[Document

subtitle]

FRACKING:
BEHIND THE LIES
Audience: Colorado
Voters Purpose: To
Persuade

Stark 1
Donavon Stark
Liz Jackson
ENG 122
November 16, 2015
Fracking: The Truth Behind the Lies
Fracking is the process of drilling a well several thousand feet, and injecting water at high
pressures to fracture natural gas reservoirs deep in the earth. As of 2015 fracking accounts for
56% of U.S. natural gas production and 48% of oil output, according to the Energy Information
Administration. The boom has helped make America the worlds No.1 producer of oil and gas,
and has pushed the nation much closer to energy independence (USA Today). A lot of people
believe this process to be harmful to the environment and the health of those close to fracking
sightssites. Much A lot of thisthe fear comes from a time when fracking procedures were less
advanced and less regulated. The fracking industry has come a long ways in the last five years.
Due to the increase of new regulations and along with industry innovations, the process of
extracting oil and natural gas, known a fracking, is significantly safer than its opponents would
lead you to believe, and it benefits the economy.
The new regulations put in place by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
innovations in the fracking process have made it much safer than in years past. I have lived in
Colorado for over 30 years., and Aalong with all the other concerned citizens, I, too, want to
make sure everything possible is being done to limit the harmful effect of fracking on the
environment. I also believe that the fracking industry needs to be regulated, but not so much that
it chokes them out of business. Regulations need to be common sense based and not fear based.
In 2010, the fracturing practice was exempt from federal regulation. Due to political pressure,

Stark 2
legislation was passed to repeal the industrys exemption and also to have companies reveal data
on what they is being pumped into the ground. Along with new legislation in 2010, the EPA
announced that it would study the potential adverse impact of fracking on drinking water
(Clayton). EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson states that, natural gas is an important part of our
nations energy future. She also states that the, EPA will do everything in its power to protect
the health of the American people and will respond to demonstrated threats (Clayton). Other
forms of regulations that companies are now required to do involve reporting and notification
requirements. The Obama administration recently required energy companies to disclose, on the
industry-sponsored website fracfoucus.org, the fracking chemicals used on public land (Royte
15). Jeremy Nichols, Climate and Energy Program director for the advocacy group WildEarth
Guardians states that the new regulations are workable for information and transparency,
which is incredibly important so we can scrutinize if industry is complying (Weinhold A276).
Along with the new federal regulations, individual states have passed their own regulations.
While Sstates are also enacting their own regulations, they are also and conducting
independent studies to better understand the effects of fracking on the environment. I think
Colorado has found a good balance when it comes to regulating the fracking industry. That is
why Colorado is a popular state for fracking. It isnt over regulated, but it is done safely and in a
manner that makes it profitable. Colorado is one of the states often cited by the opposition
because of the early cement casing failures. Since many people believe that the cement casings
used in the wells to protect the water tables often fail, several states have started to tighten
regulations on the cement casings used to line wells (Royte 15) The new state and federal
regulations have nearly eliminated these occurrences.

Stark 3
In 2012, the EPA will began requiringe companies to use new equipment that prevents the
leakage of methane and other gases during drilling, these techniques are known as green
completions (Weinhold). Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs for the
American Petroleum Institute, said, EPA has made some improvements in the rules that allow
our companies to continue reducing emissions while producing the oil and natural gas our
country needs (Weinhold). The new rules will reduce the amount of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) that are released into the atmosphere during the fracking process. These
compounds include: benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and carbonyl sulfide. The new rules by the
EPA will reduce VOC emissions by 15% and methane emissions by 13% (Weinhold). Besides
new regulations, new innovations in the industry allow oil and gas companies to capture much of
the volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which they can then resell. This provides the
companies to recoup some of the costs they incur with the new regulations. the fracking process
produces.
With new equipment innovations and more efficient processes, fracking practices today
are significantly safer to the environment and human health than as recently as five years ago.
Many people, however, still believe fracking to be unsafe because of past performance. Many
peoples views on the fracking industry are simply outdated. Even before 2015 when new EPA
regulations went into effect, natural gas companies were practicing what is known as flaring.
Flaring is the burning off of the emissions coming out of a new well. The EPA estimates that
the benefits of preventing the escape of VOCs and methane far outweigh the damage caused by
the pollutants produced by flaring (Weinhold A276). For federal or state regulators to ban or
severely restrict fracking would undermine the effort to develop a cleaner energy mix (Spence
60).

Stark 4
Scientific research has been unable to find any direct link between fracking and harmful
effects on the environment and human health. There are often many other possible reasons for
some of the negative effects often mistakenly associated with fracking. In May 2012 EPA
designated a number of settings around the country as violating the 2008 ground-level ozone
standard. Many of these areas happen to host oil and natural gas operations, but many also have
long histories of poor air quality related to other industries, making it difficult to tease out the
contribution of oil and natural gas operations (Weinhold A275). Overall, both the government
and the natural gas industry are moving in the right direction, both of them working towards
minimize the impact of fracking on the environment and human health.
Another often overlooked fact about fracking is that compared to coal, natural gas power
plants produce significantly less greenhouse emissions than coal burning power plants; that also
is true when heating our homes. Natural gas burns much cleaner without releasing harmful
pollutants such as mercury and sulfur dioxide (Schrope 5). This is something that all
Coloradoans should feel good about. When it comes to power plants, gas fired power plants
yield half the greenhouse gases (and much smaller amounts of the other pollutants) thant we get
from coal combustion (Spence 60). This is supported by many industry experts including the
American Economic Review, which wrote in a 2011 analysis supporting the notion stating that,
substituting natural gas for coal in the electric generation mix will yield enormous health and
environmental benefits (Spence 60). This is a huge benefit to continued production of natural
gas because it is environmentally superior to coal, and because of this, there has been an increase
in the production of natural gas power plants. The U.S. Energy Information Administration
forecasts that by 2035 electricity production using natural gas will roughly double to meet about

