fracking activity across the United States. In the
year 2000, there were roughly 23,000 fracking wells, which increased to 300,000 by 2015 (EIA,
2015). A study by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2014 estimated that as a result of the
unregulated rapid expansion of fracking, 9.4 million people live within a one-mile distance from
a fracking well (EPA, 2015).

Issues connected to fracking are surface spills, leaks in well casings, groundwater contamination,
and seismic activity (Vengosh et al, 2014). The potential for adverse impacts upon human
drinking water brings concern from resident and environmental stakeholders about the regulatory
policy for fracking. Recent studies from the International Panel on Climate Change have placed
an increased pressure between stakeholders to decide how fracking should be utilized as a
method of energy production.

The stakeholder groups in fracking include residents, United States government, oil companies,
renewable energy companies, scientists, and environmental groups. The federal government has
the authority and responsibility to regulate fracking, but benefits from tax revenues on oil and
gas extraction. Residents are split on their views on fracking, although most are opposed to
fracking activity. People who work in the fracking industry, and the communities which have
benefited from the jobs provided by fracking, are typically in more rural areas and believe that
fracking is worth the risk. People who are not invested into fracking believe that fracking is an
unnecessary risk and favor alternative methods for energy production. Farmers are also impacted
by increases in fracking activity, particularly in dry areas (Ridlington & Rumpler, 2013). In
regions where there is frequent drought and little precipitation, farmers and fracking wells rely
on ground water to do business. Farmers must compete with fracking industry practices for water
in areas that already struggle with water availability. Environmental groups, who are committed
to advocating for policy that protects the natural integrity of the environment, view fracking as a
dangerous technique for fossil fuel extraction with long lasting impacts. Scientists seek to
increase understanding of how fracking impacts environmental and human health. The results

3
from scientific studies are used to inform stakeholders about the magnitude of risk using fracking
for fossil fuel extraction. Oil companies benefit the most from fracking which allows for increase
well efficiency. The renewable energy industry must compete with energy supplied by fracking.
Fracking has introduced a new abundance of natural gas to the market which has lowered the
price for natural gas energy. However, a report done by International Renewable Energy Agency
(IRENA) states that renewable energy will become cheaper than fossil fuel energy by 2020
(IRENA, 2018). The infrastructure in the United States supports fossil fuel energy and there has
not been a large effort to convert to accommodate renewables.

Among stakeholders, fracking is an issue of investment. Stakeholders who directly benefit from
fracking support the practice, while stakeholders who do not directly benefit are against it. The
United States government is financially co-invested with oil companies into fracking. Residents
are invested through jobs which support workers and their families. Scientists, environmental
groups, residents, and the renewable energy industry are not financially invested into fracking
and believe fracking poses serious environmental and human health risks. By analyzing
stakeholder claims in comparison with current policy and scientific evidence, a policy
recommendation will be made for fracking that answers the question: Given the human and
environmental health risks associated with fracking, how should fracking be regulated while
simultaneously ensuring domestic energy security in the United States?

History
Fracturing began in the 1860s and used petroleum products, such as kerosene and napalm, to
blow open fissures inside oil and gas wells. These early fracking fluids were inefficient, highly
dangerous, usually illegal, and not frequently used in conventional hydrocarbon extraction
(Montgomery et al., 2010). By the 1960s, geologists in America discovered large volumes of
gas-saturated rock, too dense to economically extract using conventional drilling techniques
(Law & Spencer, 1993). The oil industry began to experiment with hydraulic fracturing to gain
access to the deep shale rock formations. The Gas Research Institute and the Federal Energy

4
Regulatory Commission both funded research into hydraulic fracturing gas extraction from 1972
to 1992. (USNRC, 1989).

The current technique of fracking was developed in the 1990s, and combines horizontal drilling,
a drilling technique that allows oil and gas wells to cut across rock formations horizontally, with
the injection of highly pressurized fluid (Vergosh et al, 2013). The fluid used in fracking is 90%
water and 9% sand (Clancy et al, 2018). Roughly one percent by volume of fracking fluid
contains chemicals which are used to protect and lubricate machinery as well as hold fissures in
the rock open (Vergosh et al, 2013).

George W. Bush jr. came into the presidential office of the United States during a critical time
for the oil industry and fracking. Shortly after the development of modern fracking technology in
the 1990s, the Bush administration passed a new national energy policy which exempted
fracking from federal policies (2005). With full access of the shale gas reserves within the United
States, oil companies developed fracking wells throughout the country. The states with the
largest amount of fracking activity between years 2005 and 2013 were Texas, Kansas, and
Oklahoma each containing over 200,000 wells (Table 1).

5
Table 1. Wells per state (table from https://www.fractracker.org/2015/08/1-7-million- wells/).

As fracking activity grew rapidly from 2005 to 2013, regulation, if any, was left to state decision.
An earlier study done by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 suggested that there was
no widespread risk to environmental and human health posed by fracking (EPA, 2004).
However, the EPA study in 2004 consisted entirely of a literature review on all fracking activity
up until that time and did not do any of its own sampling or testing. Once fracking became more
widespread following its deregulation in 2005, evidence of water contamination became linked
to fracking activity (Vergosh et al, 2011).

