Fracking: An Offer You Can't Refuse, But Should

By John Heptig

Now that's an offer you can't refuse! I mean it sounds about as good as the offer made by that smooth talking snake oil salesman.

There's only one problem with this offer, however; it does not list all the externalities that are included. Sure, fracking in your back yard might look good at first glance, but once you take a closer look, you may not like what you see. With that said, let's take a closer look at each of the statements above.

"Gas drilling is safe and environmentally friendly!":

As described in an article by U.S. News, hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" is a process that "creates fractures that extend from well into oil and gas formations by pumping highly-pressurized fluid -- water, sand, ceramic beads, and a mixture of chemicals -- into the oil or gas formation. As this fluid holds the underground fissures open, oil and gas flow up the well to the surface where they can be recovered. Water makes up an overwhelmingly high percentage of fracking fluid, but a congressional Democrat report released in April identified about 750 chemicals that have also been used in the process, 29 of which are either likely or known carcinogens."

Unfortunately, due to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or what is better known as the "Halliburton Loophole", the chemicals which are used in the fracking process are exempt from federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. It should also be noted that the Clean Water Act, which regulates discharges into rivers and streams, was amended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to exempt oil and gas production from those regulations as well. And if this wasn't bad enough, the oil and gas industry is also exempted from reporting toxic chemicals to the EPA as required by the Toxic Release Inventory for other industries.

Because the gas drillers are not required to report the chemicals they use, it is difficult to know what potential hazards may exist. According to a report published by Dr. Anthony Ingraffea + Dwight C. Baum Professor of Engineering, Weiss Presidential Teaching Fellow at Cornell University and president of Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy, Inc., "statistics in Pennsylvania show that about 6-7% of new wells drilled in each of the past three years have compromised structural integrity. This apparently low failure rate should be seen in the context of a full buildout in the Pennsylvania Marcellus of at least 100,000 wells, and in the entire Marcellus, including New York, of twice that number. Therefore, based on recent statistical evidence, one could expect at least 10,000 new wells with compromised structural integrity." It is suffice to say that a failed well structure can lead to contaminated drinking water. Additionally, drinking water can also be contaminated by chemicals leaking into aquifiers through cracks caused by the fracking process or simply by mishandling the waste water.

And while I'm on the topic of safety, I should also mention fracking's contribution to climate change + that is of course if you believe in such a thing. Although natural gas + methane + may burn cleaner then coal, the leakage of natural gas from well heads and pipelines can be a major problem. According to the EPA, methane's impact on climate change is 20 times greater than carbon when measured over a 100-year period.

"Some landowners get royalties!":

Sure, some landowners receive royalties for their mineral rights, but does that outweigh the drop in home prices? Worst case scenarios: your water gets polluted with fracking chemicals, the drillers have replaced the beautiful scenery across your street with a dirty industrial site, your family is breathing in toxic fumes, and your home is nearly impossible to sell. Best case scenario: no damage is done to your property or your health, yet many potential homebuyers are scared off anyway. Either way, it's a lose-lose situation.

"The gas drillers are fixing the roads!":

It's also true that the gas companies are fixing some of the roads, but these are roads which they are only fixing because their heavy trucks have either destroyed them or will destroy them unless they're strengthened. "That's not something we should celebrate," said state Rep. Mike Carroll, D-Hughestown. "They're doing what they should be doing. That should be a given."

Additionally, how many roads do not show any current damage but will begin to deteriorate sooner than normal due to the heavy truck traffic? It's impossible to accurately measure the extent or the cause of any damage to the roads. Therefore, it's unlikely that a for profit industry will ever fully compensate the State of Pennsylvania when their objective is to spend the least amount of money possible in order to make as much money as possible.

"The impact fee will help economically!":

Now let's discuss the impact fee. In 2011, the impact fee brought in $204 million to Pennsylvania and in 2012 it brought in $202 million. At first that sounds like a lot of money. But consider the state budget; the 2011-12 fiscal year total operating budget for Pennsylvania was $63.4 billion. Therefore, the impact fee is equivalent to about 0.3% of the total budget. Yes, you read that correctly + a whopping 0.3%. That means for every dollar the State of Pennsylvania spends in a year, the impact fee does not even cover a single penny. It's also worth mentioning that a large portion of the small impact fee goes to various state agencies to regulate the industry + so that's a wash.

"Gas drilling creates jobs!":

Sure, the fracking process requires the aid of human beings; therefore, fracking creates jobs. And I could list statistics on how many direct and indirect jobs have been created in Pennsylvania and debate whether there are enough jobs to justify all the externalities, but I will instead try to discuss the purpose of a job and how that purpose can be realized without fracking being part of the equation.

I believe the purpose of a "job" is to contribute to society via performing work so that in return the individual performing the work will be rewarded with a quality life for him or her and his or her family. In our case, this reward is mostly monetary with the exception of public goods and services. And the reason I mention the job's contribution to society is because if the result of a job only is to contribute to the individual, then it wouldn't be called a "job", it would simply be called "work". For example, a person living alone in the wilderness does not perform a "job" to survive, they perform "work".

The point that I'm trying to make is that we need to start rethinking our goals. Do we want to only worry about now and this moment or do we want to start looking at the big picture and figure out how we can improve not only our quality of life, but the quality of life for future generations. We could, for example, work together to build renewable sources of energy, energy efficient vehicles, and high speed rail. If workers are willing to wake up in the morning, put on their boots and hard hats and head to the fracking site, why would they not be just as willing to head to the high speed rail station? If Pennsylvanians are going to work hard all day on a project, wouldn't it make sense if that project not only benefits our generation but also future generations?