In the second decade of the twenty-first century, America has found a new source of fuel. It is affordable, burns cleaner than coal and oil, and there is so much of it that some believe that supplies will last for over 100 years. What is this seemingly miraculous substance? It is called shale gas—natural gas trapped in shale rock “formations” (deposits) scattered across the country. When you hear about the “Marcellus Shale” or the “Bakken Shale,” these formations are what people are referring to. Some of them contain crude oil, but it is the gas that is the focus of attention.
Until recently, these shale formations—made of dense sedimentary rock, often buried a mile underground—have been considered too expensive to prospect. As demand for energy has spiked, and the nation worries about jobs, energy independence, and the impact of greenhouse gases, industry and government groups have aggressively sought new sources of power, and the question of how to extract shale gas has risen. In the last decade an established technology called hydraulic fracturing—also known as hydrofracking, hydrofracturing, or, most commonly, “fracking” (also spelled “fracing”)—has seemed to offer the best way of getting at it. Retooled for the twenty-first century, hydrofracking has unlocked those reserves of shale oil and gas, and in the process set off both an energy revolution and an environmentalist backlash.
Hydrofracking has most famously been used to tap natural gas, and this book could have been titled Shale Gas: What Everyone Needs to Know®. But “hydrofracking” is a broader term that describes a process used to access both oil and gas, and for various other purposes (as I explain below), and it refers to a host of important energy issues that are being hotly debated.
Indeed, the word “hydrofracking” means different things to different people, but recently it has morphed into a catch-all term for two drilling techniques frequently used together: horizontal drilling, which allows energy companies to drill vertically and then laterally through long, narrow shale formations; and actual hydraulic fracturing, in which a “slurry”—a term I will deal with later—of fluids (water, sand, and chemicals—such as antifreeze, hydrochloric acid, and 2-BE ethylene glycol) is injected underground at very high pressure to crack open the dense shale rock, allowing gas or oil to flow to the surface, where it is captured for our use.
Fracking has proven effective, so much so that it has both radically transformed the energy landscape and led to an emotionally charged opposition from people concerned about its impact on human and environmental health. As you may have heard, hydrofracking is nothing if not controversial. Some commentators refer to the phenomenon as a “shale gas revolution” or a “new energy bonanza”; others refer to it as “an environmental nightmare.”1
On the plus side, there are clear benefits to hydrofracking. The opening of new shale fields has created jobs, spurred industries, such as petrochemical and steel manufacturing, lowered carbon emissions (natural gas burns more efficiently than coal, and thus limits greenhouse gas emissions), and provided an economic boon to many communities, some of them among the poorest in the United States.2 (While fracking has been tested in other countries, such as Great Britain and Holland, it is widely used only in the United States and Canada at the moment.)3 Natural gas is an important fuel for power plants and industry, and it is increasingly used to fuel truck and bus fleets; at some point in the future, it is possible that gas supplied by hydrofracking could be used to power our cars. China and India are thought to have significant shale deposits, and as fracking technology spreads, it is likely that shale fuels will be used worldwide for many years.
Because natural gas emits less CO2 than other fossil fuels and does not produce nuclear energy’s radioactive waste, the French bank Société Générale has deemed it “the fuel of no choice.”4 And because fracking has unleashed a near tsunami of usable energy hydrocarbons, the International Energy Agency (IEA), a Paris-based consortium of energy interests, predicts that by 2035 the United States will have achieved a long-sought goal of energy independence, and be “all but self-sufficient in net terms.”5
The United States has abundant natural gas reserves—over 2,203 trillion cubic feet of recoverable reserves, according to estimates by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA),6 a division of the Department of Energy—which some believe could last for 100 years or more.7 Yet so much gas has been fracked in the United States that the industry has become a victim of its own success: a glut dropped the price of natural gas from nearly $14 per million British Thermal Units (MBTU, also known as MMBTU) to about $4 per MBTU in 2012.8 American energy companies are cutting back on shale gas production and looking to export gas and fracking technology. After decades of geopolitical tension over oil, the prospect of reducing America’s dependence on the caprices of OPEC (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) is welcome. Hydrofracking advocates boast that the tables have been turned at last, and soon America will become “the Saudi Arabia of gas.”9
But critics charge that such progress comes at too steep a price: fracking pollutes the water, ground, and air and can be toxic to human and animal health. Reports of lax oversight have led to increased press scrutiny, demands for legislative action, and public alarm about the possibility of exploding wells, earthquakes, and climate-warming methane leaks. Opponents, from Pennsylvania to Poland, have swarmed legislators and blocked drilling sites. States like Vermont and New Jersey have joined Bulgaria and France in banning the practice outright. German beer brewers and individual towns in Colorado, Michigan, and England have called for a ban on the technology.
