Fracking has brought up several environmental concerns including negative effects on geographic and climate change, fracking accidents that have polluted freshwater sources, and lastly the risk of public health.
The first argument for whether fracking should be banned is that it negatively affects the environment, climate and geological change. Fracking sites or pads interfere with forests, and land used for agriculture. These sites are paved with loads of gravel, and occupied by huge equipment. Deforestation caused by fracking has major effects on the environment, such as the loss of habitats for animal and plant species and is found to be a critical factor urging climate change (Meng, Q. 2017). Soil in the forest is usually moist, but can quickly dry out and become barren deserts after trees are clear-cut. Disruptions like this can lead to changes of local extreme temperatures, which cause harm to all living things. Mitchell Small a professor of civil and environmental engineering particularly expressed numerous problems that go hand in hand with fracking such as operational risks, degradation of water and air quality, global climate change, ecological impacts, human health impacts, and social impacts (Trimboli, B. 2016, Mar 01).
In addition, the fracking process can and already has created leakages, which contribute to global climate change. Natural gas is mostly made up of methane and methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas and is a highly more potent greenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide which is released when hydrocarbons such as natural gas in this case is burned. “Methane is twenty five times more potent over a century and eighty to a hundred times more potent over twenty years (Romm, J. 2013, August 7). Methane leaks should have to remain as low as two percent. However, studies have concluded that those leaks now are as high as six to twelve percent. Geophysical Research Letters conducted a study in 2013 which estimated that in the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah, “55,000 kilograms of methane had leaked into the atmosphere every hour. This would be the equivalent of 6.2% to 11.7% of total natural gas production in the region (Kille, L.W. 2014, October 26).” These huge amounts of methane emissions into atmosphere caused by fracking unquestionably changes the effect of current greenhouse gases along with land surface temperatures and climates (Meng, Q. 2017). Scientist state that if we wish to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, the majority of fossil fuel reserves need to be kept underground.
Drilling huge holes in the soil and then injecting massive amounts of chemicals and water is not an ideal situation regarding earthquakes either. The US Geological Survey associated fifty earthquakes to fracking in Oklahoma with magnitudes that ranged on a scale of 1.0 to 4.0 (Vijayaraghavan, A. 2012, April 5).
“Between 1967 and 2000, geologists observed a steady background rate of 21 earthquakes of 3.0 Mw or greater in the central United States per year. Starting in 2001, when shale gas and other unconventional energy sources began to grow, the rate rose steadily to 100 such earthquakes annually, with 188 in 2011 alone (Kille, L.W. 2014, October 26).”
Geologists have been knowledgeable for years that injecting fluids and various chemicals underground can increase pressure on seismic faults and make them more likely to move resulting in an induced quake. A leak in U.S. oil and gas production which use immense amounts of water to open rocks and release natural gas or to bring up oil and gas from wells has been affiliated with an increase in moderate induced earthquakes in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Ohio, Texas and Colorado. Seismologists at Columbia University have studied these quakes and found evidence that injection wells can eventually lead to more dangerous quakes. Pressure from water wells stress nearby faults and if seismic waves across Earth’s surface strike the fault it can rupture and ultimately produce an earthquake even stronger than a five magnitude (Begley, S. 2013, July 11).
Pennsylvania is one of several states with over seven thousand fracking wells. Companies like Sunoco are escalating their businesses across PA and people are losing if they haven’t already lost land to the company. However, Sunoco has had a higher rate of oil pipeline spills and accidents than the rest of its competitors forcing the state government to shut down the projects (Hauter, W. 2019). Ultimately the goal is to stop the process of fracking in the U.S. and in other countries before it even starts. Sunoco will not be the first or last company to have major oil spills or accidents which hurt the environment on a daily basis.
The second argument for whether fracking should be banned is that fracking accidents pollute not only the air but sources of freshwater. This particular case, United States v. Mix, No. 12-cr-00171 has brought up several major controversies regarding fracking (Criminal Law. 2014). BP Corporation a major England oil company was the operator at the Macondo well, located in the Gulf of Mexico. At the site of the well sat a drilling unit known as The Deepwater Horizon. The operation process requires drilling into layers of rock which contain fluids that are under pressure. These fluids can unintentionally flow into the holes that were drilled causing what is what is commonly referred to as a kick. The fluids can be flammable hydrocarbons, so it is one of the operator’s main jobs to carefully manage this process. Federal regulations dictate how an operator should and must manage a drilling operation such as this. Operators had started to come across some problems with the Macondo well. Several kicks happened which led to additional issues but BP continued to keep drilling. An expert who testified in the case said that BP’s decision to continue drilling despite the dangers was “one of the most dangerous things he had ever seen in his 20 years’ experience (Environmental Law. 2016).”
