Below you will find a description of arguments for and against hydraulic fracturing through 4 different social worlds, as well as descriptions of 3 major organizations that play important roles in the controversy.
The different social worlds present in "fracking"/Arguments for and against "fracking"
There are four main social 'worlds in which the arguments for and against fracking are located: economic, political, environmental/public health and corporate transparency.
Those who support hydraulic fracturing argue that the economic benefits of drilling outweigh the negative environmental costs that are still uncertain at this point in the controversy. The presence of large amounts of shale gas in the United States is promising to increased energy production, and fracking could help provide for much of America's energy needs ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.ctm?id=natural-gas-could-serve-as-bridge-to-low-carbon-future). This idea is supported by President Obama, who was quoted saying that “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy." (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/210603-secretary-salazar-confronted-by-emotional-fracking-critic).
The argument that there is insufficient or not enough evidence of the negative effects of fracking is used by fracking supporters to halt regulation, as well. This argument is situated in the world of economics, and is intertwined with the world of politics
Those who support hydraulic fracturing argue that the economic benefits of drilling outweigh the negative environmental costs that are still uncertain at this point in the controversy. The presence of large amounts of shale gas in the United States is promising to increased energy production, and fracking could help provide for much of America's energy needs ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.ctm?id=natural-gas-could-serve-as-bridge-to-low-carbon-future). This idea is supported by President Obama, who was quoted saying that “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy." (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/210603-secretary-salazar-confronted-by-emotional-fracking-critic).
The argument that there is insufficient or not enough evidence of the negative effects of fracking is used by fracking supporters to halt regulation, as well. This argument is situated in the world of economics, and is intertwined with the world of politics
- The involvement of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in studying "the effects of hydraulic fracturing and its long term impacts on the environment" ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/fracking-pros-cons_n_1084147.html), as well as its role in disseminating scientific information to the public in the form of reports and studies has "come under attack from natural-gas advocates that call the report sloppy and inaccurate" (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/210603-secretary-salazar-confronted-by-emotional-fracking-critic). EPA results from a draft report in 2011 linked fracking with groundwater contamination in Wyoming, giving another environmental/public health reason why the practice is potentially unsafe.
- Corporate transparency is an issue when it comes to the fact that companies that practice fracking refuse to disclose what chemicals they use in the process, further complicating and jeopardizing the potential environmental/public health risks that may be associated with fracking.The political organizations responsible for regulation claim to be handling this problem: "The Interior Department is preparing new regulations for fracking on public lands that require full disclosure of chemicals used;" (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/210603-secretary-salazar-confronted-by-emotional-fracking-critic).
- The Hill Blog, Congressional online newspaper and proponents of hydraulic fracturing, argue more jobs will be created through increased natural gas drilling and the manufacturing technologies associated with increased expansion (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/205079-rep-bill-cassidy-r-la). This political
- link presumably influences environmental policy making on regulation of hydraulic fracturing.
3 Major Organizations Involved in Hydraulic Fracturing A brief description of their involvement in Fracking
- EPA:Government group Environmental Protection Agency
-The EPA became involved in the hydraulic fracturing controversy in 2010, when the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Conference Committee decided there was a need studies to be completed on the effects it has on drinking water. The report was to be completed by the end of 2012 as well as a second report to be released in 2014.
-“In January 2009, WildEarth Guardians and the San Juan Citizens Alliance sued EPA, alleging that the Agency had failed to review the new source performance standards and the major source air toxic standards for the oil and natural gas industry.” (http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417fs.pdf)
-On April 13, 2012 The memorandum of agreement among the U.S department of Energy and Interior along with the EPA was released. It shows the collaboration between these three agencies to “The DOE, 001, and EPA will identify research priorities and collaborate to sponsor research that improves our understanding of the impacts of developing our Nation's unconventional oil and gas resources and ensure the safe and prudent development of these resources.”
-“On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued cost-effective regulations to reduce harmful air pollution from the oil and natural gas industry while allowing continued, responsible growth in U.S. oil and natural gas production.”
How would you describe them politically?
-They are a government run agency.
-They help regulate environmental law through congress.
Where do they receive funding?
-Being a governmental group, they receive their funding through congressional appropriations.
