U.S. oil and natural gas production has skyrocketed

The argument

In the last decade, advances in fracking technology have reversed the United States' trajectory from that of energy scarcity to being, simply put, "the undisputed leader of oil and gas production worldwide," according to International Energy Agency Executive Director Fatih Birol. That is a reversal of position rather than an incremental gain, and it happened fast enough to be measured within a single decade. In looking at specific numbers, from 2007 to 2016, the United States's annual oil production increased 75 percent, while natural gas production increased 39 percent. Such an advancement in the status of the United States can be singlehandedly attributed to similar improvements in the fracking industry — which is the point the argument turns on, since it means the gain came from a change in technique rather than from a lucky discovery that cannot be repeated. This increase has proved beneficial for consumers as it abruptly lowered energy prices, strengthened energy security, and even lowered air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions by displacing coal. Those three effects pull in the same direction but reach different constituencies, which is why the case is put as broadly as it is: a cheaper, more secure and cleaner supply is not a trade-off between economic and environmental goals but a claim to have served both at once. In turn, these lower prices mean that American families and businesses have more money in their own pockets; an excess that will eventually be reinvested into the economy, so the benefit does not stop at the energy bill itself. Moreover, these lower coal emissions are certainly good news for public health and our climate. An industry delivering results on that scale, on this argument, is not a speculative bubble but a working business model.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Yes, fracking has done wonders for the American economy and its reliance on coal— but at what cost? The environment of numerous communities have been desecrated. Fracking has brought about increasing truck traffic, crime, as well as numerous health impacts (due to air and water pollution). For example, babies born within 3 kilometers of a fracking site are more likely to suffer from poor health, and as a result, premature death. The largest impact is seen in regards to babies born within 1 kilometer. It is here that these children are predisposed to having a lower birth rate than their counterparts (i.e., weighing less than a total of 5.5 pounds). Moreover, mothers living closer to wells would suddenly become poorer, use more alcohol, or eat less healthy.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Production growth shows the technology works, not that the business model is sustainable. Sustainability here is a question about returns and depletion: shale wells decline steeply in their first years, so output has to be sustained by continuous new drilling, and much of the boom was financed ahead of the cash it generated — a pattern output figures cannot capture. The premise also slides between two senses of "sustainable", the financial one the position asserts and the environmental one the word usually carries. [Rejecting P2] The benefits listed argue for the industry's value to the wider economy rather than for the viability of the firms in it. Lower prices are precisely what compresses shale margins, so the premise's own evidence cuts against its conclusion. The emissions claim credits gas for displacing coal while omitting the methane released across production and transport, and the step from cheaper energy to reinvestment is asserted rather than shown. [Rejecting C] The conclusion is conditional on "improvements in technology and prices", which concedes that present technology and prices are not sufficient. What the premises establish is that fracking transformed US output; whether the model pays for itself across a full price cycle is a separate question they do not address.