Hydraulic Fracturing:

Closing Fractures in the Environment and Economy

Uma Gupta

6/1/18
 Ten years ago, the future of America's economy was not a bright one. The year 2008

marked the biggest dip in the economy since the Great Depression (Mikulska et al.). The nation's

dependence on foreign oil was growing, while efforts to increase domestic oil production were

stagnant, leaving America struggling to satisfy its energy demands ("Oil Dependence"). At the

same time, hydraulic fracturing was beginning to gain popularity. This form of unconventional

drilling allowed for the harvesting of previously unreachable shale and natural gas reserves.

Hydraulic fracturing helped “stimulate a manufacturing renaissance in the United States,

improving the competitive position of the United States in the global economy, and [began] to

affect global geopolitics,” playing a vital role in repairing the American economy (Yergin).

In 2018, as the economy begins to stabilize, the role of hydraulic fracturing in America’s

future has been called into question. Overregulation and unfounded fears of environmental harm

have bogged down the ability of hydraulic fracturing to revitalize the economy. Given that

hydraulic fracturing improves the environment by replacing coal energy and strengthens the

economy through job and industry growth, it must be deregulated and further implemented for

the benefit of the nation.

Since the early 2000’s, environmental lobbies and left wing politicians have circulated

the falsehood that hydraulic fracturing damages the environment. Greenpeace claims that “in

order to frack, an enormous amount of water is mixed with various toxic chemicals [and]...

further contaminated by the heavy metals and radioactive elements that exist naturally in shale”
("Fracking’s Environmental"). In response to widespread fear that hydraulic fracturing is

responsible for various forms of pollution, particularly water pollution, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a study assessing the “potential for contamination of

underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from the injection of hydraulic fracturing

fluids into coalbed methane (CBM) wells.” In the study, the EPA found “ no conclusive evidence

that water quality degradation in USDWs is a direct result of injection of hydraulic fracturing

fluids into CBM wells and subsequent underground movement of these fluids”("Evaluation of

Impacts").

The lack of pollution is greatly due to the precautions taken by the hydraulic fracturing

industry to reduce its environmental impact. Aside from ensuring that all liquid byproducts of the

fracturing process are “disposed of in underground storage areas isolated from ground water

sources” and properly treated, companies spend a great deal of money on the research and

development eco-friendly technologies (Deweese). U.S. hydraulic fracturing companies have

invested over $130 billion into the development of cleaner fuel, including “$71 billion in

technologies that reduced greenhouse gas emissions.” Overall, the hydraulic fracturing industry

has spent $43 billion dollars more than the federal government and $74 billion more than the rest

of the private sector on green technology ("The State"). Although hydraulic fracturing involves

the use of potentially dangerous chemicals, through proper procedures and a conscious effort to

protect the environment, hydraulic fracturing companies have ensured that they pose no real

threat to environment.

Left Wing politicians and the environmental lobbies have overlooked not only the

harmlessness of hydraulic fracturing, but its ability to improve the environment. By allowing for
the collection of previously unreachable shale reserves, hydraulic fracturing has made natural gas

cheaper and easier to access ("U.S. Leads"). As a result, between 2000 and 2011, natural gas

production increased by 1.7 quadrillion british thermal units (btu), while coal production

decreased by 2.9 btu (Hassett and Mathur). This trend has continued with “cheap natural gas...

plunging coal electricity to ​only 37% of the market in 2012​ from 48% in 2008 and causing

investors to pull the plug on 150 planned coal-fired power plants” (Hanger). According to the

EPA natural gas production generates roughly half the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2)

generated by coal production. This has allowed the overall emissions rate to drop 10% between

2007 and 2012, while natural gas production has increased (Hassett and Mathur). The U.S.

Energy Information Administration (EIA) “projects that CO2 emissions will remain below their

2005 level (just under 6 billion metric tons) through 2040... in large part because of substitution

of natural gas for coal.” Without hydraulic fracturing “natural gas would become far more

expensive [and] more coal plants would be developed given that coal would then become a far

cheaper source of fuel. So...stopping fracking...may make the environment worse” (Sullivan). As

it has done in the past, hydraulic fracturing has the ability to better air conditions in the future

through decreased carbon dioxide emissions.