Stark 5
thalf the countrys electricity needs (Schrope 1). This will help us all breathe easier and will
lower energy costs at the same time, which leads me to my next point.
Fracking is very good for the economy. It stimulates local communities by providing
royalty payments to land owners, new local and state taxes, and jobs. According to one study, a
typical well generates about $4 million in economic benefits, including 62 jobs (Smith 2).
Fracking is even more economical to the fracking industries themselves. Even though natural
gas is relatively cheap fracking companies can sell the other, more profitable hydrocarbons that
are produced along with the oil and natural gas they produce. After comparing the profits from
the sale of captured resources the industry should net $11-19 million per year (Weinhold A276).
The other economic benefit to fracking is it has reduced energy costs. Production of shale
natural gas from shale rock using hydraulic fracturing has boosted supply and reduced prices,
making gas-fireds power competitive with coal-fired power on price (Spence 60). Along with
lowering energy costs, gas prices are at their lowest in over a decade, and this is a direct result
from oil and natural gas drilling.
Despite the growing benefits of fracking, some people think it should be banned because
of its many dangers. Josh Fox, producer of the Oscar-Nominated film Gasland, states in his
article Ban Fracking Now that no amount of regulation can make fracking safe for people
living near or downriver from it. The natural gas industry has made significant improvements
in the fracking process and regulation is one of the reasons. Furthermore, Fox believes that
neither the states nor the federal government have the resources to enforce regulations. He goes
on to say that one in 20 wells suffers an immediate failure of the concrete casing. I dont want
my water contaminated either but this is a relatively low rate and even in the event of a failure,
that doesnt mean there is an environmental impact.

Stark 6
Many people also believe fracking pollutes the air. However, Spence states coal has
proven a cheap, plentiful, and reliable source of energy. But, it is also a relatively dirty and
deadly one. The environmental and health benefits of a transition from coal to gas and the
environmental and health costs of slowing or foregoing it are likely to be enormous (Spense
60).
One of the harshest criticisms of fracking is that it contaminates vital drinking water
supplies. In a recent report from the EPA on fracking and groundwater, an EPA report states that
the claim is overblown and though there are ways fracking could cause damage, there was
little evidence that it had (Fracking with Care, Brings Big Benefits). EPA administrator Lisa
Jackson states that in no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process
has caused chemicals to enter groundwater (Schrope 2). The use of pesticides and fertilizers are
a more likely source of water contamination than fracking.
In conclusion, over the last five years, the state and federal government have
implemented regulations that have successfully governed the oil and natural gas industry making
the fracking process significantly safer. In addition,Also industry innovations have greatly
reduced its environmental impact. Furthermore, there is no evidence that fracking is bad for the
environment, and in fact, there is more proof that fracking is actually good for the environment.
And last but not least, fracking is good for the economy. Local communities profit greatly from
the fracking industry, as well as state governments. Lastly With gas prices are at their lowest in
10 years and the cost of heating our homes also beingis lower, we are able to spend more money
in our local economy. I have concerns like everyone else but the difference is researching and
educating yourself. Dont be influenced by the scare tactics often used to get you to ban

Stark 7
fracking. The truth is, fracking isnt bad for the environment, its good for the environment, and
its good for the country.

Works Cited

Price, Hilton. "Frac, Rinse, Repeat: Why the Continuing Cycle of Outcry, Legislation, and
Permission is Exactly What the Fracking Industry Needs." Power Engineering 116.4
(2012): 8-9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Oct. 2015
Schrope, Mark. "Fracking Outpaces Science on Its Impact". Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies, Yale U. 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
Weinhold, Bob. "The Future of Fracking." Environmental Health Perspectives 120.7 (2012):
A272-A279. Academic Search Premier. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
"Fracking, with Care, Brings Big Benefits." USA Today 6 July 2015. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 22 Oct. 2015.

Stark 8
Clayton, Mark. "EPA to Natural Gas Companies: Give Details on 'Fracking' Chemicals."
Christian Science Monitor 09 Sept. 2010: N.PAG. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22
Oct. 2015.
Josh, Fox. "Ban Fracking Now." USA Today 2011: Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct.
2015.
Smith, Anne Kates. "Cash In On the Shale Boom." Kiplinger's Personal Finance 65.11 (2011):
55-59. Academic Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Royte, Elizabeth. "What the Frack is in Our Food?." Nation 295.25 (2012): 11-18. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.
Spence, David. "The Shale Gas Revolution Continues." Power 157.2 (2013): 60. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 29 Oct. 2015.