Yeruva 1

Prathusha Yeruva
Mrs. Syme
AP Seminar
18 December 2015
Regulation of Fracking in the United States

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is defined as the process of injecting fluid into the ground
at a high pressure with the intention of fracturing shale rocks and releasing the the natural gas
inside them. Over the last couple of years in the United States, there has been a plethora of
debate regarding the legality of fracking. Currently, nearly every federal law regarding the
environment has an exception to fracking. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) ordains that federal agencies must conduct environmental investigations of activities that
may pose a threat to the environment, but there has been a revision to the bill that says that oil
and gas drilling are exempt from these regular environmental assessments. It isnt difficult to see
fracking lobbyists impact on frackings future in America. In order to decide who should be
able to choose whether fracking should occur in a certain area, it is important to consider the
perspectives of Republicans, Democrats, landowners, and the scientific community.
On the political spectrum, the environment and the economy are often on opposite sides
of the gamut. In a parallel manner, Democrats seem to prioritize the environment over the
economy, while Republicans emphasize economic efficiency over environmental health. The
Republican Party stands on the ideology that that private property ownership is essential to
advancing the environmental agenda. The party spotlights ideas regarding the importance of
considering market-based resolutions to issues concerning the environment. The Democratic
Party emphasizes the ideology that a healthy environment builds an efficient economy. The Party
highlights restoration and conservation, it especially shines a light on the preservation of the

Yeruva 2

country for future generations to enjoy (On the Issues). When the Obama administration unveiled
new fracking regulations in March 2015, twenty-seven Senate Republicans introduced a bill that
would that would block those new regulations from taking effect. This fundamental political
divide exemplifies the difficulty of enabling political action to solve the issue of fracking.
Fracking is infamous for all of the loopholes in federal and state laws that cater to its
lobbyists needs. The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPA) has a clause known as the
Halliburton Loophole which exempts fracking (extraction and gas drilling) from the federal
investigations that other environmental actions outlined in the EPA are subject to. Fracking is
also absolved of all state water use regulations. Even though fracking utilizes nearly five million
gallons of water regularly, fracking is still allowed under the Great Lakes Compact. In addition
to all the legislative loopholes that fracking lobbyists have created, fracking companies have a
reputation for being dishonest. A Congressional investigation showed that fracking companies
have injected nearly 32 million gallons of diesel into the ground in 19 different states without
any sort of legal permission over the course of 2005-2009. Additionally, fracking companies
have refused to supply investigators with a complete list of all the chemicals that are used in
fracking, so it is not known for certain that all the chemicals that the companies use are actually
safe for humans (Clean Water).
Since there arent currently any particular pieces of legislation that outlaw fracking, the
decision to frack on a piece of land is often the decision of the landowner. This is actually quite
unique to the United States, because it most countries, the government simply makes the decision
without paying regards to the owners private property rights. However, that means that
landowners must be responsible and properly educate themselves on potential harm to health,
lease agreements, and fracking injury law. In order to begin fracking a piece of land, the fracking

Yeruva 3

company and the landowner must negotiate leasing rights together. The negotiation consists of a
mineral lease and an agreement over royalties and payments. Although the royalty payments
may seem tempting, its important to remember what could potentially be at stake. Stacey Haney,
a mother of two children and a landowner in Amwell Township, Pennsylvania, allowed her land
to be fracked on, but as the her children grew sick and the consequences of the fracking became
apparent, she stated that Im [Haney] not going to sit back and let them make my kids sick,,
and conveyed her negative opinions on fracking (Griswold).
A study done by the University of Michigan shows that although citizens in states like
Pennsylvania and Michigan generally held positive outlooks about what fracking was doing for
their states, they were irresolute in their knowledge of the public health risks aligned with
fracking. The respondents to the survey also expressed that they would like to keep decisions
made regarding fracking at the state level and that they would support an embargo on fracking
until there was a better understanding of the health and environmental risks associated with it (UM). Although fracking agreements are built upon a mutual understanding between the fracking
company and the landowner, there have been many cases where state laws have allowed for
loopholes regarding that concurrence. In 2014, a city in North Texas started a ban on fracking. In
May 2015, Texas governor Greg Abbott signed a bill that prohibited any bans on fracking
throughout the state. This action makes resisting fracking incredibly wearisome and also makes it
difficult for local government to actually govern itself (Gold).
People usually support fracking because they see it as an asset to the American economy.
It is sometimes difficult to understand if things are better economically because of fracking or
just because of an overall improved economy. Many people cite financial statistics regarding
fracking and claim that GDP has risen almost 2.5% in the past year because of the oil industry.

