Israel Tefera

Professor Hostetler

Laws 310

DeVry University

November 26, 2012

“Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation process used to maximize the

extraction of underground resources; including oil, natural gas, geothermal energy, and

even water.” (EPA, 2012). Simply put, hydraulic fracturing is the process of getting

resources out of the ground for potential in ground usage. Hydraulic fracturing takes a

short amount of time but it requires the twenty-first’s technological advances in order to

be done. The first step of the process is finding a wellbore. The next step is inserting

water, sand and proprietary chemicals into the wellbore under high pressure. This process

will make sure that the fractures shale and opens fissures. The fact that happens will

result to the freer flow natural gas; which is the purpose of hydraulic fracturing to begin

with. (Gasland, n.d).

Oil and gas fracturing are different in that, we take out oil or gas while we

forcefully remove underground resources in hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is

legal or partially legal in Washington State, California, Utah, New Mexico, North

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Louisiana, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas,

Arkansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Virginia, West Virginia, New York and Alaska.

Oklahoma will start hydraulic fracturing in 2013. (NRDC, 2012). France, Sweden,

Poland, Bulgaria, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Denmark are the

other countries who either currently or previously use this practice.

Hydraulic fracturing does have economical as well as environmental

consequences that are both positive and not so positive. In different countries, because of

the geological differences, the outcome or the level of usage as well as the severity of the

consequences varies dramatically. Country’s ability to afford the equipment to

accomplish the task, countries ability to have trained workers work on the project,

country’s ability to correct mistakes if they were to occur, country’s natural gift from

mother nature to successfully accomplish the project, the willingness of the politicians as

well as the citizens to attempt to work on the project, country’s demand for the positive

outcome weighing more than the unwillingness to accept the negative outcome due the

project are some of the impacts and processes that will need to be made before making

the process to go forward.

“Not only does natural gas provide over 25 percent of electricity generation,

natural gas, and other gases extracted from natural gas provide a feedstock for fertilizers,

chemicals and pharmaceuticals, waste treatment, food processing, fueling industrial

boilers, and much more.” (The Heritage foundation, 2012). Natural gas in the United

States covers twenty five percent of electrical generation. Plant enrichers get helped from

hydraulic fracturing in terms of feedstock, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, waste treatment,

and food processing and fuels industrial boilers. Hydraulic fracturing could make us

energy independence, which in turn makes us freer in terms of our national security.

“Considerable controversy surrounds the current implementation of hydraulic

fracturing technology in the United States.” (FRACDALLAS, 2012). Just like most

technological advances we have experienced so far, hydraulic fracturing is controversial.

Some of the criticism surrounding hydraulic fracturing includes but is not limited to the

very legality of the practice, the environmental issues regarding hydraulic fracturing. As

there are criticisms of hydraulic fracturing, there are also hopes and phrases of hydraulic

fracturing. The country’s energy needs and the potential gained by the practice is both the

hope and praise of the action.

“Issues are being raised by community and environmental action groups regarding

possible health and environmental effects associated with chemicals used in hydraulic

fracturing operations, as well as with the potential leakage of fracturing fluids into

drinking-water aquifers, and the discharge of fracturing fluids after use.” (Exponent,

2010). The environment is getting affected because of hydraulic fracturing. The health

and well being of the citizens of the states where hydraulic fracturing is legal is in

question. The Chemicals that are used to do hydraulic fracturing affect human in a

negative way.

“The fossil fuel industry has been engaging in an aggressive PR and political

campaign to convince Americans that drilling for oil and gas domestically is the only way

that the nation can break its dependence on foreign oil, bring down prices at the pump,

and usher in a new era of economic prosperity.” (PR Watch, 2012). Energy independence

is the most important thing to accomplish. Gas prices are very high. We are dependent on

foreign oil. Most of oil we get is from the Middle East. This is not a good thing for our

national security.

The Congress and EPA have had a lot regulations and laws regarding hydraulic

fracturing. Those laws have been in effect since their passage and approval by the

Congress. “The protection of USDWs is focused in the Underground Injection Control

(UIC) program, which regulates the subsurface emplacement of fluid. Congress provided

for exclusions to UIC authority (SDWA § 1421(d)).” (EPA, 2012). The Underground

Injection Control Program is only one program of few that has been implemented as part

of the nd the Safe Drinking Water Act.

A study done by the Congressional Research Service summarizes the studies

findings as follows: “Its application, along with horizontal drilling, for production of

natural gas (methane) from coal beds, tight gas sands, and, more recently, from

unconventional shale formations, has resulted in the marked expansion of estimated U.S.

natural gas reserves in recent years. Similarly, hydraulic fracturing is enabling the

development of unconventional domestic oil resources, such as the Bakken Formation in

North Dakota and Montana. However, the rapidly increasing and geographically

expanding use of fracturing, along with a growing number of citizen complaints and state

investigations of well water contamination attributed to this practice, has led to calls for

greater state and/or federal environmental regulation and oversight of this activity.”

