Total Length: 3485 words ( 12 double-spaced pages)
Total Sources: 18
Page 1 of 12
Fracking and Ethics
Introduction
While “fracking”—the term applied to the practice of hydraulic fracturing of rock to gain access to the oil or gas underground—has been hailed as a revolutionary way for the oil industry to draw oil from previously hard to reach places, there are a variety of ethical issues surrounding the practice (Evensen & Stedman, 2018). Stakeholders in the issue of fracking go beyond those in the oil/gas industry, however. They include people in communities, whose water supply has been contaminated as a result of fracking. They include people whose lives have been changed by fracking due to the opportunity to invest in companies engaged in this practice. They include the workers and employees who are given jobs because of the new opportunities that fracking provides. Thus any position for or against fracking will impact all these stakeholders in different ways. Some believe fracking is the way of the future. Others view it as a threat to the stability of communities and to environmental health. This paper will show why fracking may actually be both of these things—a hopeful path towards future prosperity and a threat to the well-being of the very society it seeks to satisfy. The main issue is that fracking in its current state still poses a number of dangers to various stakeholders and thus can be viewed as ethically irresponsible. If fracking could be perfected and practiced without risk to others (from investors to communities) it could be viewed in a far more favorable light. Until that moment comes, however, fracking must be viewed as a threat. This paper will discuss the history of fracking, where the argument comes from, what the counter-argument is, and why in the final analysis the ethics of fracking must be questioned.
History/Background
The argument surrounding the practice of fracking has gotten underway from a variety of approaches, mainly because there are so many different stakeholders involved. The first approach that will be discussed here is the approach from the economic standpoint. The second approach that will be discussed is from the environmental standpoint.
In the beginning, fracking was seen as a way for oil/gas producers to access previously hard to reach oil using the newly conceived method of hydraulic fracturing. The problem that the industry had faced in the past regarding this method was that it was very expensive. It was much cheaper to pump oil out of the ground using the traditional oil derrick method. Fracking required a great deal of investment and companies needed cheap or low interest rates in order to secure that investment just to get the process going and to keep it maintained.
That moment came in the wake of the 2008 crisis: interest rates were drastically cut by the central banks and investors started putting money into the fracking industry, which promised positive returns. So long as rates stayed low, the companies could produce oil and not be hampered by margin call. However, were rates to rise, the companies’ debts would come due in a big way and leave them without recourse to further investment to maintain the process. Even were the price of oil to rise, for instance, the fracking industry would not benefit because other costs would rise as well (Sovacool, 2014; Strauss, 2019).
The other issue with fracking is that it can cause damage to the environment and thus harm communities that depend on fresh water supplies, which have become contaminated in the past because of fracking (McDermott-Levy, Kaktins & Sattler, 2013; Mooney, 2011). Indeed, Busby and Mangano (2017) showed that infant mortality rates significantly increased in regions where fracking took place, while in the rest of the nation infant mortality rates declined. The authors concluded that “fracking appears to be associated with early infant mortality in populations living in counties where the process is carried out. There is some evidence that the effect is associated with private water well density and/or environmental law violations” (Busby & Mangano, 2017, p. 381). In short, fracking has been found to be harmful for the environment—and for human beings who rely on that environment to support their way of life.
From these two approaches—the economic side and the environmental side—the arguments against fracking have occurred. The ethical issues are essentially these: 1) fracking as an industry is unsustainable because it is too costly and is only now booming because of low interest rates and the need of investors to find the kind of high-yield returns promised by the industry (Heinberg, 2013); and 2) fracking pollutes the earth and can lead to the deaths of human beings (Bateman, 2010). The current state of the issue will now be discussed in the next section.
Current State
How did it get to this point? Fracking actually began in the 1950s but in recent years it has become more commercially viable, with a million jobs being created in the fracking industry in the U.S. alone (King, 2012).
However, because of the risks associated with fracking, legal codes and cases vary from state to state (Cheren, 2013; Minor, 2013). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has played an ambivalent role in the development of the arguments for and against fracking. As Taylor (2012) shows, there are ways for fracking companies to more safely implement that practice, but it is costly and the companies are already operating with very thin margins so they are reluctant to implement these measures.
Those who argue against fracking and want to take action also face costs, however. The cost of pursing litigation against energy companies is high—which is one reason the EPA has only partially followed up on “explosion risk” level findings of methane in well water in Texas as Banerjee (2014) has shown. These levels, the EPA contends, are directly related to fracking companies operating nearby—but as energy companies have powerful interest groups in Washington that interact with legislators and members of the judicial and executive branches, the EPA has shown…
[…… parts of this paper are missing, click here to view the entire document ]
…(Lewis, 2011). One can see from these two examples that ethics in business is essential. A business has to be transparent, honest, and committed to the values that matter to people in society. Otherwise it will be neither trusted nor trustworthy.