Yeruva 4

However, these statistic arent necessarily factual, and its also important to remember that when
people reference the oil industry, they arent exclusively discussing fracking, the oil industry
includes fracking and all other sorts of natural gas extraction. In reality, the oil industry has only
accounted for for a 1.7% increase in GDP. These fallacious statistics represent economists
ulterior motives, not actual facts regarding the economic benefits of hydraulic fracturing
(Abascal). It is also important to note whether or not fracking has a correlation with low gas
prices. For many consumers, the plunging price of gas is a wonderful concept. However, what is
good for the individual consumer, often isnt great for the American or global economy. Not only
do lower American gas prices hurt gas producing countries like Saudi Arabia, they also hurt
countries all over the world involved in OPEC. In a more domestic sense, the problem of falling
gas prices actually ends up being a complication for the fracking company. Due to decreasing gas
prices, fracking companies arent earning enough money to justify spending so much money on
the fracking process. Countries spend up to $10 million on a single well, so when they dont earn
immensely profitable returns on their investment, the fracking procedure appears to be a waste of
money. Although declining gas prices are certainly nice, the American people should definitely
be wary of fracking on their land because of the seemingly unexplainable health issues that
fracking could potentially be causing.
Although there is scientific data regarding fracking and its impact on human health, there
isnt a general consensus among the scientific community. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has reported that it doesnt really have a final decision regarding frackings influence on
drinking water. The EPA was not able to find data that supported the claim that fracking led to
systemic impact on water sources in the United States.The Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment journal identified a list of nearly 632 chemicals used in fracking operations that

Yeruva 5

could potentially be harmful to humans and other animals. However, even though there isnt a
grand amount of research done, there is a general consensus that fracking does cause some health
issues and that the closer one lives to the well, the more severe those health issues might become.
Many scientists are in agreement that until further research is unearthed, fracking doesnt need to
be banned, but it does need to be regulated (Washington Post).
Even though it cant be proven that fracking is dangerous chemicals are harmful to
humans, it is a well known fact that fracking has a negative impact on the environment. The
fracking process depletes the areas water resources of millions of gallons of water and also risks
contaminating all the remaining runoff. Fracking doesnt just affect water sources, it also is a
main contributor to air pollution. Methane, a harmful carbon emission, is one of the main
components of fracking and natural gas, it has also been proven to be much more potent to the
environment than carbon dioxide. Studies have proven that nearly 4% of methane (carbon
emissions of 3 million cars) have escaped gas wells in the last couple of years. Fracking is also
associated with oil spill contamination. There were nearly 1,000 reported oil spill in North
Dakota in 2011 due to fracking. Another study reports that the rupture in the ExxonMobil
pipeline caused a spill of 42,000 gallons of oil directly into the Yellowstone River in Montana.
Earthquakes are also a potential consequence of fracking, these induced seismic events arent
awfully common, but they are definitely possible (Hoffman).
It can be reasoned that the best course of action in regulating the fracking industry and
ensuring that that public safety is being preserved while also discovering a way to produce
natural gas more efficiently is to closely supervise the industry until there is more conclusive
research regarding public safety and the conservation of the environment. In order to come to
this conclusion, it was important to consider the perspectives of the Republicans, Democrats,

Yeruva 6

landowners, and scientific community. Frackings future in the United States seems to be fragile,
so it is important to consider other options. For example, many scientists have suggested that the
country turn to a more environmentally friendly method of fracking. The efforts to make fracking
more efficient and healthier include water-free fracking, using recycled brine, eliminating diesel
fumes, and plunging methane leaks that occur within fracking sites (Kiger). It is important for
the United States to introduce a standardized approach toward fracking or to devise a healthier
method of extracting natural gas because otherwise the country will suffer with the uncertain
state of public safety and a constant deterioration of the surrounding environment.

Work Cited
"Fracking: Laws and Loopholes | Clean Water Action." Fracking: Laws and Loopholes |
Clean Water Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
Griswold, Eliza. "The Fracturing of Pennsylvania." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 19 Nov. 2011. Web. 16 Dec. 2015.
"Is Our Drinking Water Safe from Fracking?" Washington Post. The Washington Post,
n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2015.
Hoffman, Joe. "Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the
Williston Basin, Montana." Geology and Human Health. Carleton, n.d. Web. 18
Dec. 2015.

Yeruva 7
Patrick J. Kiger, for National Geographic PUBLISHED March 21, 2014. "Green Fracking?
5 Technologies for Cleaner Shale Energy." National Geographic. National
Geographic Society, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2015.
"Biotechnology: Questions for Regional and Urban Policy." Built Environment (1978-)
13.3, Biotechnology: The Next Industrial Frontier (1987): 180-82. Web.
"Landowner Rights." Fracking Injury Law Landowner Rights Comments. N.p., n.d. Web.
18 Dec. 2015.
Kirk, Donald. "How Fracking Contributed to Oil Glut, Cheap Fuel For You And Me."
Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2015.

Yeruva 8