The Politics of Fracking (aka Hydraulic Fracture)

Modern living depends greatly on the availability and accessibility of energy. Energy provides the comfort and convenience to sustain our quality of life. More importantly, energy drives the economy to create wealth for people and nations. As such, countries are obsessed with seeking cheap and easily available sources of energy. Albeit a looming climate issue, energy consumption increases as population increases, and the lack of cost-effective and consistent renewable energy source means that mankind would still be burning fossil fuel to generate electricity, often at the expense of the environment. This is true in any country, including the United States.

As crude oil prices increase to new heights since the mid-2000s, coupled with ever improving oil-drilling technology, previous uneconomical solutions becomes economical. One such technology is hydraulic fracture of shale rocks, or fracking. Technology improvements and high oil prices propelled it as a new cost-effective solution for natural gas mining in previously unrecoverable shale rocks. With increasing oil prices, a Downian mobilization began to support the fracking activities resulting in increase in domestic natural gas supplies.

Fracking to produce shale gas enters into an “iron triangle” of sorts, not unseen in previous energy crunch times where congress had to relook at options to secure energy supply. Despite the unknowns in terms of environmental impacts from fracking, the Energy policy was amended in 2005, including favoring fracking activities. This includes the exemption for fracking under several federal laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. In addition, there was little congress oversight in licensing and controlling the rate and extent of fracking, as observed by Brady. Much of the regulation was delegated to individual states. This resulted in a rather fragmented regulation that differs from state to state. Whilst New Jersey had banned fracking altogether, many states allow fracking in areas which do not affect drinking water supplies.

The increasing fracking activities to increase US domestic oil and gas production is changing the country’s landscape. “Cities” are popping up in the middle of nowhere, with settlements established for the sole purpose of cracking shale rocks to produce oil and natural gas. With increasing operations, there is also increasing publicity. A great public concern was the unknown effect of fracking to the quality of underground water sources. The key issue resides with the cocktail mix of water, sand and chemicals used to fracture the shale rocks. Many of the chemicals used were harmful or carcinogenic, yet they are often considered “trade-secrets” amongst the oil and gas producers. It is unsure if fracking operations could pollute underground waters that end up in the water mains, or flow to the rivers after treatment. Environmentalists were also hailing that fracking resulted in release of methane gas, which is more harmful that carbon dioxide towards global warming.

With greater public scrutiny, and greater uncertainty, the image switches from enthusiasm to criticism. This is shown in public opinion polls, from over 50% public acceptance in 2012 to under 50% public acceptance in 2013, report by Pew. From such swinging support, we are seeing the tipping of the scale, as fracking began the transition from Downian to Schattschneider mobilization, and a Conflictual policy network forming. The Environment Protection Agency has been called upon to do their job, monitoring water safety and air pollution.