(Congressional Research Service, 2012). As the study clearly shows, hydraulic fracturing

is helping us to reach our goal to become energy independent and stop depending on

other countries for foreign oil. We could do here at home. North Dakota and Montana are

two of the states that are helping in this regard. Energy independence is key for our

national security and we must be energy independence. But, as the study shows, we have

another battle that could hurt us at least for the short run; which is the safety of the

citizens. There is a need to balance these two. Investing in better technologies so either

human being will not be affected or we must not need hydraulic fracturing to secure our

independence from foreign oil. It does not seem to have the answer to this question as of

now. We need to answer correctly ad with no delay.

Hydraulic fracturing has both potential benefits and harm. We need to minimize

the harm and maximize the benefit. There are a few ways we could do this so, one we

will not be dependent on foreign oil and two; which is probably more important at least

as of now, is the fact that we need to make sure no human being is being harmed because

hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is a net gain in terms of comparing and

contrasting the benefits with the harmful consequences of hydraulic fracturing. Whether

it is the human’s health or the consequence of hydraulic fracturing in the environment as

a whole would be the negative side of hydraulic fracturing while energy independence

and potential future outcomes as technology develops are the current and the potential

future with hydraulic fracturing. The net gain is gained merely because of the unknown

instead the net gain for the moment. For the moment, hydraulic fracturing is a net loss.

This does not mean we need to stop hydraulic fracturing. It also does not mean the status

quo in hydraulic fracturing is working perfectly. The way we do hydraulic fracturing

need to be reformed so the activity will not harm humans, other creatures or the

environment as a whole.

The Pennsylvania act 13 is a piece of legislation that has passed the Pennsylvania

General Assembly and signed by the Pennsylvania’s Governor; Governor, Corbett. The

law has four goals. The law intends to “1) new well fees to be assessed and collected on

unconventional wells; 2) a formula for distribution of these fees; 3) substantial revisions

to environmental protections for both surface and subsurface activities; and 4) restrictions

on the authority of local governments to impose burdens on oil and gas activities beyond

those required by the state or those imposed upon other commercial and industrial

activities.” (Babst, 2012). The law requires drillers to show the list of chemicals used

during hydraulic fracturing. This establishes safety and credibility to the state and the

workers. There are however exceptions to this law because of the much needed

competition between drillers. Not every Ingredient needs to be enclosed.

The Vermont bill championed by state Representative Klein and state

Representative Peltz is intended to “prohibit the issuance of a permit 9 for a discharge

into an injection well for conventional or enhanced recovery of 10 natural gas or oil.”

(leg.states.vt, 2012). Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin has signed the bill that led to the

banning of hydraulic fracturing from the state of Vermont. Advocates of the bill

are thrilled with the passage and the signing of the bill by the state legislature

and the governor respectively. At the time of the signing ceremony, the state did

not have in-progress projects regarding hydraulic fracturing so the law does not

affect anything. (DCS, 2012). The state of Michigan seems to wanting to follow

Vermont’s suit.

The state of New York has currently banned hydraulic fracturing in the

state. The current Governor of the state of New York; Governor Cuomo,

however, is seeking to lift the ban on hydraulic fracturing in the state of New

York. (The Huffington Post, 2012). The Governor of New York’s agenda did also

asked for investigation on the subject. The investigation demands more time than

previously thought. The safety of the practice is in question by the experts. The

expert’s expectations were not met in the investigation. The Investigation as a

result prolonged the potential restart of hydraulic fracturing.

The Pennsylvania and the Vermont laws do have both similarities and

differences if seeing in a broader terms. Obviously, both pieces of legislations

that are now laws in their respective states of origin are regarding hydraulic

fracturing and its usage. Both the Pennsylvania and the Vermont law do not

seem to be very enthusiastic about hydraulic fracturing and its usage. Although,

the level of enthusiasm or a lack thereof is different between these two states as

there are differences of opinion on the subject between other states in the union

and even other continents of the world as well as countries within the same

continent and region. The state of Vermont abandoned the practice in its entirety

while the state of Pennsylvania has put in tougher regulations to oversee

hydraulic fracturing. The state of New York seems to have a very different view.

The Governor of state would like to have hydraulic fracturing implemented. He

had issued his intention to the Department of Environmental Conservation in

2011. (The Huffington Post, 2012). The review was supposed to be over by now.

