We are late in addressing climate change — there are smarter ways to go than banning Fracking in the US.

Photo of the sun, source of most of the energy to be consumed on earth. The International Space Station can be seen cruising across, a proof that humanity’s creativity can solve seemingly impossible tasks.

Oil and gas production in the 20th century was marked by the discovery of conventional fields across all continents (conventional fields do not need fracking to produce hydrocarbons). The early explorers risked their lives, colorful cowboys in the quest for the unknown. Daniel Day-Lewis even got an Oscar in There Will be Blood for his wonderful impersonation of those early wildcatters, as they were known. Fortunes were forged, barrels were spilled, and the economy thrived on oil, the most densely packed source of energy humanity has known so far.

Winston Churchill started off his career cutting oil deals in Middle East before becoming the “Never Give Up” statesman that earned him legend status. Gulbenkian (aka “Mr. 5 Percent”) was thought to be amongst the richest in the world. His job… an oil trader. The Rockefeller name was coined upon fortunes also made on oil. Enrico Mattei, the Italian Chairman of ENI until his death in 1963 (suspected to be assassinated by a bomb in his plane) was yet another colorful character portraying the power the oil industry gained during the 20th century. A quote from Time magazine in 1961 recounts: “By shrewdly bargaining with any government that wants to deal in oil, Mattei has made E.N.I, so powerful that Italians dub it “the state within the state.””

Such was the power oil wielded that many wars were fought, people killed, and the environment impacted. Regardless, we humans keep pumping this fluid and have yet to find a more efficient source of energy. Oil has powered the steepest growth in human history - the industrial and technological revolutions. Our current standard of living requires 100 times per capita the energy that was required by our primitive ancestors. This was tied to the growth of fossil fuels. Multiply that by 8 billion inhabitants in a worldwide primary energy matrix based roughly 85% on fossil fuels (crude oil, natural gas, coal) and the result is a level of greenhouse gases emissions unsustainable for our planet. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that worldwide energy demand will even increase 50% by 2050. Science has already demonstrated that we must decarbonize fast or our planet and humanity will suffer irreparable damage. Recent years have seen shifts in power generation including from renewables (19% in the US in 2019), efforts to add efficiency to the energy matrix, and numerous promises to decarbonize by 2050. These are not enough and we have yet to find the right path to achieve those ambitious goals. It is undoubtable that we have an enormous challenge in our hands.

What about solutions?

There is currently much discussion of banning fracking in the US as one path to decarbonization. Yet this path is fraught with geopolitical risk, and its impact will be low if we do not motivate a shift in demand. The US currently consumes about 15 million barrels of crude oil every day (even more considering other derivatives), and produces almost 12 million barrels per day. When adding liquid fuels to both demand and supply (which includes crude oil derivatives) to that equation, 2019 US energy production exceeded consumption for the first time in 62 years (see Figure 1). Fracking was the single greatest driver, enabling oil production from reserves and fields previously infeasible with other technologies. The US has seen an almost threefold increase in crude oil production during the last decade by using this technology (see Figure 2).

Figure 1: 2019 was the first time in 62 years that the US produced more energy than it consumed. The steep increase in production of energy after 2010 was achieved as a consequence of fracking.

Figure 2: Tight oil and tight gas and shale gas currently represent the lion share of US crude oil and natural gas production, requiring fracking to flow.

More than 8 million barrels of oil per day are currently produced in the US from shale and tight fields; production that requires fracking to flow. Tight and shale oil wells´ production curve declines steeply in time, so an outright ban on fracking is the equivalent of unplugging a respirator from a Covid patient (see Figure 3), they would need another source of oxygen. For the US, that means importing large quantities of crude oil immediately. Since most of oil consumed in the US is used primarily for transportation and secondarily by industries, a sudden decrease in production without fundamentally changing the demand matrix means a steep increase in imports and dependence on other oil producing countries - not to mention the world famous oil cartel, OPEC. A ban on US fracking would increase prices for US consumers, give foreign oil producers more power on the US economy, and yield little effect on greenhouse emissions (fracking is more energy intensive than conventional oil and therefore shale and tight oil typically emit more greenhouse gases than conventionally produced oil during its lifecycle).

