Argument Against Fracking

An Argument against Fracking in Oklahoma

Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) is “the process of injecting water and trace chemicals at high rates and pressures to create subsurface fractures along the length of a horizontal or vertical wellbore and then ‘propping the fracture open with sand or other materials” (Shemeta 6). This process allows for oil and natural gas to flow up through the Earth, allowing access to resources that would not be accessible otherwise. This topic has become debated extensively among environmental activists and the oil and natural gas corporations. One of the states most afflicted by this problem is Oklahoma because of its abundance of natural gas and oil. Oklahoma is one of the leading oil and natural gas exporters in

the United States with even the capital building being surrounded by oil wells. Kyle Murray writes, “Oklahoma consistently ranks among the top five states for oil and gas production in the U.S.” (4919). Although there are benefits to fracking such as the economic boost and the usage of local natural resources, the disadvantages, such as induced earthquakes, water damage, and adverse economic effects pose a large problem for nearly every Oklahoman.
One of the benefits of fracking in Oklahoma is the economic boost that it provides for the state due to its large oil and natural gas reservoirs. According to Jason Brown, “Natural gas extraction directly increases the employment and income of those working in the industry” (9). Further evidence can be seen when Jason Brown states, “Relative to wages in 2001, the average county experienced an implied 5.8-percent increase in the wage per job from increased natural gas production” (20). This boost can be seen all over Oklahoma and provide large incentives for continuing hydraulic fracturing throughout the state.
Another benefit to fracking in Oklahoma is the energy self-sufficiency that it provides for the United States. The United States has been involved in conflicts with various Middle Eastern countries over oil and the war on terror. This incentivizes the search for energy sources domestically so that America does not have to continue conflicts within the Middle East. Kathryn Russell states, “The call for domestic fuels became an important feature of the political scene” (553). This search for domestic can be remedied by hydraulic fracturing, allowing for complete access to the resources underneath the United States’ land. Sara Gosman writes that “by 2020, the United States is predicted to be a net exporter of natural gas and to produce more crude oil than Saudi Arabia” (88).
Although there are benefits to fracking, there are also consequences such as the environmental damage caused by fracking.

Fracking requires water containing various chemicals to be shot into the ground under a vacuum. This water will then flow back up with the extracted oil or natural gas or will be absorbed into the natural water supply. Furthermore, when oil and natural gas are extracted from the ground, water, known as coproduced water, will also be extracted. Kyle Murray writes that “due to the poor quality of coproduced water it is, in most cases, subsequently disposed via deep subsurface wastewater injection wells” (4919). These wastewater injection wells function by injecting water deep into the group where it cannot interact with the regular drinking water. These wastewater injection wells, however, lead to other problems which will be discussed later. Further problems can be seen in that the chemicals injected with the water can be toxic to the environment and the people around areas containing fracking. Sarah Gosman states, “The fluids may enter groundwater directly from the wellbore if the casing is of poor quality or the cementing is inadequate, conditions that the high pressures of high-volume hydraulic fracturing could exacerbate” (97). These chemicals could easily seep into the drinking water and scientists are not sure the damage that they could cause. There is also currently a lack of regulations on the disclosure of chemicals being injected for these

fracking wells. While there is large public concern for fracking, the process “is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements” (Hatami 213). Currently, however, many states require mandatory disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracking process. This is a step in the right direction, but these laws should be extended to a national level so that scientists can gauge the effects that these chemicals can have when introduced to drinking water.
Another environmental effect experienced by Oklahoma as a result of fracking is the increased amount of induced earthquakes. Induced earthquakes refer to “earthquakes caused by human activity” (Shemeta 2). This happens when the wastewater injected into the Earth can cause a preexisting fault to slip and then cause an Earthquake. Seismicity reports in Oklahoma indicate that “residents have experienced more than 200 quakes with a magnitude of at least 3.0 since the beginning of 2009, and more than 2,600 tremors altogether during 2013” (Walsh 2). Furthermore, Walsh also states, “Oklahoma is now the second most seismically active state in the continental U.S., after California” (2). For a state to go from a state of minimal seismic activity to having the second most earthquake activity signifies a major problem and fracking may be to blame. For comparison, my mother, who was born in Oklahoma and lived there for over thirty years, said that she had never experienced an earthquake while she lived up there.
In addition, fracking can provide problems for the economy and housing market of cities with fracturing occurring nearby. When the income is boosted for an area due to jobs opened up by fracturing, the overall cost of living in that area increases. According to Kathryn Russell, “Small, bucolic-farming communities can rapidly change into towns dominated by the oil and gas companies” (557). This causes problems for local residents who cannot afford to live in their old cities due to the influx of money provided by oil and gas companies. Further adding to this point, Jason Brown writes that “direct demand by firms and workers in the resource extracting sector may also increase local prices for goods and services, potentially creating a disadvantage for local businesses” (10).
Finally, fracking in Oklahoma creates reliance on oil for the economy of the state, causing problems when the price of oil drops.

A few years ago, the price of gasoline peaked at a price of about four dollars a gallon, indicating a similarly high price for crude oil. This high price for crude oil incentivized many companies to invest in hydraulic fracturing in the state of Oklahoma. A problem arises, however, as many companies would spend more drilling than they profited from the oil drilled. According to Richard Manning, “A couple of generations ago we spent a lot less energy drilling, pumping, and distributing than we do now” (431). With this vast investment in the oil industry in Oklahoma, eventually the price of oil dropped and these companies went bankrupt. With the decline in oil prices, so too did the Oklahoman economy follow as Asjylyn Loder remarks, “In the second quarter of last year [2015], Oklahoma’s economy shrank 2.4 percent” (12). This collapse in the economy has been seen before by Oklahoma and will not likely recover for likely many

years.
I believe that fracking should not be tolerated in Oklahoma for the dangers that it can bring to every Oklahoman. There may be benefits such as the economic boost that it can provide for the cities where it occurs as well as the benefit towards self-sustaining natural resources. Moreover, the environmental effects experienced due to undisclosed chemicals used in the water injection for the creation of fracking wells. Another environmental effect experienced by Oklahoma as a result of fracking is the increased seismicity resulting from the wastewater injection method causing a change in pressure near the faults. In addition, the economic effects are short lived due to the diminishing returns on oil and the current low prices of oil causing states that are reliant on oil for their economy to descend into recession. In addition, the small communities that allow fracking to enter allow for adverse economic effects such as increased costs of living as well as overrun small businesses that cannot compete with the large corporations.