In 2015 the EPA approved another study on fracking which would sample fracking wells across
the country (EPA, 2015). The 2015 EPA study found that there was evidence of water
contamination linked to fracking but concluded that the effects were not widespread. A study in
Colorado found that at least 0.5% of active wells had documented spills or leaks of fracking fluid
in some form (Drollete, et al, 2015). EPA found that spills occurred at every step in of the
fracking process including initial water acquisition, transportation of water to frack site, mixing
of water with chemicals and sand for fracking fluid, injection of fracking fluid, re-acquisition of
injected fracking fluid, and the transportation and injection of waste-water (EPA, 2015).

Fracking became a stigmatized word among residents and environmental groups, who tried to
push legislation to amend the federal exemptions for fracking. State regulations for fracking
increased after 2010 due to pressure from residents, and several states such as New York,
Vermont, and Maryland banned fracking outright. In other states such as California, Colorado,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, West Virginia,
Philadelphia, and Maine, citizen led efforts resulted in local bans on fracking (Hirja & Song,
2015). Texas, Utah, and Wyoming responded by prohibiting sub-state government regulation for
fracking.

6
Countries around the world also reacted to fracking risks by banning to practice. Australia,
Bulgaria, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Poland, Romania, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom placed bans or
moratoriums on fracking until more research is done to ensure fracking can be done safely.

While people decide what should be done about fracking energy demands are increasing
globally, and the United States has the highest energy use per capita (Ritchie & Roser, 2018). In
2017 sixty three percent of United States energy was produced using oil and natural gas which
comes from fracking. Most of the fracking done in the United States is for natural gas, which is a
cleaner burning fuel compared to oil and coal. Carbon dioxide emissions from electricity
generation for the United States in 2015 were reported lowest since 1993 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Bar graph showing carbon dioxide emissions from electricity from 1990 to 2015
(photo from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-
1999/).

In addition to increasing energy demands, the International Panel on Climate Change released
their fifth assessment report detailing current projections on climate change (AR5, 2018). The
environmental impacts projected for 2100 are likely to come as early as 2040 (AR5, 2018). The
increased rate of fossil fuel consumption is speeding up climate change. To address the global

7
problem of climate change, the IPCC recommends that governments respond by increasing
sustainable development and replacing fossil fuels for energy use (AR5, 2018).

Scientific Background

A fracking well extracts hydrocarbons from rock layers which are too dense to economically
extract from using conventional drilling techniques. The dense rock layers are typically shale
formations saturated with oil or natural gas. The modern fracking technique combines horizontal
drilling and hydraulic fracturing. A drill bit is used to bore a vertical section about 10,000 feet
down until it contacts the gas-saturated shale formation. The drill bit is then reoriented to drill
horizontally, cutting across the gas-saturated shale (figure 2). The horizontal sections of the well
can exceed over 1 mile in length and increase the surface area which the well contacts the gas-
saturated shale formation (Norman et al, 1996).

After the well is drilled metal casings are placed in the vertical section of the well to protect
groundwater aquifers, chemical sealants are applied to prevent leaks during the later steps in the
fracking process (figure 3). Water, sand, and chemicals are transferred by truck to a separate site
near the fracking well where they are mixed to create the fracking fluid (figure 3). The fracking
fluid is then pumped into the fracking well at high pressure to create fissures in the gas-saturated
shale rock layer. These fissures allow more of the gas trapped inside the shale rock to flow into
the well (figure 1). The sand and chemicals in the fracking fluid help hold the fissures open while
the water is pumped out of the well. The waste water retrieved from the well is called flowback
and contains oil or gas as well as the chemicals used in the fracking fluid (Weinhold, 2012). The
flow back is then transported by trucks to a separate waste water injection site (figure 3). At the
waste water injection site, the flow back is injected into a wastewater well where it is stored
indefinitely (Vergosh et al, 2014). Each well requires between 2 and 8 million gallons of water to
frack. Fracking fluid is 90% water, 9% sand, and 1% chemical formula. At a chemical
concentration of 1% by volume at millions of gallons of volume each well requires hundreds of
pounds of chemical ingredients (Vergosh et al, 2014).

8
 Figure 3. An image showing the basic steps 1-5 in the fracking fluid lifecycle (photo from:
https://water.usgs.gov/owq/topics/hydraulic-fracturing/).

