

Shale gas

Fracking great

The promised gas revolution can do the environment more good than harm

See article

Readers' comments


AB ve

If only you could elaborate on the subsidy and compare it with PTC for wind and Solar.

francisbjohn in reply to AB ve

I had that thought too. I keep hearing the Media and politicians mention oil and gas industry subsidies but they never explain what they are exactly. If someone reading this could elaborate what these subsidies are and cite their size it would be greatly appreciated.

jason9139 in reply to francisbjohn

Without any citations for size, i do believe the gov't actively encourages (by way of subsidies) exploration the most when it comes to oil/gas production. Actual extraction and other parts of the process are handsoff as far as i know. Hope this helps!


One of the most important factors to be considered is not just water pollution, but water use. Many areas of the US were fracking is in use are experiencing drought like conditions. Should natural gas production take precedent over raising crops and clean drinking water? Drought is looming large, not just in the UsA but around the world. Energy supplies might not be that important when compared to dwindling clean water supplies.

jason9139 in reply to guest-isamoss

yes, because there isn't enough water or salt in the oceans...
I'm sorry, but the quantity of fresh water removed from the oceans via evaporation is millions if not billions of times greater than the quantity mankind is or is ever planning to desalinate. Would you freak out about a child taking a pale of water from the coastline? That's about the scale, mate. Do some arithmetic before you freak out.

Alex Kilgour

from the article " The ground was laid in the late 1990s, when a now-fabled Texan oilman, George Mitchell"

According to Wikipedia, the first attempts at fracking date back to 1947, but the first attempts using techniques that actually work on shale gas date to 1997. If you are suggesting that the odd well in 1947 using different methodologies equates to increased cancer rates, please show the studies that validate this.


To ban fracking don't mean to ban shale gas. Imo to ban this controversial technology is the right thing to do or, at least, make a break to study its consequences.
Gas won't disappear. We can all wait less dangerous technologies.
Moreover bans often increase innovation.
We should be more careful with water. Because, as said earlier, it's a ressource we can't swap.

fCyq634Bzb in reply to €pean

and if this technology was a decade earlier, the US may not have found the need to invade iraq which resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, a strengthened Iran, and a middle east obsessed foreign policy. Putting this technology aside for a decade, which will prevent any chance at energy independence, is the more dangerous strategy.

francisbjohn in reply to €pean

Banning fracking DOES mean banning shale gas. It was only the combination of horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing that made shale gas economical to produce. Thats why Greens target fracking, they know that if they get fracking banned then they can stop oil and gas production. I'll leave the reader to speculate why they would want this...


You want to ban fracking? Have at it. Essentially every well in the US is fracked, and given the natural decline from each well, you'll have grandmothers in Chicago freezing in the dark.


Ed High

"Fracking Great"? More like: "OK, what the Frack."

I don't doubt that hydraulic fracturing has a significant role to play in meeting future energy needs but don't pretend that supplying the world with artificially cheap hydrocarbon energy is a pure benefit. There is nothing market distorting about imposing the costs of negative externalities on a product. Indeed, not to do so is a distortion. Given likely demand trajectory petrochemical firms need absofrackinglutely no tax incentives or legal loopholes to protect them from their pursuit of profit. Scrap'em. Now.

There is no good time to impose a carbon tax but we can devise a sensible strategy to build the costs of pollution into energy usage. Start with a small tax, $1.00 per metric ton on CO2 or equivalent, and double it every few years. Human ingenuity and the market will take care of the rest.

Can We Talk in reply to Ed High

Nope, wrong, EU has a carbon tax. Nat Gas is expensive there and coal is favored increasing CO2 emissions despite the tax. CO2 emissions are falling in the USA, 450 million tons in last 5 years.
Hmm, seems EU does not really understand how a market works after all do they?(not to mention their fiscal/monetary woes either.)

Mr. Moon

For the "other 'unconventional' formations" read coal-bed methane; for which the process of extraction releases fossilized CO2 at a greater rate than burning methane. NO THANKS.