As the debate has intensified, hydrofracking has become the focus of political maneuvering and media attention. Energy companies have spent millions of dollars on pro-hydrofracking ads, lobbyists, and campaign donations to legislators. But the promotional effort has been dogged by an antifracking backlash that began as a grass-roots challenge and spread to national media and the halls of Congress. Lately, celebrities have adopted the antifrack message as a favorite cause. The documentary film GasLand (and GasLand II) and Matt Damon’s feature film Promised Land drove the protest deep into popular culture. Yoko Ono and Sean Lennon paid for antifracking ads in the New York Times and wrote a protest song, “Don’t Frack My Mother,” to the tune of Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are a-Changin.’”10 In a 2012 rant on The Late Show, David Letterman excoriated “the greedy oil and gas companies” and a compliant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for allowing fracking to “poison our drinking water” with toxic chemicals: “Ladies and gentlemen,” he deadpanned, “we’re screwed!”11
The bitter tone of the debate has been exacerbated by an absence of hard data and an excess of hyperbole on both sides. In writing this book I have striven for balance and parity, but it isn’t always simple. For instance, some readers will note that chapter 5, “The Case for Hydrofracking,” is shorter than chapter 6, “The Case against Hydrofracking.” The reason for this is twofold: first, hydrofracking technology is still evolving, and much remains to be learned about the process and its impacts; second, the energy industry has refused to answer certain questions—such as the identity of possibly toxic chemicals in fracking fluids, which are shielded from public disclosure by trade-secret provisions.12 The lack of information means that I can only describe what is known at this point, while a lack of industry answers leads people to speculate, make assumptions, and find fault.
In light of these developments, this is a timely moment for a dispassionate primer on hydrofracking. This book aims to explain what the process is, how it works, where and why it is used, and the pros and cons of fracking. I have endeavored to clear up misunderstandings and to promote an informed discussion about a process that is quickly transforming the way we use and think about energy. To accomplish this, the book is structured in three parts: Part I discusses fossil fuels and energy use in the twenty-first century, then explains what hydrofracking is, and how and where it is conducted; Part II covers the debate over hydrofracking, and details its pros and cons; Part III concludes with a look at the state of hydrofracking today, the major innovations on the way, and the promise of renewable energy in years to come.
Like all of the volumes in Oxford University Press’s “What Everyone Needs to Know®” series, Hydrofracking: What Everyone Needs to Know® has been written for the lay reader in an accessible style. It is designed to be a useful introduction to a complex topic rather than a comprehensive academic treatise. In some cases, I have just touched on important technical issues, and for those interested in learning more I have provided a “Further Reading” section at the end of this book. To keep the material in these pages current, I have relied on important work done by many fine journalists, academics, industry publications, and government reports. My sources are listed in the notes at the end of this book (though hydrofracking is constantly evolving, and some of the information mentioned here will inevitably become outdated).
Hydraulic fracturing is a phenomenon with broad implications. For better or worse it is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and it behooves us to understand how it works, what are its rewards and dangers (or at least unknowns), and how to improve it going forward. Armed with this knowledge, readers will, I trust, draw their own conclusions about a technology that is redefining energy in the twenty-first century, and that we all therefore have a huge stake in.