The Blog

Not All the Fracking News Is Good

12:00 AM, Mar 29, 2014 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

America is a fracking cornucopia of crude oil, independent of the rapacious OPEC cartel. And has an inexhaustible supply of natural gas, putting us in a position to become a major exporter able to use its gas reserves as a geopolitical weapon. Take that, King Abdullah and Vladimir Putin. Too good to be true? You bet.

frack

Oil prices are still set in world markets, fracking oil is too light and too sweet (low in sulfur) for use in U.S. refineries, infrastructure to get fracked oil from well to refinery is inadequate. So we continue to be major importers of crude oil, dependent on unstable regimes for steady supplies at tolerable prices.

As for our natural gas, it will become a geopolitical tool only if substantial political barriers—some created by the Obama administration, some by powerful interests with a stake in keeping gas prices low by restricting its export—can be hurdled.

It is true that technologies known as fracking and horizontal drilling have made available huge reserves of natural gas and oil that previously eluded the drill bit. It is also true that inexpensive natural gas is giving foreign petrochemical companies and other companies that rely on that fuel an incentive to invest large sums in the United States, and that several American companies are finding the combination of relatively cheap energy and rising labor costs in Asia so attractive that we are seeing some “on-shoring” of production facilities, although whether this trend will prove to be as significant as on-shoring enthusiasts are predicting is not certain.

So much for the good news. As always in the case of energy resources, politics trumps economics or, at minimum, seriously affects economic outcomes. In Mexico, oil is regarded as the national patrimony, not to be plundered (i.e., developed) by foreigners. In much of the Middle East, oil is regarded as a “weapon,” to be unsheathed if nasty consuming countries need a lesson in the vulnerability of their economies to supply shortages and price spikes. In Russia, natural gas is a tool to be used in the reconstruction of something approximating the Soviet Union or Russian Empire. Here in America, administration policy towards oil and gas is affected by the conviction that fossil fuels are responsible for climate change, and must be phased out as the transition to renewables is completed. Everywhere and always, oil and politics inevitably mix.

Which is why the mere fact that we find ourselves  becoming one of the world’s largest producers of oil and natural gas is only part of the story. The current advantages are obvious: tens of thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industry, much needed given the unsatisfactory condition of the jobs market; enough domestic oil production to ease concerns about sudden supply cut-offs; enough natural gas to attract some foreign and domestic factories to our shores, and to out-compete more carbon-intensive coal as a fuel in electricity generation. The longer-run advantages of our new-found abundance are also obvious: exports of oil and gas to reduce our trade deficit, and enough natural gas sent from purpose-built terminals to ease Europe’s dependence on Russia.

All possible were it not for the political wars that afflict the energy industry. Keep in mind the peculiarly American background to all energy-policy decisions, including those with important geopolitical aspects. The president of the United States and his Secretary of State believe that climate change, to quote Secretary Kerry, “is the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” More fearsome than Iran’s nukes might be or North Korea’s nukes are; more fearsome than Assad’s chemical weapons; and certainly more fearsome than the 845,000 Russian troops at the ready should Russians living in what Putin calls his “near abroad” be attacked by a mob egged on by imported Russian agitators.

This is no mere rhetoric on the part of Obama and Kerry: they believe what they are saying, and that other policy goals should be subordinated to their goal of a carbonless future. For them, natural gas is at best a “bridge fuel” to take us to the day when the world relies completely on solar, wind and other non-fossil fuels to operate highly energy-efficient cars, factories and homes. From which it follows that encouraging exports of natural gas is undesirable, putting in place  infrastructures here and in importing countries more reliant on climate-changing fossil fuels, and reducing Europe’s incentive to continue down the expensive path to a fossil-fuel-free future. Key Democrats up for re-election in November don’t have as green a view of the future: they see fracking and natural gas exports as job creators and, now, an essential piece of any strategy to contain Putin.

Recent Blog Posts

The Weekly Standard Archives

Browse 15 Years of the Weekly Standard

Old covers