The EPA study in 2015 found that leaks or spills have been documented at every step of the
fracking process. The leading cause for leaks and spills was human error and miscalculations
resulting in mishandling of fracking fluid, bad seals, and fluid volume estimation for size of the
fracking well (EPA, 2015). The chemicals found in fracking fluid were described as toxic to
human health causing illness, some of the chemicals have been linked to causing cancer (EPA,
2015). Other examples of physiological effects on humans associated with the chemicals used in
fracking fluid are: carcinogenesis, immune system effects, changes in body weight, changes in
blood chemistry, pulmonary toxicity neurotoxicity, liver and kidney toxicity, and reproductive
and developmental toxicity (EPA, 2015). When these chemicals are spilled there is the potential
for surface water contamination or for chemicals to seep into the ground and contaminate the soil
in the surrounding area (EPA, 2015).

9
Fracking sites tend to concentrate fracking activity over a relatively small area, in Colorado 85%
of fracking wells were within two counties (figure 4). For people living near fracking sites, the
concentration of fracking activity increases risk of exposure to potential impacts of water
contamination and seismic activity. An estimated 9.6million people live within one mile of
fracking well site (EPA, 2015).

Figure 4. Each tan spot on the aerial image represents a separate fracking well (photo
from https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/how-fracking-and-big-oil-is-driving-up-
land-prices-in-the-permian-basin/).

Concentration of fracking activity can be a problem for areas that do not typically experience
seismic activity. Fracking in Oklahoma has been linked to record high seismic activity in both
frequency and magnitude (Wang et al, 2017). The seismic activity in Oklahoma resulted in
changes in groundwater chemistry due to increased permeability of rock layers around
groundwater aquafers. Seismic waves created from the wastewater injection process permanently
changes subterranean rock formations by creating space within the formation allowing fluids to
permeate through (Wang et al, 2017).

10
There are also issues of transparency preventing researchers from being able to study the full
extent of potential fracking impacts. Oil companies are not required by federal law to disclose
their chemical concentrations used in fracking fluid. Some states such as California require oil
companies to disclose chemicals and concentrations to the state before fracking can begin,
however, the shared information is done on the condition that it will not be available to the
public. Organizations like Fractracker Alliance investigate health concerns about fracking in the
western United States (Fracktracker, n.d.). Fractracker provides tools that monitor, map, and
analyze fracking activity. The data gathered from Fractracker has helped scientists connect
chemical water contamination to fracking activity (Jalbert et al, 2017). Data from third part
organizations, like Fractracker, help inform the public about the data gaps in statements from the
oil industry. Having transparency to the magnitude of fracking activity as well as potential
human health impacts has helped advocates leverage support against fracking activity.

Another consideration is the amount of air pollution caused by fracking activity. Fracking well
extracting natural gas continuous leak about 8% over the lifetime of the well (Howarth et al,
2011). Excess gas from leaks or during low gas prices is either venting or flared off, releasing
greenhouse gases (Figure 4). Most of the natural gas collected from shale is methane, which is
three times as potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. During the drilling process of a
fracking well methane is continuously vented out of the well (Howarth et al, 2011). A study done
on methane emissions from fracking activity aimed to calculate the amount of methane that is
emitted and consumed related to fracking productions. The study concluded that on a time scale
of twenty and one hundred years, emissions from fracking were 30% to perhaps more than twice
as much as emissions from conventional gas (Howarth et al, 2011).

The IPCC report outlined climate impacts of a 1.5-degree Celsius increase if global temperature.
Earlier in 2013 a 1.5-degree increase was projected for 2100, however the special report in 2018
states that it could occur by 2040 (AR5, 2018). Impacts of climate change under a 1.5-degree
increase of global temperature are increased risk to human health, livelihoods, food security,

11
water supply, human security, and economic growth (AR5, 2018). Contributing factors to climate
change impacts are resulting decreases in crop yields and nutritional quality, sea level rise, and
disease infection rate increases for malaria and dengue fever.

Current environmental projections due to fossil fuel energy consumption put the world on track
for 2-degree Celsius global temperature increase. If the world could limit temperature increases
to 1.5-degrees, several hundred million people could avoid exposure to climate-related risks
(AR5, 2018). To limit temperature increase to 1.5-degrees or below, countries would need to
drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions in the next twelve years. Scientists from the IPCC state
that while it is technically possible to achieve a goal of 1.5 degrees, it is politically unlikely
(AR5, 2018).

Policy Context

Three federal policies affect the way fracking has developed and in what ways fracking activity
will grow in the future. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, Bureau of Land Management Rule: Well
Stimulation, Including Hydraulic Fracturing, on Federal and Indian Lands, and the United States
Climate Action Plan are federal level policies pertaining to fracking activity.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005. Section 322 paragraph (1) of section 142(d) in The Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (2005) exempted fracking from compliance with the Safe Drinking Water
Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the CERLCA Superfund Act. The Energy Policy Act
of 2005 was drafted with consideration from representatives among a broad scope of energy
production and the help of vice president Dick Cheney, former chief executive officer of
Halliburton Company. The exemptions for fracking in the Energy Policy Act 2005 federally
deregulated hydraulic fracturing. The deregulation of fracking from federal policy was an
intentional decision which reflects United States investment into fossil fuels.