I am rarely upset by this newspaper, but this article presents an exception. To claim that the net environmental impact of fracking is positive is downright irresponsible. To begin with, placing water impact and emissions impact on the same scale is like weighing apples against oranges, primarily because we have alternative sources of energy, but absolutely no alternative to water. Further, emissions impacts are diffuse, whereas water contamination can be highly localized, or more widespread. Unless the industry releases information about the chemicals our water supplies are being exposed to, how can we possibly assess the potential negative impact of fracking? This simple answer is, we cannot.

Cacophony in reply to XdfP4Er9m5

Beyond the fact that drinking water supplies are not being exposed to chemicals through the process of fracking, it is important to note that these chemicals are in fact being disclosed. You can go and see for yourself on fracfocus.org



Why is the author preferring a carbon tax over a market-based mechanism that properly prices the price of pollution above a limit? This is a viewpoint contrary to prior articles by the Economist and many respected environmental economists.


Gasland is an abominable Smear Campaign. Josh Fox, The film's director, has openly admitted that he disregarded facts in order to present hydraulic fracturing in a more negative light.

The film makes numerous factual misstatements, such as its claim that the natural gas industry is exempt from the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. It routinely misrepresents the fracking process, its impacts on the environment, and government regulators’ views on the practice.

Nearly every claim about fracking has been based on dubious science and promptly repudiated.

Kneejerk in reply to fCyq634Bzb

"Nearly every claim about fracking has been based on dubious science and promptly repudiated."

There's no more substance in this generic rhetoric than in anything you claim to repudiate.

fCyq634Bzb in reply to Kneejerk

The big study from Duke that promoted the horribleness of fracking promoted the finding that methane levels were high in water wells near nat gas wells. Buried in the report was the finding that methane was present in almost every water well in pennsylvania.

The EPA just dropped their water contamination case against the Natural Gas companies when they determined the contaminants detected were from the EPAs own drills.

Lastly, every source of energy has environmental consequences. Wind Energy kills migrating birds. Solar fields destroy the habitats of desert animals. The Natural Gas bonanza is an opportunity to replace dirty coal, decrease carbon emissions, and will decrease our dependence on middle east oil.

Kneejerk in reply to fCyq634Bzb

Some people think that "substance" means parroting a few talking points. It doesn't. This is the Internet age and if you can't take 10 seconds to substantiate your claims, you shouldn't be making any. Let me put 30 seconds' effort into showing you what I mean:
To you first point, the finding about methane was anything but buried. http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/05/duke-study-confirms-industry-claim.... The methane migration problems identified by Duke have been acknowledged by the industry for decades. The study identified numerous other problems with fracking, but concluded that they were not insurmountable. In fact, they ultimately endorsed gas but called for better stewardship.
To the second point, try as I might, I could not find even one story linking the EPA's own drills to contamination (as cute as that sounds - kudos for quality nose-thumbing). In fact, while some cases have indeed been dropped, there are still cases before the courts: http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/12/08/epa-blames-fracking-f....
To the third, you're just spouting pro-gas claptrap. Let me make my position clear: natural gas is a good, cleaner energy source, but this free-for-all "bonanza" approach needs better governance. We aren't going to solve our very real environmental problems by replacing one with another. America has the money, innovators, and resources to do this properly. I'm asking for more scrutiny of the process and a higher standard of cleanliness; I'm not saying that gas be ruled out as an energy source.

fCyq634Bzb in reply to Kneejerk

There must have been enough substance in my talking points if you felt compelled to respond. references are appended at the end.

Granted I was incorrect regarding the wyoming EPA case. The problem was actually that the EPA didn't purge the wells before collecting water samples. Then in the lab, the "pure" control water samples tested positive for the the fracking chemicals along with the test samples. Was it the EPAs drills that introduced the chemicals? or their testing equipment? or just inept people collecting and testing samples? The results are insufficient for any allegations, much less a legal case, against the natural gas industry. If the EPA wasn't a government agency, the natural gas industry could credibly counter with a defamation suit.

