Discussion Case: Hydraulic Fracturing—Can the
Environmental Impacts Be Reduced?
Hydraulic fracturing—or fracking, as it is sometimes known—has been called the gold
rush of the 21st century because so many companies and people are rushing to make their
fortunes by extracting oil and natural gas from underground shale formations. What are the
environmental impacts of fracking, and what can business, government, and society do to
reduce them?
In recent years, technology has evolved to make possible the economic extraction of
crude oil and natural gas from vast underground shale formations. In hydraulic fracturing,
a vertical well is drilled as deep as 7,000 feet before turning horizontally into the oil- or
gas-bearing layer. Operators then pump in vast quantities of water, sand, and chemicals
under high pressure to break up the shale and release hydrocarbons, which are then
brought
back up the drill hole. By rotating the horizontal turns in successive passes, a single well
can reach a large area underground.
Hydraulic fracturing grew rapidly in the United States in the first two decades of the
century. In 2016, more than 1 million oil and gas wells were operating in 31 states. The
biggest fracking booms were underway in several shale formations: the Baaken (North
Dakota), Marcellus (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York, Ohio, and Maryland),
Barnett (Texas), and Permian (western Texas and eastern New Mexico).
Hydraulic fracturing has several benefits. In 2012, the United States became the leading
natural gas producer in the world, overtaking Russia, and in 2013, became the leading oil
producer, overtaking Saudi Arabia. At current rates of growth, the United States will be
energy self-sufficient by 2030. The fracking boom has created jobs, tax revenue, and
royalties to property owners who lease their mineral rights. Natural gas burns cleaner than
either
coal or oil, providing a possible bridge to a future economy based on renewable energy.
But fracking also carries serious environmental risks. Trucks and heavy equipment
cause noise and air pollution in and around drilling sites. The process uses vast quantities
of water—at least 239 billion gallons since 2005, according to some estimates—depleting
supplies available for drinking and irrigation. Chemicals injected underground include a
host of toxins. Fluid that returns to the surface—called flowback—is often further
contaminated by radioactive substances, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds
from
deep in the Earth. Improper disposal of this wastewater can contaminate land, wells, and
rivers—and even cause earthquakes in such normally quiescent places as Oklahoma and
Kansas. Methane can be released at multiple stages in the fracking process, powerfully
contributing to climate change. Wildlife habitat is destroyed as forests and fields give way
to industrial drilling sites.
In 2017, the Trump administration cancelled federal regulations, issued two years earlier,
governing hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands. These regulations would
have required companies to disclose the chemicals they used and set stricter rules for the
storage and disposal of wastewater. States, which had jurisdiction over fracking on private
and state-owned land, had taken a wide range of approaches. At one extreme, three
states—Vermont, New York, and Maryland—had banned fracking outright; some cities
had as well. In announcing the decision, the health commissioner of New York said, “The
potential risks are too great. In fact, they are not even known.” At the other extreme,
government oversight in North Dakota—site of a huge oil boom—was considered highly
permissive; in fact, the state’s top environmental regulator described himself on a radio
show
as “not a regulations guy.” Some states had charted a middle course; California, for
example, implemented regulations in 2015 that allowed fracking but required strict
monitoring
of groundwater and air quality near wells. Most states taxed fracking operations.
As the practice of hydraulic fracturing spread, some companies experimented with new
technologies to extract oil and gas with less environmental damage. Halliburton developed
solar-powered storage silos and natural gas fueled pumps, reducing on-site emissions.
Southwestern Energy installed infrared cameras to detect fugitive methane emissions, so
leaks could be plugged. General Electric tested a system that enabled water to be treated
and reused on site, and GasFrac, a Canadian company, introduced a fracking method that
used no water at all.
Said a professor who studied these trends, “[It is] the same as with any industry—if you
come out with a game-changing technology, you can get in the market first and ride that.
1. What is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and what are its costs and benefits?
2. Using the classification system presented in this chapter, what type(s) of pollution is
(are) generated by fracking?
3. Using the classification system presented in this chapter, what type(s) of government
regulation has (have) been used to address the concerns you identified in question 1,
and which do you think would be most effective?
4. What are the benefits to companies of moving beyond compliance and developing more
sustainable methods of fracking?
5. What factors might influence a company to use more or less environmentally responsible
methods of fracking?