12
The Bush administration had previously tried and failed to pass two separate federal energy
policy bills. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a bipartisan compromise to reduce energy use
and encourage development into new energy sources. Justin Stolte, an expert in the oil industry,
commented on the intentions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 “Part of the bill aimed to promote
a cleaner environment by exploring alternative energy options” (Stolte, 2007). To meet this aim,
the bill offered incentives for petroleum exploration and nuclear energy. Another intention of the
Energy Policy Act 2005 was to decrease dependence on foreign oil supplies (Stolte, 2007). In
2005 the United States imported sixty-five percent of their oil. In 2011 imports of total oil fell to
fifty percent due to an increase in domestic oil supply as a result of fracking (EIA, 2015).

Exempting fracking from federal regulation effectively reduced United States dependency on
foreign oil while maintaining the appearance of moving in the direction of alternative energy
sourcing. At the time, modern fracking techniques were considered new technology and was not
part of the public policy debate. Stotle claims that the Bush administration worked on behalf of
oil companies to disguise the exemptions for fracking as an exploratory alternative energy
solution (Stolte, 2007). Scientists within the Environmental Protection Agency commented that
there was pressure from the Bush administration to produce a report in 2004, leading up to the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, which found no widespread risk with fracking (Stolte. 2007). The
Energy Policy Act did not include provisions for the deregulation of federal lands for oil and gas
extraction, address the importance of public transportation, or making alternative energy sources
sustainable.

In 2012, under the Obama administration, a rule by the Bureau of Lan Management (BLM)
titled: Oil and Gas; Well Stimulation, Including Hydraulic Fracturing, on Federal and Indian
Lands, aimed to tighten federal regulation on fracking. The rule would regulate fracking on
federal lands without amending the exemptions from national environmental protection policies.
The order would have required the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to tighten regulations
for fracking on federal lands. The ruling order would require companies to disclose the

13
chemicals used in fracking fluid as well as comply with federal safety standards in the
construction of fracking wells:

• Obtain the BLM's approval before conducting hydraulic fracturing operations by submitting an
application with information and a plan for the hydraulic fracturing design (43 CFR 3162.3-
3(d)(4)).
• Include a hydraulic fracturing application in applications for permits to drill (APDs), or in a
subsequent “sundry notice” (43 CFR 3162.3-3(c)).
• Include information about the proposed source of water in each hydraulic fracturing
application so that the BLM can complete analyses required by the National Environment
Policy Act (NEPA) (43 CFR 3162.3-3(d)(3)).
• Include available information about the location of nearby wells to help prevent “frack hits”
(i.e., unplanned surges of pressurized fluids into other wells that can damage the wells and
equipment and cause surface spills) (43 CFR 3162.3-3(d)(4)(iii)(C)).
• Verify that the well casing is surrounded by adequate cement, and test the well to make sure it
can withstand the pressures of hydraulic fracturing (43 CFR 3162.3-3(e)(1) and (2) and (f)).
• Isolate and protect usable water, while redefining “usable water” to expressly defer to
classifications of groundwater by states and tribes, and the Environmental Protection
Agency, 43 CFR 3160.0-7; and require demonstrations of 200 feet of adequate cementing
between the fractured formation and the bottom of the closest usable water aquifer, or
cementing to the surface (43 CFR 3162.3-3(e)(2)(i) and (ii)).
• Monitor and record the annulus pressure during hydraulic fracturing operations, and report
significant increases of pressure (43 CFR 3162.3-3(g)).
• File post-fracturing reports containing information about how the hydraulic fracturing
operation actually occurred (43 CFR 3162.3-3(i)).
• Submit lists of the chemicals used (non-trade-secrets) to the BLM by sundry notice (Form
3160-5), to FracFocus (a public website operated by the Ground Water Protection Council and

14
 the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission), or to another BLM-designated database (43
CFR 3162.3-3(i)(1)).
• Withhold trade secret chemical identities only if the operator or the owner of the trade secret
submits an affidavit verifying that the information qualifies for trade secret protection (43 CFR
3162.3-3(j)).
• Obtain and provide withheld chemical information to the BLM, if the BLM requests the
withheld information (43 CFR 3162.3-3(j)(3)).
• Store recovered fluids in above-ground rigid tanks of no more than 500-barrel capacity, with
few exceptions, until the operator has an approved plan for permanent disposal of produced
water (as required by Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7) (43 CFR 3162.3-3(h)).

In December 2017, the BLM under the Trump administration officially repealed the rule created
by the Obama administration which regulated fracking on public lands. BLM under the Trump
administration justified the repeal by stating that the repeal would save about $10,000 per well
and about $14million annually (BLM, 2017). However, it would open pubic and Indian lands to
fracking development.

