User:GibbsOtis/Environmental impact of fracking

Community impacts

Impacted communities are often already vulnerable, including poor, rural, or indigenous persons, who may continue to experience the deleterious effects of hydraulic fracturing for generations. Facility siting in fracking projects disproportionately tilts towards lower income communities, a persisting issue partially due to these disadvantaged residents not having the resources to evade environmental hazards. A spatial analysis of the demographics of residents around fracking sites found that median incomes around wells in Pennsylvania were substantially lower. Competition for resources between farmers and oil companies contributes to stress for agricultural workers and their families, as well as to a community-level “us versus them” mentality that creates community distress. Rural communities that host hydraulic fracturing operations often experience a “boom/bust cycle,” whereby their population surges, consequently exerting stress on community infrastructure and service provision capabilities (e.g., medical care, law enforcement). A study of rural communities around fracking sites in Pennsylvania found that while there was some local support of fracking as a source of jobs and a boost to small businesses, there was more skepticism of if these jobs would stay within the community at all, and if there would be a significant 'bust' to the economy after the natural gas dried up.

Indigenous and agricultural communities may be particularly impacted by hydraulic fracturing, given their historical attachment to, and dependency on, the land they live on, which is often damaged as a result of the hydraulic fracturing process. Native Americans are especially vulnerable to the negative environmental impacts of fracking operations, in part due to existing legislature surrounding fracking wastewater and environmental pollutants on indigenous lands. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has a special exemption preventing indigenous groups from protecting their water sources with quality standards. Native Americans, particularly those living on rural reservations, may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of fracturing; that is, on the one hand, tribes may be tempted to engage with the oil companies to secure a source of income but, on the other hand, must often engage in legal battles to protect their sovereign rights and the natural resources of their land.

While hydraulic fracturing is primarily recognized for its impacts on the natural environment, it also can provide stressors on a community's mental state. Research suggests that the activity surrounding fracking operations leads to a degree of degradation in 'socio-psychological functioning' of surrounding community members. In an attempt to support findings from the existing literature, one study performed a series of interviews with residents of Denton, Texas to get a community's personalized testimony. These discussions found that residents experienced heightened stress, anxiety, and hopelessness, as well as feeling a 'lack of control' over their community. Researchers also uncovered polarizing attitudes, a communal rift forming between those with pro and anti fracking beliefs.

Policy and science[edit]

Main article: Regulation of hydraulic fracturing

There are two main approaches to regulation that derive from policy debates about how to manage risk and a corresponding debate about how to assess risk.

The two main schools of regulation are science-based assessment of risk and the taking of measures to prevent harm from those risks through an approach like hazard analysis, and the precautionary principle, where action is taken before risks are well-identified. The relevance and reliability of risk assessments in communities where hydraulic fracturing occurs has also been debated amongst environmental groups, health scientists, and industry leaders. The risks, to some, are overplayed and the current research is insufficient in showing the link between hydraulic fracturing and adverse health effects, while to others the risks are obvious and risk assessment is underfunded.

Different regulatory approaches have thus emerged. In France and Vermont for instance, a precautionary approach has been favored and hydraulic fracturing has been banned based on two principles: the precautionary principle and the prevention principle. Nevertheless, some States such as the U.S. have adopted a risk assessment approach, which had led to many regulatory debates over the issue of hydraulic fracturing and its risks.

In the UK, the regulatory framework is largely being shaped by a report commissioned by the UK Government in 2012, whose purpose was to identify the problems around hydraulic fracturing and to advise the country's regulatory agencies. Jointly published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Mair, the report features ten recommendations covering issues such as groundwater contamination, well integrity, seismic risk, gas leakages, water management, environmental risks, best practice for risk management, and also includes advice for regulators and research councils. The report was notable for stating that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing are manageable if carried out under effective regulation and if operational best practices are implemented.

A 2013 review concluded that, in the US, confidentiality requirements dictated by legal investigations have impeded peer-reviewed research into environmental impacts.

When looking at the regulations of fracking from the perspective of land rights, historic and continuing injustices against Native Americans are one angle to consider. Some legislature, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is written in a way that it only protects indigenous 'cultural resources' on specifically allocated tribal lands. This allows historically marginalizing policies of land allocation by the United States government to continue to determine harmful land use practices in Native American communities. For example, the Greater Chaco Canyon region, which spans across Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, is home to ancient Puebloan architecture, extremely significant grounds to descendant indigenous groups. Most of these lands, however, are controlled by the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), leaving them vulnerable to development from the oil sector. These organizations, particularly the BLM, have a recent history of allowing oil companies to exploit the resources beneath federal lands.

One significant roadblock to meaningful fracking legislation lies in the industry being relegated as a state-level decision. Without federal oversight, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) omit fracking activity from their respective languages.

There are numerous scientific limitations to the study of the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. The main limitation is the difficulty in developing effective monitoring procedures and protocols, for which there are several main reasons:

• Variability among fracturing sites in terms of ecosystems, operation sizes, pad densities, and quality-control measures makes it difficult to develop a standard protocol for monitoring.
• As more fracturing sites develop, the chance for interaction between sites increases, greatly compounding the effects and making monitoring of one site difficult to control. These cumulative effects can be difficult to measure, as many of the impacts develop very slowly.
• Due to the vast number of chemicals involved in hydraulic fracturing, developing baseline data is challenging. In addition, there is a lack of research on the interaction of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid and the fate of the individual components.