I agree that there are very real environmental issues that need to be addressed. Natural Gas already has reduced America's carbon emissions (see previous economist article on nat gas). The environmental concern I have with nat gas is the incidental methane release which stands to be a major issue with deepwater extraction. The big issue you bring up is money, innovators, and resources. Natural Gas is trading around $2.50 right now and january 2014 futures are around $4. T. Boone Pickens said that all his investments in alternative energy are just write offs with Natural gas this cheap. He invested when natural gas was trading around $12. With prices this low and set to stay for a while, there is simply no profit to be made in alternative energy...unless you have substantial government subsidies. Hopefully any subsidies would go towards developing new technologies rather than extending old, unprofitable ones.


Kneejerk in reply to fCyq634Bzb

We more or less agree, but I should be clear that when I mentioned "money, innovators, and resources", I was talking broadly and not referencing the specific profitability of natural gas in the US today. I made the reference in the context of fracking, but it really applies to the energy picture as a whole. It's amazing that America undermines CO2 reduction efforts more than any other country, based largely on the premise that such a move would be damaging to the economy, when the reality is just the opposite: pollution is a problem and problems need solutions; solutions need innovators and enterprise, and good solutions create jobs and wealth for their creators and investors. What could possibly be more American than finding ways to make clean energy work?

fCyq634Bzb in reply to Kneejerk

Unfortunately, I think pollution reduction would fall into the public service category which is heavily funded by local, state and the federal government. Similar examples would be roads, bridges, public parks. This doesn't strike me as an individual service which limits the scope of profits. That said, I think research in this area, which is very important, would be most successful and effective if conducted in universities or government labs and funded through sources like NSF grants.

After all, American private industry has been incredibly successful taking government developed technology and applying it in a for profit setting. Examples include the internet and the microchip. Private industry has made trillions in profits and created millions of jobs through applications of just these two government technologies. I see this as the most likely course at solving America's, and the world's, pollution problems.


Maybe the "protect the environment" is a trickery.

Every developped country had paid the cost of damage of environment,but when they have become the developped they don't want developping countries to develop.

The environment problem is amplified.


Perhaps the anti-fracking crowd could be calmed down if the chemicals involved were made public. How can any reasonably policy be reached without this information?

Myrrander in reply to shubrook

They can't make the information public because of a non-disclosure agreement. However, for the public's sake I can reveal that the fracking compounds are actually ground up Atari ET video game cartridges from the disastrous 1982 release. They estimate there are enough to support fracking operations for the next 50 years.

shubrook in reply to francisbjohn

That's an interesting link - it has much more information than I expected. Some of those sound quite dangerous, though. I wonder what kind of productivity hit the wells would take if they stopped using the scariest ones.

hby4pi in reply to Myrrander

non-disclosure agreement, seriously!!! America is more fucked up than I thought it were. Those things go into the food chain, peoples lives depend on this knowledge isn't? Can't there be other mechanism patent or some other kind of bullshit.


Can one of you environmentalists types crusading against the process that has North American on track for energy independence by 2020 please provide a coherent argument against it other than "Nothing bad has happened...YET"?

Keep in mind, this must be a reason that outweighs the positives. Positives like the revitalization of the petrochemical, steel, fertilizer, and plastics industries which once provided tens of thousands of jobs in the US. Or the fact that power companies are voluntarily shutting down coal plants in favor of cheaper gas plants which produce about 30% of the carbon of coal. Or the fact that now CNG fleets are being built to reduce the economy's dependence on oil.

Daniel1984 in reply to OutsideOpinion

We're up to our necks in steel, intensively-farmed land and plastic. We need less of that stuff, not more. We need jobs that make the world a better place, not jobs that pollute it further.