The United States Climate Action Plan implemented in 2013 titled: President Obama’s Climate
Action Plan, placed a moral obligation on the United States government for reductions in carbon
dioxide emissions, transferring to alternative renewable fuels, forest protection, improvements to
public transportation and increased study on climate change (US, 2013). The goal of the Climate
Action Plan was to set the United States up to deal with impending effects of climate change, as
well as bringing the United States into an international leadership position on climate change
avoidance strategy (US, 2013). The Obama climate action plan placed higher priority on
environmental protection and conservation, as well as preparations for the coming impacts of
climate change. An emphasis was placed on federal leadership in directing efforts at preparing
for, and reducing the impacts of, climate change. (US, 2013). Obama’s Climate Action Plan was

15
canceled in 2017 by Trump as it conflicted with his promise to revive the American coal
industry.

Stakeholder Perspectives

The Energy policy agenda of the United States from Bush to Obama to Trump has gone back and
forth on what the role of fossil fuels and fracking should be for energy production in the United
States. The stakeholder groups involved with fracking approach the issue of fracking in different
ways. Stakeholder groups perspectives on fracking are based upon the ways which they are
invested into fracking activity and the values of the stakeholder group. To gain a full
understanding of how fracking activity affects people, it is important to evaluate the issue of
fracking from all stakeholder perspectives (Table 2).

Stakeholder Values Contributions Concerns

Government Productive resources/ Generates large Domestic energy
Utilitarian amounts of tax revenue production

Performance Provides jobs Elections

Risk Safety
Residents Human Health Work Force Clean environment

Property/Utilitarian Advocation for policy Job security

Environmental Voice of the people Family

Aesthetics

Safety
Trust

16
Environmental Groups Environmental Strong voice for the Environmental integrity
Aesthetics environment

Safety
Knowledge & Learning Education of the public

Pollution
Resource conservation Holding companies and
governments
accountable
Human
Health/Wellbeing
Scientists Knowledge & learning Empirical Evidence Climate Crisis

Oil Companies Utilitarian Jobs Revenue

Efficiency Energy Longevity

Renewable Energy Utilitarian Jobs Environmental Integrity

Efficiency Energy Revenue

Longevity
Table 2. Stakeholder values, contributions, and concerns about fracking.

United States Government Perspective

The United States government is a stakeholder in fracking that also has the authority to create,
implement, and enforce policies on fracking. Because of the United States government is an

17
authority for fracking within the United States, other stakeholder groups try to appeal to the
government for favorable policies on fracking. The perspective of the United States shifts during
changes in political party, which can be reflected in changes in fracking policies. The federal
government provides jobs and energy security for the American people.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 claimed that energy solutions are being searched across multiple
areas of energy production. A senior administrator official for the Trump administration, who
spoke on the condition of anonymity, stated that this is still the goal of the federal government
“We’re looking at deposits of coal, looking at nuclear, looking at renewables, all of it”
(Anonymous, 2017). However, by repealing many Obama era policies that aimed to slow down
fossil fuel energy production, the Trump administration has made it apparent that the primary
source of energy pursued in the United States under their administration will be from fossil fuels.
The federal and state governments generate tax revenue from resource extraction. In 2010 state
and federal taxes on oil and gas produced by fracking summed over $11 billion (Shafroth, 2014).
There is a profit incentive for governments at federal levels to allow fracking and encourage its
expansion. Access to domestic oil supplies provided an economic incentive to continue to allow
oil companies to frack without federal regulations.

Resident Perspectives

Residents who are impacted by fracking include people who are at risk from fracking activity,
both residents and farmers, as well as people who work in the fracking industry. Most residents
impacted by fracking activity do not work in the fracking industry. Residents who do not work in
the fracking industry tend to be opposed to fracking activity due to the risk of water
contamination. A grape farmer in Monterey County spoke about her concerns about fracking
activity related to water quality “If our water is decimated, both in quality and quantity, we pretty
much have no fallback position. Once the water is gone, you can’t reclaim it” (Paula, n.d.). In
areas like Monterey County, California that also have a long history of oil and gas development
majority of residents are opposed to fracking (Monterey Herald, 2018). Despite a majority of
opposition, residents feel powerless against the oil industry. In a personal interview with an

18
undocumented resident of King City, California Edna commented “It’s horrible what they are
doing there. In King City no one really cares what happens to our water here either so what can
we do?” (personally retrieved, 2018).

While most residents are opposed to fracking there are some who welcome the industry. Oil
companies will offer oil leases to landowners holding private property that is suitable for a
fracking site. Additional income from oil leases as well as job creation can make fracking an
attractive alternative to farmers and rural communities, especially during times of drought. For or
against fracking, safety can security for their families is a shared value. Fracking can be a
hazardous job, despite industry claims of a priority on safety. According to the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration workers in the gas extraction industry were seven times more
likely to be killed in a work-related incident than all other United States industries (OSHA, n.d.).

Environmental Groups Perspectives

Environmental groups strongly oppose fracking because of the risk to human and environmental
health. Dr. Sandra Steingraber is a biological researcher and writer who advocates alongside
environmental groups against fracking. In an interview with Rolling Stone Dr. Steingraber stated
“Fracking is the worst thing I’ve ever seen…Those of us in the public health sector started to
realize years ago that there were potential risks…the industry rolled out faster than we could do
our science” (Steingraber, 2018). By utilizing science, environmental groups hope to educate the
public about the potential human health risks from fracking.