Figure 3: Production profile of wells that use fracking to flow. These wells’ output declines steeply in time, meaning that a ban on fracking without replacing this production will lead to a steep decline in overall US production. That means that to maintain an overall level of production, new wells must be drilled continuously. A ban on fracking would mean no more drilling wells that produce oil from those reservoirs, and a steep decline in overall production would be inevitable. Fracked natural gas wells are analogous.

Supply vs Demand

The focus should instead be put on demand, where the two main users of oil are (i) transportation, where fossil fuels powered vehicles have to be replaced by electric ones (among other technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells) and (ii) industry, where electricity can replace certain processes, and where hard to abate sectors can be addressed by using for example Green Hydrogen (Hydrogen produced by electrolyzing water using electricity generated from a renewable source such as wind or solar or even by nuclear power) and its derivatives. This is a whole matter that can be discussed at large, but not the main focus of this writing.

Natural Gas

The other extremely relevant issue is natural gas. US production has grown more than 60% in the last decade as a consequence of fracking; becoming the largest source of electric power produced and the second largest primary energy source after crude oil (see Figure 2). Though natural gas is a fossil fuel, much of the growth in production during the past decade has had a net positive effect in greenhouse gases since natural gas has been used largely to replace coal in power generation, a much dirtier fuel (see Figure 4).

Yet this is a far cry from reaching the well below 2 degrees Celsius target established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The largest share of Natural Gas consumed in the US is destined to electric power, where technology exists (carbon capture, utilisation and storage, green hydrogen, heat pumps) to steeply curb emissions, and where research must be done to expand the technological options to reduce emissions. An increase in nuclear and renewable power generation is also urgent, and batteries are proving to be an increasingly viable source to compensate for intermittency in renewables generation. Other sectors that use natural gas intensely are the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors, where the focus should be put on electrification and the use of Green Hydrogen in hard to abate sectors. A sudden ban on fracking would simply result in the US resorting to more expensive and emissions intensive LNG imports or even coal, without solving the underlying issue of how energy is consumed, and the resulting quantity of greenhouse gases emitted.

Figure 4: US Generation by fuel type. The largest shifts in the past decade have been a growth in natural gas and a steep decline in coal. Wind and solar have been steadily growing.

Flaring and Venting

Another crucial factor involving Natural Gas and Oil production that needs to immediate attention is flaring and venting of natural gas. The US has been too loose regulating such emissions, and wastes into the atmosphere a volume of natural gas equivalent to the consumption of tens of millions of people - just because it is cheaper than processing and injecting it into transportation networks. Moreover, methane has a short term impact on the atmosphere as high as 40 times that of CO2. This is completely unacceptable, and capturing these emissions is a profitable business on its own, as it is the same natural gas (burnt to heat a home or power an electric generator) that is burnt in situ or vented to the atmosphere.

Water Usage

Lastly, but by no means less important, is the issue of water usage in fracking. As with venting/flaring, water usage needs to be the focus of stricter regulation, including water sourcing, treatment, and disposal. Several basins in the world have proven fracking is possible without using local freshwater sources, and that fluids that flow back from the well can be treated to eliminate the risk of water source contamination. This implies higher costs but is critical to truly allow shale gas to be a transition energy source towards a cleaner future.

Energy Independence and Technology

Dependence on foreign Oil has been expensive for Americans. Remember the pictures of long lines to refuel during the 70s oil crisis? Remember the Persian Gulf war in the 90s? These can and should be avoided by reducing dependence on oil and upgrading demand to new technologies, not by reducing production of domestic oil in the US that would not alter neither its dependence on oil nor greenhouse gas emissions. A ban on fracking would create geopolitical instability, weaken US energy security, and shift fossil fuels’ production to countries ill prepared to regulate and reduce emissions.

The US consumes 23% of world energy, and has the political power and economic strength to fundamentally change the way it consumes energy, reduce energy intensity, and lead the world to reach the IPCC goals to curb climate change and global warming. This must be done by further investing in current technologies, researching new ones, implementing them at scale, and committing to a serious decline in emissions. This is yet to happen (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: US forecasts on CO2 emissions show a complete detachment from any attempt to curb climate change and reach the well below 2 degrees Celsius target set out by the IPCC.