Activity 4.2.1 - Fracking

Problem Statement

    Hydrofracking is a way in which natural gas or oil is extracted from shale rock underground. Over the years, technology has advanced to allow for extraction from unconventional deposits. These harder to reach areas require deep drilling and injections of water, sand, and chemicals into the ground (citation). Advancements in hydrofracking have caused a boom in economic activity. It contributed more than $76.9 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2010 and that number is projected to rise to $231.1 billion in 2035 (citation). Additionally, the industry is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue (citation). Natural gas is currently the second largest source of energy in the U.S., in competition with Saudi Arabia to become the biggest exporter of energy (citation). Concerns have been raised for the environment's health and some question whether or not hydrofracking is sustainable. A large concern is contamination of drinking water with harmful chemicals near fracking locations. The water necessary for fracking becomes waste water that may be recycled (citation). Pollution from vehicles is also evident from trucks needed carry out fracking. The extraction itself releases methane gas, a greenhouse gas, which may be released into the water supply or atmosphere (citation). Landscape aesthetics are altered as well. However, natural gas is generally cleaner than coal and oil and is cheaper to produce than some renewable energy sources. There are various ways these issues are being handled.

Identity Frame

    The first frame to look at is identity. Those that work in the natural gas industry want job protection. They may vote in against regulation to ensure their jobs stay in tact. Natural gas workers may identify with other blue collar workers and feel a sense of community and loyalty to this group. Oil companies as a whole feel entitled to keeping fracking chemicals from the public as business secrets. 

Characterization Frame

    The second frame this situation can be viewed with is the characterization frame. Natural gas workers may view those in opposition to their industry in a bad light. They may be less interested in hearing the opposing view. From the other side of the argument, natural gas workers bring an influx of crime as well as domestic and housing problems (citation). This may cause negative perception of the natural gas community.

Risk Frame

The third frame to look at is the risk frame. There are quite a few benefits to hydrofracking. Hydrofracking creates jobs, raises the U.S. GDP, and is allowing the country to become more independent in energy production (Cohen et al. 2014). The cost per kilowatt-hour for natural gas is the same as coal, making it less expensive than some renewable energy sources such as nuclear, solar, and wind (Cohen et al. 2014). Hydrofracking is also cleaner than coal and oil. Natural gas produces less pollution when burned due to its simple chemical structure. It produces half as much of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide as coal and 30% less carbon dioxide than oil (Cohen et al. 2014). Accompanying all these benefits is a plethora of caveats. While fracking is cleaner than coal and oil, it still produces harmful waste. Chemicals used in the process to kill bacteria, regulate viscosity, reduce friction, or adjust pH may pose a threat to human health and the environment. These are harmful chemicals known to cause cancer, illness, reproductive issues, and animal deaths after exposure (Cohen et al. 2014). These chemicals in fracking fluid can leech into the surrounding environment through storm surges, poor cementing, operation errors, or some other accident. Methane, another greenhouse gas, may be leaked through venting or leaks. This contamination may spread to local drinking water sources (Cohen et al. 2014). These pros and cons must be weighed in decisions made regarding hydrofracking.

Fact Frame

    The fourth frame is the fact frame. In this case, some factual information may be restricted from public knowledge. Despite regulations made by the government, natural gas companies do not have to disclose chemical information to the public for fear of revealing trade secrets (Cohen et al. 2014). This keeps the public largely in the dark when it comes to facts about hydrofracking. Across the country there are varying levels of disclosure allowed. For example, in Ohio, doctors are not allowed to share information about chemicals used un hydrofracking (Cohen et al. 2014). This may lead to public health conflicts.

Conflict Management Frame

   The final frame to view this issue with is the conflict management frame. Currently, hydrofracking conflicts are largely left to individual states to sort through. At the national level, there are a few laws and regulations in place, such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. However, fracking companies are exempt from disclosing the chemicals they use (Cohen et al. 2014). States across the U.S. have varying laws surrounding the issue of hydrofracking. In Ohio, the sole authority for drill permit approval is given to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (Cohen et al. 2014). In New York, attempts are being made to heavily restrict hydrofracking practices (Cohen et al. 2014). Outside of the United States, countries have differing regulations for fracking and hydrofracking.

References

Cohen, S., Wannemacher, J., & Weisbecker, P. (2014). Understanding environmental policy (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.