Oil Company Perspectives

Oil companies feel that the opposition against fracking is misplaced. Energyfromshale.org, a
collection of oil and gas industry groups states that fracking “has unlocked massive new supplies
of oil and clean-burning natural gas” and that it “increases our country’s energy security and

19
improves our ability to heat our homes and power vehicles for future generations”
(Energyfromshale.org, 2018). Oil companies, with the support of the United States government,
have heavily invested into fracking for gas extraction.

According to a study done by the United States Chamber of Commerce 21 st Century Energy
Institute, the widespread development of fracking wells has led to the creation of 1.7 million jobs
(GEI, 2013). In addition to job creation most of the fracking done in the United States is done for
natural gas, which burns more cleanly than coal or oil. The oil industry contends that fracking
should be pursued as an intermittent step between switching over from fossil fuels to renewably
sourced fuel (Fry et al, 2012). However, it is unlikely that oil companies will give up on fossil
fuels if they are a profitable industry.

Renewable Energy Perspectives

Like oil companies, the renewable energy industry wants to provide Americans with domestic
energy security, as well as jobs. Renewable energy companies enjoy a marketing angle of
environmental protection but are also motivated by profit incentives. Renewable energy must
compete with energy produced from fracking. Currently the United States disproportionately
accommodates processing, transporting, and supply fossil fuels over renewably sourced fuel. The
renewable energy industry would like to see a reduction of fossil fuel use, which would allow the
renewable energy industry more room to grow.

Recommendation

There are three recommendations for policy which address what should be done about the issue
of fracking. Each recommendation attempts to address multiple stakeholder concerns while still
effectively solving parts, or all the fracking problem (table 3). The three policy options will
evaluate criteria of human health, environmental health, cost, acceptability and feasibility. These
criteria are essential concerns among the stakeholder groups in fracking. One option is to ban
fracking outright in the United States. Banning fracking would solve the human and

20
environmental health risks of fracking. Another option is to require oil companies to fully treat
the fracking fluid so that all chemicals that adversely affect human and environmental health are
removed before transportation from the fracking site. Leaks and spills during the fracking fluid
injection would still be possible, but the waste-water would be treated and reusable. The last
policy option is to limit fracking activity to fill in energy gaps while committing United States
energy to renewably sourced fuel.

Criteria Policy Option 1: Policy Option 2: Policy Option 3:

Ban Fracking in the Require oil companies to Commit to renewable
United States treat fracking fluid energy and regulate then
wastewater use fracking to fill
energy gaps

Human Health +An end to fracking
would eliminate fracking
risks to water and air
quality which affect
human health
+ Could lessen pollution in
drinking water from aquifer
and surface spills
+reduce toxic spills and
leaks from wastewater
storage
Overall exposure to
fracking activity would be
less
-Some residents would
still be affected by
fracking

Environmental Health +An end to fracking
would improve air quality
and help preserve
valuable ecosystems
+Fracking fluid spills
would be eliminated
+Could lessen pollution in
drinking water from aquifer
and surface spills
- Fracking wells leak
methane which is burned
off and is three times as
potent of a greenhouse gas
+Reduction in emissions
from renewable energy
would cut United States
contributions to climate
change
-some areas would still be
affected by fracking

Costs -Oil companies would
lose out on a high yielding
method of gas extraction
-Many dollars worth of
fossil fuel sales would be
lost
- Oil companies would have +/- unknown costs
less maximum profit
potential
- governments would also
have a lower maximum
potential revenue from taxes
- Gas prices could increase

Acceptability +citizens, +Residents are most +Residents,

environmentalists, and concerned with risks to envrionmentalists,

21
 scientists are opposed to water quality scientists, renewable
fracking energy, governments
+Oil companies can would have still have their
-Oil companies are continue to drill for oil and goals met
strongly against sell
transitioning to renewable - Fossil fuel industry
energy - Environmental would need to re-invest
damage from other into renewable
- The United States
government would need stages in the
to reprioritize other
fracking process
methods of energy
production would continue
- Scientists also
recommend
transferring to
renewable energy
+Best recommendation for
oil companies

Feasibility +/-For more large scale Most feasible and requires +Technically it is feasible
switches the equity for the least amount of
feasibility is uncertain infrastructure overhaul -Efforts have not been
successful so far
-Expect strong resistance
from fossil fuel industry -Not likely under current
and royalty land owners administration

Table 3. Policy recommendation table evaluating human and environmental health, costs, acceptability,
and feasibility.

