Debate Desk
Does Fracking Poison Water and Deserve a Nationwide Ban?
A federal study found no widespread systemic harm to drinking water, and shale gas has lowered emissions and prices; local risks call for rules, not a ban.
The claim
Opponents say that hydraulic fracturing injects chemicals into the ground, contaminates drinking water, causes earthquakes and releases methane, and that it should be banned to protect communities and the climate.
The answer in three points
- Fracturing takes place thousands of feet below the aquifers that supply drinking water, separated by layers of rock and by steel and cement casing. When contamination has occurred, it has usually been traced to a faulty well, a spill at the surface or poor disposal of wastewater, all of which are problems of operation that rules and enforcement can address.
- The shale revolution made America the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas. Cheaper gas displaced coal in electricity generation and cut carbon emissions more than any federal program, and it lowered heating and power bills for families.
- States regulate the practice, and states with long experience of it, such as Texas, Pennsylvania and North Dakota, have developed rules on casing, disclosure, waste handling and setbacks. Rules that respond to real risks serve better than a ban that gives up the benefits.
Citizens near drilling sites deserve disclosure, testing and honest enforcement, and states can provide them. The best protection is a system of rules that is enforced.
The numbers
- The Environmental Protection Agency's 2016 assessment of hydraulic fracturing found that the activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances, but did not find evidence of widespread, systemic impacts.
- The Energy Information Administration reports that the United States has been the world's largest crude oil producer since 2018.
- The Energy Information Administration reports that natural gas passed coal as the largest source of U.S. electricity generation in 2016.
What they will say next
"The EPA study found problems." It found that contamination can occur in specific circumstances, such as inadequate well construction and spills, and said so. Those findings justify standards, inspections and penalties, not a ban on the whole practice.
"Fracking causes earthquakes." The earthquakes linked to oil and gas activity are mostly caused by the deep disposal of wastewater, and states such as Oklahoma have adjusted rules on injection in response. The risk is manageable.
"Methane leaks undo the climate benefit." Leaks matter, and technology and rules can reduce them. Operators have an interest in capturing the gas they sell. The net effect of replacing coal with gas has been lower emissions.
"Local communities bear the burden." They deserve fair rules, royalties, and protection of property rights. Mineral owners who benefit also include families and farmers.
Good rules and honest inspection answer the risks, and the benefits of cheap energy are widely shared.
"Residents near wells report health problems." Their concerns deserve investigation by state and federal agencies, with testing and public data. Where a cause is found, it should be addressed and the operator held responsible, and where it is not, the findings should be shared.