Rose Braz: The Economics of Fracking

            On July 10^th, EarthScope Media had the opportunity to interview Climate Campaign Director Rose Braz of the Center for Biological Diversity. We specifically interviewed her on the topic hydraulic fracturing, which is more commonly known as fracking. Fracking, as we learned, is the process where large amounts of water mixed with chemicals are blasted into rock in order to extract underground oil. My interview focused on the economic implications of large-scale fracking in California.

            One of the important discussions in determining possible financial benefits for fracking in California is the economic outlook of other states that have had major fracking occur. In our interview, I mentioned how states such as North Dakota experienced economic rejuvenation as a result of the fracking industry. In North Dakota, unemployment decreased from 9.8% to 3.2% as a result of fracking boom in that state. I asked Ms. Braz if she believed that California, with one of the largest unemployment rates in the country, would benefit as a result of widespread fracking in California. She quickly refuted the case of North Dakota in that that the fracking economy undergoes “boom and bust cycles.” Boom and bust cycles typically describe the rapid expansion of credit and the rapid rising of prices which is then followed by a collapse in prices and a credit crunch, where credit is hard to come by. Ms. Braz stated how the economic benefits of fracking are usually associated with such “boom and bust cycles.” Not only that, but Ms. Braz also pointed out how North Dakota is completely unlike California. The population of California is much larger than North Dakota, along with the fact that California relies on different industries than North Dakota. The industries that California currently relies on would suffer as a result of fracking, such as agriculture (such as agriculture and tourism of wine industry). Any possible economic benefits from fracking would be offset by the damage done to other important industries in California and its tendency for a “boom and bust cycle,” not to mention the environmental damages fracking may cause.

            While it is clear that the creation of jobs by fracking would occur, I asked Ms. Braz if there is any possibility of a compromise that will mitigate the environmental concerns while still allowing for the economic growth provided by fracking. She responded that the potential risks of fracking are too great to allow for it to proceed. There is too much that is not yet known about fracking and its dangers to allow it to happen. Any economic benefits, if any, are completely counterbalanced by the hazards it possesses, many of which are unknown, due to the surrounding mystery of what and where fracking actually occurs. According to Ms. Braz, companies that engage in fracking are not required to disclose all chemicals used in fracking; companies can choose what information to release to the public regarding the chemicals in fracking, which presents a major risk to the public. This danger does not outweigh the potential benefits of fracking.

            While the economy of California is still suffering, Ms. Braz made it clear that fracking is not the answer to our state’s problems. The inherent danger in fracking means that the gains are offset by the dangers. Braz believes that until more is known about fracking and its risks, a moratorium at the very least should be placed on fracking or it should be banned.

            For more information on fracking in California visit the Center for Biological Diversity’s website on fracking here.

Kevin Johnston