Policy Option One

Policy option one would eliminate human and environmental health risks due to fracking by banning the
practice. Environmental groups and residents would approve of policy option one due to their concerns
about fracking and its impacts on water quality and quantity. Oil companies, as well as federal and state
governments, would be opposed to policy option one because it would interfere with fossil fuel energy
production and monetary income. The loss of fracking would make gas-saturated shale deposits
uneconomical to extract and could result in an increase of foreign oil dependence. However, the banning
of fracking could allow renewable energy to become a more competitive fuel resource.

22
Policy Option Two

Policy option two attempts to compromise with all stakeholders by allowing fracking but increasing
regulations around wastewater treatment. Under policy option two oil companies would be required to
treat the fluid used in fracking so that it can be reused or stored in the ground safely without risk of
contaminating nearby underground water supplies. Treating the water would reduce risks fracking fluid
poses to human and environmental health as well as allow oil companies to continue fracking for gas
extraction. Gas companies would have an added operational cost as they currently do not need to treat
fracking fluid before it is injected into a wastewater site, which would perpetuate fossil fuel use for
United States energy production. The regulation of wastewater treatment would not protect human health
or the environment from the risks of leaks and spills at other stages of the fracking process.

Policy Option Three

Policy option three permits fracking but would commit the United States to transferring to
renewable energy production as the primary source of energy. This policy would have the
greatest impact to domestic oil companies, as well as the global fossil fuel market. Fracking for
natural gas would be a part of transferring to renewable energy, but overall fracking activity
would be reduced. A reduction in fracking activity would reduce the risk fracking poses to
environmental and human health and could make it easier to regulate in the future. The
government would need to reinvest into renewable energy infrastructure and accommodations
which could have high costs. However, these costs could help avoid future costs from the
damaging effects of climate change.

Final Recommendation
The policy recommendation that I would recommend would be policy option three. While policy options
one and two would have less of an impact on oil companies, the benefits of policy options three outweigh
the probable losses of oil company profits. Policy option one would allow oil companies to continue to
provide energy Americans without the use of fracking. Policy option one would also partially address the
concerns of most stakeholders. Without fracking, much of the retrievable natural gas would not be

23
economical to extract which might impact the ability of oil companies to satisfy the growing demand in
energy with domestic energy supplies. Policy option two would be the easiest for oil companies to
recover from aside from an added operational cost of treating wastewater. Overall fracking activity would
be less, and therefore the risk to water quality would also be less than the current level of fracking
activity. However, policy option two would not entirely protect environmental and human health and
would not address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Under policy option three,
oil companies would have the option to reinvest into the renewable energy industry. Policy option three
would still produce domestic energy and provide jobs which would make up for industry losses from
fossil fuels.

Conclusion

The government has been focused on securing domestic energy production for the growing
demand in energy from American residents. Within the three presidential administrations from
Bush to Trump, the United States has experimented with various forms of energy production.
The two conservative parties have implemented or changed policy to help the American fossil
fuel industry, while the Obama administration focused on policy which would interfere with
domestic fossil fuel production. The residents have called for both fossil fuels and renewables
but have voiced their concerns about fracking as a method of fossil fuel extraction. The scientific
study on fracking has shown that currently fracking activity is unable to prevent leaks or spills
along the multiple stages of the fracking process.

Fracking was the fossil fuel industry’s solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while still
providing domestic energy production within the Untied States. While there is some debate as to
whether the fracking process results in a net reduction of fossil fuel emissions, natural gas is a
cleaner burning fuel than oil or coal. Fracking was deregulated by the United States Bush
administration to allow oil companies to develop fracking wells across the country, leading to a
rapid decrease in dependency on foreign oil. Environmental groups became cautious of the rapid

24
 expansion of fracking and educated residents through advocating the risks associated with
fracking.

During the Obama administration several attempts were made to slow down the fossil fuel
industry as a method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These policies attempted to regulate
fracking as well as redirect United States energy production towards renewable fuels. Renewable
fuels like wind, solar, hydro, and geothermic energy are the cleanest forms of energy but do not
support oil company interests. The Trump administration had promised to revive the coal
industry and sympathized with oil companies. The Trump administration repealed Obama-era
policies to make access to fossil fuel production easier for oil companies. While Trump policy
has helped oil companies it increases the risk of human and environmental damage through
fracking and climate change.

Fracking poses immediate health risks to humans and the environment, while climate change
poses risks on generational scale. Government policies perpetuating fossil fuel industry poses
costly impacts through climate change which increases frequency and severity of wildfires,
floods, sea level rise, and hurricanes. Unregulated, fracking impacts health and property of
resident stakeholders through changes in climate, air and water pollution, and even seismic
activity. The American people need resilient energy policy that commits the United States to
renewable energy sources.