As usual, the right, including The Economist is making apologies for appalling environmental destruction. Going faster down the wrong road is not just wrong, it's amazingly naive.


But would reasoning as the Germans do (not always, but sometimes and for certain things) hurt?


And this does not count wind. And this is Germany, not exactly Sun Paradise.

Conservative Thought in reply to diemm

It has been proven that solar energy is a scam. I wouldn't believe anything a European government entity is saying. Look at what happened to Solyndra, how can you possibly justify that solar energy is valid alternative to natural gas.


I hope politicians in Europe will hear our calls against fracking. I work for a petrochemical company and I know THIS TECHNOLOGY IS NOT CLEAN at all. We have to make a cleaner & safer world for our children and grandchildren. I hear that everyone wants to reduce its carbon footprint. This technoloy won't reduce it at all. Besides, the chemical products used for fracking have side effects on human beings. And its environmental consequences are worse than we think. We have so much cleaner options such as biofuels, solar/wind/sea energy, geothermy, if our will is stronger than money and greed.

Alex Kilgour in reply to Flambeau

That is hypocracy. More likely the bland "I work for a petrochemical company" therefore I know real scoop on this and we must stop it is a fabricated claim to instill confidence in this poster's secret internal knowledge, to boost their claims.

Otherwise, they are being highly hypocritical. It is ok for you to earn a living while working for this company but you feel strongly enough against what is happening that you would make such posts in the first place? Please.

Flambeau in reply to Alex Kilgour

I was reacting to the "perhaps you should quit your job" comment, not the reality of fracking, at least as practiced in the US, not being clean. Fracking not being clean is a fact and does not require insider knowledge to know.

Alex Kilgour in reply to Flambeau

I've certainly heard some people claim that "obviously everyone knows that fracking is dirty" but they tend to come to the table with pre-formed views. Personally, I tend to be rather in the centre. If fracking is known to be not clean as a fact, could you site something (other than poorly made documentaries that reference unsubstantiated claims) that illustrates this? I'm not stating that it is environmentally-sound. Just asking for more evidence than grand hyperbole and pronouncements from people with no scientific background.

Flambeau in reply to Alex Kilgour

I'm afraid you are starting to act like a creationist. The evidence is in the public arena and has been documented many times, so producing it once again is like producing it for a creationist demanding to "see the bones". Nothing will convince you - you will just dismiss all the evidence.

It may be able to be made safe, but that would take effective regulation which the energy companies will not allow.

I'm not going to look it up, but there was a recent spate of news stories from PA where doctors are being given information about what is in the chemicals being released into the environment, but then muzzled from passing that along to their patients who may be suffering from exposure to the chemicals. Does that sound like safe? Google the story.

glasseye in reply to guest-iswsnmm

I'm tired of all the "children and grandchildren" BS. My prediction: 100 years from now the human race will never really know for sure if humans caused any sort of global warming, and no one will care. We will have come up with some inexpensive, eco-friendly, low-carbon emission solution that will make everyone happy-happy. I don't know what that will be, but 100 years ago the first airplane hadn't been invented, and now worldwide flight is a common middle class luxury. The point is you can't predict the innovations of the future, and a lot can change in a short time. With the needs to find a suitable energy source, and the great number of intelligent minds out there, some type of solution will be found. My guess: probably some type nuclear energy, but without the bad complications that uranium presents. Something like Thorium, which the Economist recently covered.

So, the focus needs to be on the short-term and medium-term. Get the economy working, be more energy self-sufficient, use the cheaper and lower carbon footprint trade-offs that are available now. Be way more patient and way less idealistic about when the clean energy of the future will arrive and what form it will be in. Take reasonable steps to control risks, sure -- but don't strive for a riskless options because there aren't any unless you are myopically idealistic. Don't subsidize technologies that aren't viable now. Research other energy alternatives now, sure -- but be more practical with what you impliment for the immediate future.

hby4pi in reply to glasseye

"100 years ago 1st plane hadn't been invented, blah blah blah" isn't this just another kind of BS. Stabilize economy, look short term mid term and do what we are best at doing, burn some oil. You are selling dreams and sky castles. Economy will always be like this it has always been like this it rises and falls, shale gas is not the saviour, regulations on it don't matter, we should never get used to the taste of blood.

guest-iswsnmm in reply to glasseye

@Glasseye: Some readers must be blind sighted by short-term/medium term issues.