But, some health issues provisions that the Department of Environmental

Conservation seem to be worried about has prolonged the final review of the

investigation and therefore it prolonged the scheduled hydraulic fracturing in the

state of New York because of the current law of the state of New York.

As there are differences between the fifty states in the union, there are

also differences of opinion between countries around the world. What one

country believes to be a safe practice is not considered as so safe in another

country. These differences do occur due to geographical differences, the

necessarily mean to do the job as well as the skills needed and current political

climate of the different countries are few potential answers to the differences that

are clearly present. For Example, France has abandoned hydraulic fracturing

while some states in the United States still have

Finally, the report by federal government states the position the federal

government has in the mater of hydraulic fracturing. The Federal government has

described in the report what it has done regarding hydraulic fracturing, what the

result of those actions were, what the federal government will do in the future to

better work with the hydraulic fracturing. Oil production and a potential energy

independence that we are currently very close to achieving in twenty years is an

evidence that the federal government is pointing to for continual of hydraulic

fracturing in the future. This point is something that even those who are not a fan

of hydraulic fracturing seem to acknowledge as a good result of hydraulic

fracturing. Those who are anti hydraulic fracturing seem to point to the dangers

that are and can be cause to humans as well as the environment as a whole. The

federal government seems to unenthusiastically support the blame the anti

hydraulic fracturing individuals are making. But, the federal government clearly

and cautiously suggests more investment on the matter so; the potential dangers

to both human beings and the general environment will not be occurring. The

problem is those who do not like hydraulic fracturing do not seem to like the idea

of spending on the matter even more so than the current level with the hope that

they will get a solution to hate the idea less. They want full abolishment of the

practice. Those two different and passionate ideas for the common good will start

conflicts. An already dysfunctional and divided government cannot seem to agree

on the matter that enthusiastically. Yes, the matter is not necessarily, the number

fighting issue. But, it does involve spending; which is the number one fighting

issue currently as a slowly but steadily growing the United States economy is still

fragile as we speak and both parties have different ideas. Hydraulic fracturing will

be affected by the spending V. no spending fight in the nation’s capital and in the

state’s capitals around the fifty states.

Reference Page

Babst. (2012). PA's New Oil and Gas Law. Rerieved on, November 21, 2012.

Retrieved from, http://www.babstcalland.com/legal-resources/pa-new-oil-

gas-law.php .

Congressional Research Service. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water

Act Issues. Retrieved on, November 15, 2012. Retrieved from,

http://www.arcticgas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/hydraulic-fracturing-and-safe-

drinking-water-act-issues.pdf

DCS. (2012). Vermont Governor Signs Bill Banning Hydraulic Fracturing. Retrieved on,

November 21, 2012. Retrieved from,

http://www.damascuscitizensforsustainability.org/2012/05/vermont-governor-signs-bill-

banning-hydraulic-fracturing/

EPA. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information. Retrieved on, November 7,

2012. Retrieved from,

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/

wells_hydrowhat.cfm

EPA. (2012). Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Retrieved on, November 15, 2012. Retrieved from,

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/

wells_hydroreg.cfmExponent. (2010). Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids - Environmental,

Health and Engineering Issues. Retrieved on, November 15, 2012. Retrieved from,

http://www.exponent.com/Hydraulic-Fracturing-Fluids-in-09-13-20101/

FRACDALLAS. (2012). Marc W. McCord. Retrieved on, November 15, 2012. Retrieved

from, http://fracdallas.org/docs/issues.html

Gasland. (n.d). Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs. Retrieved on, November 8, 2012. Retrieved

from, http://gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/

leg.states.vt. (2012). BILL AS INTRODUCED. Retrieved on, November 21, 2012.

Retrieved from, http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2012/Bills/Intro/H-464.pdf

NRDC. (2012). State Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Rules and Enforcement: A

Comparison. Retrieved on, November 9, 2012. Retrieved from,

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/fracking-disclosure.asp

PR Watch. (2012). Industry Claims that Fracking Will Lead to "Energy Independence"

Debunked in New Report. Retrieved on, November 15, 2012. Retrieved from,

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/11/11862/industry-claims-fracking-will-lead-energy-

independence-debunked-new-report

The Heritage foundation. (2012). Hydraulic Fracturing: Critical for Energy Production,

Jobs, and Economic Growth. Retrieved on, November 9, 2012. Retrieved from,

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/hydraulic-fracturing-critical-for-

energy-production-jobs-and-economic-growth

The Huffington Post. (2012). New York Fracking Regulations Decision Delayed Into

2013, Governor Cuomo Announces. Retrieved on, November 21, 2012. Retrieved from,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/new-york-fracking-regulations-

cuomo_n_2167454.html