Literature Cited

Aruga, K. (2016). The US shale gas revolution and its effect on international gas
markets. Journal of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, 14, 1-5.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juogr.2015.11.002

25
Barati, R., & Liang, J. T. (2014). A review of fracturing fluid systems used for
hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells. Journal of Applied Polymer
Science, 131(16). Retrieved September 25, 2018, from:
https://doi.org/10.1002/app.40735

Birol, F. (2011). World energy outlook 2011: Are we entering a golden age of
gas?(special report). International Energy Agency. Retrieved September 25,
2018, from:
https://www.iea.org/media/weowebsite/2011/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasRep
ort.pdf

Clancy, S. A., Worrall, F., Davies, R. J., & Gluyas, J. G. (2018). The potential for spills and leaks of
contaminated liquids from shale gas developments. Science of the Total Environment, 626, 1463-
1473. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.177

Davis, C., & Hoffer, K. (2012). Federalizing energy? Agenda change and the politics
of fracking. Policy Sciences, 45(3), 221-241. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-
012-9156-8

Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). Water Use Reporting for Oil and
Gas Production. Retrieved from:
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/SB%201281/Pages/Index.aspx

Doman, L. (2015). US remained world’s largest producer of petroleum and natural gas hydrocarbons in
2014. US Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=20692

Drollette, B. D., Hoelzer, K., Warner, N. R., Darrah, T. H., Karatum, O., O’Connor, M. P., ... & Jackson,
R. B. (2015). Elevated levels of diesel range organic compounds in groundwater near Marcellus
gas operations are derived from surface activities. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 112(43), 13184-13189. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511474112

Edna. Personal Communication, December 2018.

26
Elsner, M., & Hoelzer, K. (2016). Quantitative survey and structural classification of hydraulic
fracturing chemicals reported in unconventional gas production. Environmental science &
technology, 50(7), 3290-3314. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02818

EPA, U. (2004). Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing
of coalbed methane reservoirs. Available from:
https://fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/evaluation_of_impacts_to_underground_sour
ces_of_drinking_water_by_hydraulic_fracturing_of_coalbed_methane_reservoirs.pdf

EPA. (2015). 600/R- Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on
Drinking Water Resources (External Review Draft). Washington, DC. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf

Fry, M., Hoeinghaus, D. J., Ponette-González, A. G., Thompson, R., & La Point, T. W. (2012). Fracking
vs faucets: balancing energy needs and water sustainability at urban frontiers. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1021/es302472y

Global Energy Institute. “Energy Works for US” (2013). PDF file. Retrieved from:
https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/file-tool/Energy_Works_For_US.pdf

Howarth, R. W., Santoro, R., & Ingraffea, A. (2011). Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of
natural gas from shale formations. Climatic change, 106(4), 679. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5

Jalbert, K., Rubright, S. M., & Edelstein, K. (2017). The Civic Informatics of FracTracker Alliance:
Working with Communities to Understand the Unconventional Oil and Gas Industry. Engaging
Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 528-559. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.128

Montgomery, C. T., & Smith, M. B. (2010). Hydraulic fracturing: history of an enduring

technology. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 62(12), 26-40. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.2118/1210-0026-JPT

27
M. R. Allen, O. P. Dube, W. Solecki, F. Aragón–Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys, M. Kainuma, J.
Kala, N. Mahowald, Y. Mulugetta, R. Perez, M. Wairiu, K. Zickfeld, 2018, Framing and
Context. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global
warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission
pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change,
sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, H. O.
Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S.
Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor,
T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press. Retrieved from: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1-pdf/

Osborn, S. G., Vengosh, A., Warner, N. R., & Jackson, R. B. (2011). Methane contamination of drinking
water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 108(20), 8172-8176. Retrieved
from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100682108

Public Law: Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58 (2005).

Rahm, D. (2011). Regulating hydraulic fracturing in shale gas plays: The case of Texas. Energy
Policy, 39(5), 2974-2981. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.009

Ridlington, E., & Rumpler, J. (2013). Fracking by the Numbers. Environment America. Retrieved from:
https://environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EA_FrackingNumbers_scrn.pdf

Ritchie, Roser. 2018. Energy Production & Changing Energy Sources. Our World In Data. Retrieved
September 25, 2018, from: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-
sources#energy-production-through-time-by-region

United States. (2013). The President's climate action plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solarpoweringamerica/president-s-climate-action-plan

Vengosh, A., Jackson, R. B., Warner, N., Darrah, T. H., & Kondash, A. (2014). A critical review of the
risks to water resources from unconventional shale gas development and hydraulic fracturing in

28
 the United States. Environmental science & technology, 48(15), 8334-8348. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/ 10.1021/es405118y

Vengosh, A., Warner, N., Jackson, R., & Darrah, T. (2013). The effects of shale gas exploration and
hydraulic fracturing on the quality of water resources in the United States. Procedia Earth and
Planetary Science, 7, 863-866. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2013.03.213

Warner, B., & Shapiro, J. (2013). Fractured, fragmented federalism: A study in fracking regulatory
policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(3), 474-496. Retrieved from:
https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjt014

Wang, C. Y., Manga, M., Shirzaei, M., Weingarten, M., & Wang, L. P. (2017). Induced seismicity in
Oklahoma affects shallow groundwater. Seismological Research Letters, 88(4), 956-962.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170017

29