For the oil/gas industry it is essential that this same principle be followed. Ethics is imperative to any industry—not just the oil/gas industry—but it is absolutely crucial for oil and gas when it comes to the issue of fracking because people’s lives hang in the balance. People’s health, people’s jobs, people’s investments, and people’s communities can all be impacted one way or the other by fracking. For a company to come in out of the blue and start fracking without taking the proper precautions is to invite danger and risk into a community. If that company has not been transparent about the risks, many will be left in the dark and will be surprised when they find their drinking water contaminated or their children getting sick. The facts show that fracking is only safe when one chooses to be selective about the data that is looked at—but ethics and accountability are not about cherry picking data. They are about getting as much information about an issue as possible and using that information to make the right decision.
For communities and for people who are looking for work, for investors and for business owners, the fracking industry has to be upfront—with them and with itself. The possibility that fracking might not be the solution of the future has to be confronted, even if it means the loss of jobs right now. It would stave off the repercussions of failing to address the issue and letting more money pour in after bad.
The health of the community also has to be considered. There are too many instances, from Pennsylvania to Texas to California of fracking being linked to environmental health hazards. For fracking companies to come clean and be up front and honest, they will have to acknowledge these facts—and the facts show that, when acknowledged, they all point to the reality that fracking should be stopped.
Conclusion
Fracking has been viewed as both the future of the oil/gas industry and a threat to people’s lives and communities and investments. On the one hand, people see only the good parts of fracking: they look at the jobs created, the ability to reach oil and gas from previously unattainable parts of the earth, and the investment that has poured into the industry. What they do not see, however, are the risks, the negative outcomes, and the reasons why the industry has ballooned so quickly in recent years. Because they do not take the time to consider these other facts, they run the risk of ruining the lives of stakeholders. They fail to appreciate the health and environmental concerns that stakeholders have. They show no accountability because they do not pursue all the facts: they look at only the….....
Banerjee, N. 2014. Natural Gas Production Contaminated Drinking Water in Texas, Study Finds. Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gas-wells-drinking-water-contamination-20140915-story.html
Busby, Christopher, and Joseph J. Mangano. \"There’s a world going on underground—infant mortality and fracking in Pennsylvania.\" Journal of Environmental Protection 8, no. 04 (2017): 381.
Cart, J. 2014. Fracking Report Clears Way for California Oil, Gas Leasing to Resume. Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-fracking-report-20140829-story.html
Cheren, R.D., 2013. Fracking bans, taxation, and environmental policy. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 64, p.1483.
Evensen, D. and Stedman, R., 2018. Fracking’: Promoter and destroyer of ‘the good life. Journal of Rural Studies, 59, pp.142-152.
Heinberg, R., 2013. Snake Oil: Chapter 5–the economics of fracking: Who benefits. Resilience. October, 23.
King, G.E., 2012, January. Hydraulic fracturing 101: what every representative, environmentalist, regulator, reporter, investor, university researcher, neighbor and engineer should know about estimating frac risk and improving frac performance in unconventional gas and oil wells. In SPE hydraulic fracturing technology conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Lewis, M. (2011). The big short. NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Mazur, A., 2016. How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012?. Public Understanding of Science, 25(2), pp.207-222.
McDermott-Levy, R., Kaktins, N. and Sattler, B., 2013. Fracking, the environment, and health. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 113(6), pp.45-51.
McLean, B. 2019. Saudi America: The Truth About Fracking and How It\'s Changing the World. NY: Columbia Global Reports.
Minor, J., 2013. Local government fracking regulations: A Colorado case study. Stan. Envtl. LJ, 33, p.59.
Mooney, C., 2011. The truth about fracking. Scientific American, 305(5), pp.80-85.
Piper, T.R., 1993. Can Ethics Be Taught? Perspectives, Challenges, and Approaches at Harvard Business School. Harvard Business School Press, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA 02163.
Sovacool, B.K., 2014. Cornucopia or curse? Reviewing the costs and benefits of shale gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 37, pp.249-264.
Strauss, M., 2019, January. This Beautiful Place We Feel We Saved. In New Labor Forum (Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 109-112). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
of communities addressing bust- boom impacts. Relevant policy alternatives include federal laws, conditions mandatory for fracking operators, chemical disclosure conditions, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supervision and monitoring, drilling site limitations, water supply- linked requisites and the procurement of an ample number of competent regulators.
Numerous policies which may be implemented have been put forward. Decisions pertaining to degree of regulation of extraction need to balance public safety and health, energy requirements, and the unavoidable associated bureaucracy. Research reveals horizontal drilling, shale- gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing would, on the whole, profit from 1) More organized, sustained scientific research; 2) taking into account a more robust… Continue Reading...
in locations with enough water. If droughts were to happen, this could change. Natural gas is dangerous to the earth because fracking causes earthquakes (Bjorklund, 2015). Hydropower has minimal effect except dam building. Building of dams can interrupt wildlife habitats and lead to loss of homes for fish, deer, and other wildlife (Billington, Jackson, & Melosi, 2005). Continue Reading...