The environment is not the only sector benefited by hydraulic fracturing. America’s

recovering economy will be strengthened on the local and national level through the expansion

of the hydraulic fracturing industry. Since the 2008 recession “shale gas has risen from 2% of

domestic production a decade ago to 37% of supply, and prices have dropped dramatically. U.S.

oil output, instead of continuing its long decline, has increased dramatically” (Yergin). Much of

this growth comes from a rise in state run hydraulic fracturing projects. Following the 2008
recession, many states saw their unemployment rates and housing prices soar, often with

devastating effects on working class families (Nunez).

In response, resource rich states including West Virginia, North Dakota, Texas, and

Pennsylvania welcomed hydraulic fracturing companies looking to drill on their land. In West

Virginia and Pennsylvania “the Marcellus [shale] industry… expanded considerably during

2009… 1,121 wells were drilled [and]... output of dry natural gas and petroleum liquids

increased to over 600 million cubic feet of gas equivalents during calendar year 2009.” As a

result, gross regional product increased by $4.8 billion and over 57,357 jobs were created

(Considine). In North Dakota, jobs resulting from hydraulic fracturing were so plentiful that “in

Williston [North Dakota], in the heart of [an] oil patch, the unemployment rate [was] less than

one percent” (Dobb). Jobs like these are not always directly related to the hydraulic fracturing

industry. In states experiencing fracking booms, jobs in the hotel and restaurant business are

common to support growing industries (Loris). Even in states where hydraulic fracturing is new

and resources are more limited, fracking can have a positive impact on the economy. Recently,

“more than 30 states have experienced at least a 50 percent rise in the number of workers who

support oil and natural gas development directly or through suppliers and service companies”

("The State"). Increased job opportunities resulting from hydraulic fracturing have spurred the

revival and growth of many state economies, and will continue to strengthen them as the industry

grows.

As fracking spreads across the states, its positive economic effects can be felt on a

national level. In 2011 alone, “the USA produced 8,500,983 million cubic feet of natural gas

from shale gas wells” (Hassett and Mathur). According to a study by Bank of America Merrill
Lynch, natural gas prices dropped from $13.06 per gallon in 2008 to under $3 in 2012 as a result

of hydraulic fracturing. Lower gas prices and increased accessibility have allowed for a 10%

increase in the production of electricity ("The State"). Not only is this predicted to increase the

average household income by roughly 3,000 dollars in 2035, but through indirect benefits to the

steel and aluminum industry, lowered electricity costs resulting from cheap natural gas are

expected to increase the Gross Domestic Product to $231 billion by 2035 ("The Economic").

With hydraulic fracturing opening up the job market on the state level, and increasing production

and income on the national level, America’s economy is set to improve at an unprecedented rate.

Today, the potential environmental and economic benefits of a growing fracking industry

have been greatly limited by unfair government intervention and over regulation. Across the

country, “the energy boom has had the deepest and most positive impact in states that have

embraced commonsense policies that foster and encourage competition rather than picking

winners and losers in the energy marketplace” (Perry). Unfortunately, under the New Alternative

Transportation to Give Americans Solutions (NATGAS) Act, the government has already

selected a winner and a loser. In this bill, “by providing preferential tax treatment to subsidize

the production, use, and purchase of Natural Gas Vehicles (NGVs) as well as supporting

infrastructure, the government picks NGVs as a winner at the expense of all the other

applications for natural gas” (Loris). By subsidizing the purchase of NGVs, the government

damages the chances of hydraulic fracturing companies aiming to sell natural gas for other

purposes, thus decreasing motivation of such companies to continue drilling by decreasing their

profits ("Should the Federal").

 Yet another blow to the fracking industry comes from moratoriums and bans on fracking.

Over five states have placed moratoriums on fracking, and three have banned the process

completely (Hassett and Mathur). Regulations like these are unfair to both businesses and the

states in which they exists. “Communities... might not have seen new pipeline development or

infrastructure projects in decades need to accommodate these critical improvements,” and need

the government's help in doing so (Perry). Widespread hydraulic fracturing has the power to

greatly reduce CO2 emissions and improve the environment, while simultaneously creating jobs

and increasing the GDP for the benefit of the economy. Through the promotion of pipeline

projects and removal of unfair subsidies, the government can encourage, rather than prevent

hydraulic fracturing, allowing its environmental and economic benefits to reach the nation at

large.
 Works Cited

Considine, Timothy. "The Economic Impacts of the Marcellus Shale: Implications for New

York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia." ​jlcny​,

jlcny.org/site/attachments/article/374/API%20Economic%20Impacts%20Marcellus%

20Shale.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Deweese, Wes. "Fracturing Misconceptions: A History of Effective State Regulation,

Groundwater Protection, and the Ill-Conceived FRAC Act." ​Digital Commons

Oklahoma​, Jan. 2010,

digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=okjolt.