The additional drilling set off a chain of events that caused the devastating main disaster. Methane gas leaked into the Deepwater Horizon, and the gas exploded. One hundred and twenty-six crew members were on board, and eleven of them died during that explosion while seventeen others were injured. Shortly after the explosion, where the Deepwater Horizon had been located an oil leak lasted eighty-seven days, and about two hundred and ten million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spill contaminated five hundred miles of the coastline of the states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana (Criminal Law. 2014). The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling unit at BP’s Macondo Well not only killed eleven people but caused the largest marine oil spill in U.S. history.
Not only does this case deal with environmental law but involved criminal law as well. Jurisprudence identifies corporate liability for criminal acts, especially when based on the misconduct of key corporate officials. Two of BP’s top supervisors Robert Kaluza and Donald J. Vidrine were individually charged with negligent and grossly negligent conduct and even manslaughter. David Rainey an executive at Unified Command during the spill response, was charged with Obstruction of Congress, withheld documents, and made false statements to law enforcement officials. Additionally, former BP Oil Company engineer Kurt Mix was charged with Obstruction of Justice for messages regarding the flow rate of petroleum oil leaking from a damaged underwater well. Judge Carl Barbier determined that BP had been grossly negligent in its handling of the situation. BP had exceeded its budget, and the judge determined that BP’s decision to rush the drilling process and cut costs ultimately led to the disaster. BP initially disputed the finding of Gross Negligence and said it would appeal the ruling. Less than year later, however, the company reached a settlement agreement with the Justice Department and several states. “The settlement amount of $18.7 billion included $12.8 billion in fines under the Clean Water Act along with 4.9 billion to the states affected by the spill (Environmental Law. 2016).” The U.S. Department of Justice declared that BP Corporation agreed to plead guilty to felony manslaughter, obstruction of Congress, and environmental crimes in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident. In addition, and as part of the plea deal, BP agreed to pay four billion dollars in criminal fines and penalties and the criminal recovery would go to preservation of the marine environments and ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico. Due to the criminal aspects of the case, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proclaimed its resolution of Securities fraud charges with BP in a $525 million settlement. Not only did this major incident have environmental consequences but it dealt with criminal acts as well. Water pollution due to fracking is one of the main controversies because unclean water can lead to major health risks.
The third argument for whether fracking should be banned is that it is a risk to public health. Investigations based off Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas which are among the top states for hydraulic fracturing have found sufficient evidence that the fracking process has caused considerable water pollution near oil and gas wells. This pollution has led to severe health problems facing the public which include and are not limited to cancer, respiratory problems, neurological issues, possible birth defects (Dechert, S. 2015). Fracking is a combination of water mixed with sand and chemicals deep underground to split apart shale deposits and extract gas and oil from the rock’s openings. The chemicals used for this process such as methane, when accidentally mixed with drinking water can and will lead to higher risks of birth defects, and lung disease. With that being said, people who live within a closer proximity to natural gas wells or fracking sites are significantly more likely to have upper respiratory and skin problems compared to those who live further away.
A survey conducted at random by Yale University surveyed 492 people in 180 households with ground-fed water wells in Pennsylvania and data showed that two out of five people or 39%, of people who live less than a kilometer from a well reported upper- respiratory symptoms, compared to 18% living more than 2 kilometers away (Koch, W. 2014, September 10).
If people are physically being affected by fracking, then it should be banned without question. In fact, a report issued by The New York State Department of Health stated that “until the science provides sufficient information to determine the level of risk to public health from High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing and whether the risks can be adequately managed, HVHF should not proceed in New York State (New York State Department of Health. 2017, December).” New York State’s Governor Andrew Cuomo postponed the fracking to evaluate the risks and in December 2014 came to the conclusion that fracking should be banned due to the “significant public health risks (New York bans fracking over ‘significant health risks’ 2017, December 14).” So far, New York, and Maryland have both banned the process of fracking due to the negative impacts on public health. Massachusetts and Vermont have also banned fracking due to lack of resources (Hirji, Z., & Song, L. 2015, January 20). Many states have strict regulations on fracking and although only few states so far have prohibited fracking it is not impossible to ban it all together.
These problems are just a few of many associated to fracking and drilling so before fracking continues to grow, the world must first consider all the negative effects that come with it.