By the way why I should quit my job? Not at all. Although I work for a petrochemical company, I prefer staying there and prevent fracking technology untill it's not safe for all of us. In our company, fracking is not implemented (untill now).

Would you ask a doctor to quit his job because he tries to avoid bad practice? Would you ask a pharmaceutical biologist to quit his job because he want to alert you about terrible side effects wiht one medicine?

The natural answer is NO. We must continue our research and use shale gas at the very end.

In Europe and in the US, we heard so many environmental scandals causing disease, cancer and deaths.

I still have in mind Bhopal scandal in India caused by Union Carbide. 3500 died in the first night. The previous CEO still live peacefully in Long Island (NY) while the death toll rised to 25000 persons.

@Flambeau: I know it's easier said than done especially when we have a family to support. Working on a shale gas filed will give you a lot of money (for sure) in short term, especially for the one calculating the profits!

But would you work if you know that you will halve your lifespan?

This is reality for lots of workers in abestos sectors. Majority of workers having cancers would not work if they knew that. But it's too late now. And that is not BS!

guest-iswsnmm in reply to glasseye

@glasseye: Don't get me wrong. I'm not a idealistic or a fool. I'm just worried for workers and people living around these shale gas fields. We took 80 years to realise our mistakes in asbestos cases. How long for the shale gas?

I know each country has its immediate concerns (energy/water supply). It's only geostrategy.

glasseye in reply to guest-iswsnmm

I am not a geologist, so I can't really tell to what extent the the list of environmental concerns with fracking are legitimate vs. embellished / taken out of context / interpreted through an idealistic lens / etc. But the issue is hardly about just the geologic science -- it's just as much around risk management, energy planning for the future, and politics.

I guess I trust the scientific experts to make the right calls -- otherwise I would be trying to micromanage every little project going on out there. And that doesn't mean not proceeding until every last minor risk has been accounted for -- as one of the top recommended posts here described, you have to manage along as you collect new info and the technology changes, and can't have a perfectionistic attitude.

It sounds like a lot of the commenters here don't really have a true understanding of the technology either -- they are just repeating something they heard or reacting without any knowledge (either for or against). And the few people who do have some knowledge, they will then have a different level of risk tolernece, ideas for where our energy sources should come from, etc. I am trying to be practical -- if you take the information presented in the article at face value, then as you continue to monitor and test the technology, why not take advantage of the natural gas for coal tradeoff and the environmental benefits that come with it, at least for the medium term? At the same time, I am open to hearing the case that we really need more research right now before proceeding any further, as long as it is really scientifically based and not politically motivated.

As with many other issues currently, there is a lack of leadership at the top forming an energy strategy. Why is there not more research being funneled into non-uranium nuclear options, such as Thorium? (again, I am not an energy expert, so maybe there are good reasons for this, but that is not my gut feel). Instead, you have childish, emotion-based, bickering just trying to protect vested interest (again, this can be said for both sides).

guest-iswsnmm in reply to glasseye

Well you and I will never be agreed on this issue. It's useless to convince an emotionally deaf person. However, I really like your comment. I look forward to see you on Economist's website again.

PS: By the way, thanks for your foolish attacks on each comment!


Fracking causes extensive environmental, human and animal damage. It could be controlled by gulation but when? There is a considerable movement against fracking due to high cancer rates, depletion of water sources and odd fire combustions of the ground in the path of fracking operations. In order to make it safer companies need to delete the deadly chemical mixture. Try the movie Gasland. There is nothing safe about fracking.