Accessed 6 June 2018.

Dobb, Edwin. "The New Oil Landscape." ​The National Geographic​,

www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/03/bakken-shale-oil/. Accessed 6 June

2018.

"The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States." ​Energy

in Depth​,

www.energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Shale-Gas-Economic-Impact-D

ec-2011_EMB1.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2018.

"Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic

Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs." ​FracFocus​, June 2004,

fracfocus.org/sites/default/files/publications/evaluation_of_impacts_to_underground_

sources_of_drinking_water_by_hydraulic_fracturing_of_coalbed_methane_reservoirs

.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2018.

"Fracking’s Environmental Impacts: Water." ​Greenpeace​,

www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/environmental-impacts-wat

er/. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Hanger, John. "If you care about the environment, you should welcome natural gas

fracking"

["https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/shale-gas-fracking-good-f

or-environment"]. ​The Guardian​, 8 July 2013. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Hassett, Kevin A., and Aparna Mathur.

"http://www.aei.org/publication/benefits-of-hydraulic-fracking/." ​American

Enterprise Institute​, 4 Apr. 2013,

www.aei.org/publication/benefits-of-hydraulic-fracking/. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Hausman, Catherine, and Ryan Kellogg. "Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale

Gas." ​Brookings​, 2015,

 www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/welfare-and-distributional-implications-of-shale-ga

s/. Accessed 17 May 2018.

Jackson, Robert, et al. "The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking." ​Annual

Reviews​, Oct. 2014,

www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-144051. Accessed

17 May 2018.

Loris, Nicholas. "Natural Gas Policy: Access, Not Over-Regulation and Subsidies." ​The

Heritage Foundation​, 21 Sept. 2011,

www.heritage.org/environment/report/natural-gas-policy-access-not-over-regulation-

and-subsidies. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Mikulska, Anna, et al. "Hillary, Bernie, Hydraulic Fracturing and the Future of US Oil and

Gas Production." ​Forbes​, 25 Mar. 2016,

www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2016/03/25/hillary-bernie-hydraulic-fracturi

ng-and-the-future-of-us-oil-and-gas-production/#443cc4a87989. Accessed 6 June

2018.

Nunez, Christina. "How Has Fracking Changed Our Future?" ​National Geographic​,

my.noodletools.com/web/bibliography.html. Accessed 6 June 2018.

"Oil Dependence and U.S. Foreign Policy." ​Council on Foreign Relations​,

www.cfr.org/timeline/oil-dependence-and-us-foreign-policy. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Perry, Mark J. "Don’t Restrain the Revolution." ​American Enterprise Institute​, 24 May

2017, www.aei.org/publication/dont-restrain-the-revolution/. Accessed 6 June 2018.

"Should the Federal Government Regulate Fracking?" ​Wall Street Journal​, 14 Apr. 2013,

www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323495104578314302738867078.

Accessed 6 June 2018.

"The State of American Energy." ​Energy Tomorrow​, American Petroleum Institute,

www.energytomorrow.org/~/media/Files/Policy/SOAE-2013/SOAE-Report-2013.pdf

. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Sullivan, Paul. "Stop Fracking? Shatter the Economy." ​The Hill​, 21 Mar. 2016,

thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/273612-stop-fracking-shatter-th

e-economy. Accessed 6 June 2018.

"U.S. Leads World in Natural Gas Production from Hydraulic Fracturing." ​Institute for

Energy Research​, 6 Dec. 2012,

instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-leads-world-in-natural-gas-production-fro

m-hydraulic-fracturing/. Accessed 6 June 2018.

Wihbey, John. "Pros and Cons of Fracking: 5 Key Issues." ​Yale Climate Connections​, 27

May 2015,

www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/05/pros-and-cons-of-fracking-5-key-issues/.

Yergin, Daniel. "Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Energy and Commerce

Committee." ​U.S. House of Representatives​, 5 Feb. 2013,

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20130205/100220/HHRG-113-IF03-Wstate-Yergin

D-20130205.pdf. Accessed 6 June 2018.