-In total, the bill includes $27.5 billion in spending – a reduction of $2.1 billion below last year’s level and $3.8 billion below the President’s budget request. (http://appropriations.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=251469)
Where do they stand on the controversy?
-The EPA is a regulation organization. They play a role in the hydraulic fracturing controversy because they are the organization that everyone else is looking towards to implement regulations on fracking.
- “The Agency's focus and obligations under the law are to provide oversight, guidance and, where appropriate, rulemaking that achieve the best possible protections for the air, water and land where Americans live, work and play.” (EPA.gov)
What organizations or institutions do they work with?
-The EPA has many partnerships. Included are the list below taken from the EPA’s partnership link from their website.
http://www.epa.gov/partners/
-Agriculture
-Air Quality
-Energy Efficiency and Global Climate Change
-Pollution Prevention
-Product Labling
-Technology
-Transportation
-Waste Management
-Water
-Regional Partnerships
-In the memorandum that was just released, it showed that the EPA is currently in collaboration with the U.S Department of Energy and the U.S Department of Interior.
Who do they work against
-The EPA is a governmental group that helps create regulations about environmental issues. They are not particularly working against any other institution or organization.
- Exxon Mobil-Pro Fracking
-They are the world's largest publicly traded international oil and gas company. (Non Governmental)
-Exxon Mobil grew out of the John D. Rockefeller corporation called Standard Oil which was started in 1870.
- They employed the technology (hydraulic fracturing) as part of drilling more than 1 million wells since the 1940s.
- They chair the American Petroleum Institute working group that developed four best management practice documents encompassing the life cycle of unconventional resource development
-In 2009 they brought in XTO to help develop their knowledge and production of natural gas, specifically through hydraulic fracturing. (XTO is a fortune 500 energy producing company)
How would you describe them politically?
-They are an non-governmental company, but they do give funding to the government.
-In direct quotation from their website: “ExxonMobil makes political contributions to candidate committees, political parties, associations, and other political organizations...” and “We actively lobby the U.S. Congress and state legislatures on a number of important public policy issues such as access to resources, taxes, energy policy, trade, and climate policy.”
-ExxonMobil gave $1,274,762 to federal candidates: $132,970 to Democrats and $1.13 million to Republicans. The ExxonMobilPolitical Action Committee (PAC) contributed $698,450 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election cycle - 7% todemocrats and 93% torepublicans.
Where do they receive funding?
-They receive funding through the sale and distribution of oil production. As well as through their investors, and shareholders.
Where do they stand on the controversy?
-They are pro-fracking.
-In 2009, Exxon Mobil spent $27.5 million in lobbying against global warming.
-Exxon is actually known for lobbying against bills that are set to protect the environment because it would interfere with their oil and natural gas production.
-A study by the US Union of Concerned Scientists reports that ExxonMobil funded 29 climate change denial groups in 2004 alone. Since 1990, the report says, the company has spent more than $19 million funding groups that promote their views through publications and Websites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community.
What organizations or institutions do they work with?
-They are associated with the American Petroleum Institute.
-They have a partnership with XTO
-American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
Who do they work against.
-The Environment
- Earth Works: Anti-Fracking
-Earthworks is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the impacts of irresponsible mineral and energy development while seeking sustainable solutions
-Earthworks evolved from the work of two organizations: Mineral Policy Center and the Oil & Gas Accountability Project. This merger of organizations was completed in 2005
-The Oil and Gas accountability project was created in 1999 which works at all levels to provide better enforcement of drilling regulations.They also have created and distributed model regulations to state and local jurisdictions to provide citizens and regulators a template for better oversight.
How would you describe them politically?
-They’re a non-profit organization that is anti-fracking
-They have lobbyist groups on capitol hill and at the local government levels supporting legislation that is pro environmental protection.
Where do they receive funding?
-They are funded by their volunteers and grants through their members.
Where do they stand on the controversy?
-They are an anti-fracking organization.
-They have created several campaigns and projects to help promote regulation of hydraulic fracturing.
What organizations or institutions do they work with?
-They work with local people affected by hydraulic fracturing to help them better understand the hydraulic fracturing process.
Who do they work against?
-Big Oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, Chesapeake Energy and Halliburton
Information found from:
1. Earthworksaction.org
2. Exxonmobil.com
3. opensecrets.org
4. epa.gov