Alex Kilgour in reply to Mermom

High cancer rates? Fracking has only been in use for a little over 10 years. To run studies identifying increased cancer rates would require at least 10 years worth of data. Are you suggesting that they began running studies on people living in areas of fracking as soon as they began the work? Perhaps that is some BS?


I object to the phrase "can cause pollution in several ways" particularly as it is followed by nonsense and speculation. Radioactive gunk? fracking fluid contains only natural substances the majority of which come from the food industry. "This is not known to have happened but probbably has" - WHAT? That is reporting of a National Enquirer nature. "linked to 50 tremors" ?? There may have been 50 in the Uk in the last year but only 2 were linked to fracking. Even though you seem to come out in favour the damage is done in the first part of the article. Very irresponsible journalism - shame on you.

James Samworth

You rescue this article in the last paragraph (and I agree on a Carbon tax), however on balance I disagree that Fracking is a positive development. It artificially lowers the cost of the competition for genuinely sustainable alternative energy sources. This means that they can't roll out in the volume needed to drive costs down to long term economic levels. 100 years is a very short time in anything other than a narrow minded economist's point of view, and we can irreparably harm the planet in that disastrous window of opportunity.

jason9139 in reply to James Samworth

I would disagree with your use of the word 'artificially' as this is a nominally market system in the US and when technology brings down the price of natural gas production I would fully consider this 'natural.' I certainly believe that non-fossil fuel sources should be used, but in the meantime i have no problem with the ~40% share that coal has in electricity production being offset by natural gas.

As for rolling out new volume of non-fossil fuels, this goal would have to be accomplished by 'artificial' means, via government action. This will distort the markets in favor of non-fossil fuels, but may cost taxpayer dollars at a time when spending is very much not popular. See German subsidies on solar power. In any case the less market distortion the better, and if your goal is only the rollout of alternative energy sources then the market isn't necessarily the best way to do so. If solar prices continue to fall and other sources (nuclear being my personal bias) can come online and show their worth, then the market will see to it that they accelerate.

James Samworth in reply to jason9139

@jason9139 I agree with some of what you're saying: falling solar prices means their deployment will be accelerated (rightly) by the market, and there is some benefit to gas replacing coal in the short term. I use the word "artificially", to which you object, to cater for the fact that no fossil fuel bears the full cost of its impact on future generations, and shale gas causes other difficult to quantify (but not therefore irrelevant) environmental externalities.

I agree with you philosophically that markets are often best placed to do this, but the market failure to price in CO2 costs (see Stern et al) means that sadly government action is necessary.

jason9139 in reply to James Samworth

Quite so. The benefit of gas in place of coal should not be understated though. Without mentioning the horrible extraction methods that coal mines sometimes employ, the burning is incomplete at best and gives off a great deal more than just CO2 (mercury being my personal favorite: i lived under the shadow of the second largest coal plant in the state of Michigan).

Also i understand the term 'artificial' that you employ: since the market has not priced in third-party externalities the price is lower than the 'true' price to consumers/society. This is one of the areas to which nuclear is unfairly judged: they have long had the full cost of their use priced, from fresh fuel to disposal, and thus the cost appears higher than other forms of electricity with hidden 'true' costs that exclude externalities.

I mostly support solar and wind, but large footprints required and the material base (for solar: silicon, making a rather nasty manufacturing process) puts me off a little. Otherwise they're golden.

The market is ideally the place to regulate carbon, but as the European carbon market has proven the quasi-market govt-implemented hybrid can fall flat on its face. The price in Europe for CO2 emissions has collapsed following the recession because the supply of permits didn't fall as fast as the demand, and thus coal begins to replace natural gas in Europe, moving the whole system backwards one step.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The week explained: March 14th 2014: Fuelling tensions
The Economist explains March 14th, 0:00
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view March 13th, 16:49
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero March 13th, 16:22
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook March 13th, 15:58
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne March 13th, 14:18


Products & events