Fracking: some call it one of the greatest innovations of the last fifty years. Others insist it’s an environmental disaster. Who is right? Linnea Lueken, research fellow at the Heartland Institute, sets the record straight.

It is one of the greatest innovations of the last fifty years. It has saved consumers billions of dollars… Prevented untold tons of carbon emissions from entering the atmosphere… And almost single-handedly rescued an economy that was in the middle of a severe downturn. You’ve probably heard of this innovation – not as a source of pride, but as an object of scorn. I’m talking about fracking: the process of extracting oil and natural gas from fine cracks in shale rock. So, what gives? Why has something that has done so much good been so unappreciated – even vilified? The answer, of course, is that the opponents of fracking – environmentalists and their political and media allies – say that the negatives of fracking outweigh its positives. What are those negatives? Detractors have a long list: contributing to global warming, putting local drinking water at risk, and even causing earthquakes are high among their complaints. Those are pretty serious charges. But are they valid? Before I answer that question, let’s cover a little history. Fracking – whatever your current impression of it – is a great American success story. Before the twenty-first century, fracking as we know it now barely existed. The concept – reaching pockets of oil and gas trapped in shale – had been around for decades, but wasn’t practically or financially feasible. Technological breakthroughs and a few eureka moments – like horizontal drilling and using improved ground-penetrating radar – in the early 2000s changed everything. In traditional oil production, a company drills a well with the goal of finding a reservoir of oil. In fracking, the goal is to liberate a vast number of small pockets of oil and gas that have been trapped in the shale rock. A narrow shaft is drilled – first vertically, and then horizontally. Water, mixed with sand and other additives, is pumped down the shaft at extremely high pressure to create tiny fissures in the surrounding rock. The sand holds the tiny cracks open, allowing the oil and gas to escape and flow back up the well to the surface. What makes the innovation of fracking even more remarkable is that it emerged at a time when the theory of Peak Oil was widely accepted. Advocates of this theory-including many prominent scientists-warned that humans would soon run out of fossil fuels. Fracking turned the theory upside down. In a matter of a few years, the world had more oil and gas than it knew what to do with – most of it coming from the United States. The benefits from the fracking revolution were almost immediate. The price of natural gas fell from $ 9 per cubic foot to $ 3. Consumers saved big on their gas and electric bills. As gas replaced coal as a cheap, reliable energy source, greenhouse gas emissions fell more than 20%. The US economy, reeling from the 2008 financial crisis, reversed course. The fracking boom was the number one reason. Ironically, the politician who benefited the most from this boom was a fierce foe of fossil fuels, President Barack Obama. And, while he continued to push his green agenda, he did almost nothing to stop the fracking phenomenon. Perhaps he read the science. It emphatically endorses natural gas as a clean energy source. Even Carl Pope, then the executive director of the Sierra Club, one of the world’s largest environmental groups, came out for fracking. As Pope saw it, natural gas was the perfect transition between fossil fuels and alternative energy. With that history in mind, let’s return to the charges made by opponents of fracking. The EPA – hardly a friend of the oil and gas industry – has looked closely into the question of whether fracking puts aquifers, the source of much of our drinking water, at risk. One EPA study examined 110,000 fracking sites. It concluded that fracking does not pose a threat. One obvious reason is that fracking is done at depths of six to ten thousand feet. Water tables tend to be at 500 feet or higher. What about the concern that fracking causes earthquakes? Numerous studies have concluded that related tremors are so minor they’re barely detectable and cause no damage. At its worst, it produces vibrations comparable to a passing truck. Air pollution? According to the EPA emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, particulates, and carbon dioxide have all declined since large-scale fracking began and natural gas replaced coal for much of the nation’s electricity production. Something else that natural gas has going for it which isn’t talked about much is land use. Per megawatt, natural gas uses about 12.4 total acres – including mining and transmission lines. By comparison, solar uses about 43.5 acres per megawatt, and wind uses more than 70. More energy, less pollution, lower prices for consumers, small footprint. Instead of vilifying fracking, maybe we should throw it a parade. I’m Linnea Lueken, research fellow at the Heartland Institute, for Prager University.

RealClearPolitics Videos