Why Fracking Matters in the 2024 U.S. Election

In Brief

Why Fracking Matters in the 2024 U.S. Election

The fracking boom has transformed the United States into the world’s leading producer of oil and gas. With presidential candidates Harris and Trump clashing on climate and energy policy, the practice is once again in the spotlight.

Fracking, shorthand for hydraulic fracturing, has revolutionized the U.S. energy market over the past two decades, propelling the United States to become the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. Ahead of the November election, however, fracking is again one of the most divisive political issues, with presidential nominees Kamala Harris and Donald Trump staking out differing views on climate goals, fossil fuels, and renewable energy. Grassroots opposition to the practice has led to bans in five states, even as it has become increasingly central to the economies of North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and others.

What is fracking?

More From Our Experts

Fracking is a technique used to extract natural gas and oil in shale formations or other forms of impermeable rock. It involves drilling deep below the earth’s surface, sometimes as far as ten thousand feet, then drilling sideways for a mile or more. Since the oil and gas is trapped in dense layers of rock and cannot flow through a well by drilling alone, producers need to pump a high-pressure mixture of water, sand, and chemicals to open fractures in the rocks.

More on:

Election 2024

Oil and Petroleum Products

Energy and Environment

Energy and Climate Policy

Climate Change

The fracturing technique was first introduced into commercial practice in 1949 before being combined with advances in horizontal drilling in the late 1990s. Together, the two processes have allowed producers to tap into deposits [PDF] that were previously inaccessible—also referred to as “unconventional” sources. 

What is its role in the U.S. economy?

Since 2008, the “shale revolution” has helped turn the United States into the world’s leading oil producer after decades of falling output. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2023, fracking added roughly three billion barrels of crude oil to U.S. production—about 64 percent of the nation’s total output.

Growing production enabled the United States to finally become a net energy exporter in 2019, the first time in sixty-seven years. It had already become a net exporter of natural gas in 2017, and those exports hit record levels in 2023. Economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas estimated in 2019 that the shale boom contributed 10 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) growth between 2010 and 2015 by lowering fuel prices. Meanwhile, fracking’s record on job creation is more contested; industry lobbying groups say unconventional drilling has created millions of jobs, but other experts argue the industry has produced fewer jobs than anticipated.

More From Our Experts

Fracking production is centered in a few states. The Bakken Formation—one of the country’s top oil-producing regions which spans North Dakota, Montana, and part of southern Canada—has turned North Dakota into a leading oil producer. The oil industry contributes 15 percent to state employment and almost 24 percent to state GDP, according to a 2021 study [PDF] funded by the American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobbying group. However, with Bakken in decline, the largest single source is now the Permian Basin that covers western Texas and southeastern New Mexico and produced close to six million barrels of oil per day in 2023.

Pennsylvania, the birthplace of the U.S. oil industry, now produces the second-most natural gas among U.S. states. Employment in the energy sector there accounted for roughly 5 percent [PDF] of statewide jobs in 2021, while oil and gas was responsible for nearly 9 percent of state GDP in 2023.

More on:

Election 2024

Oil and Petroleum Products

Energy and Environment

Energy and Climate Policy

Climate Change

Is fracking at odds with U.S. environmental goals?

There is ongoing debate over fracking’s future amid plans for a clean energy transition. The Joe Biden administration has set ambitious climate goals that include achieving a carbon pollution–free power sector by 2035 and a net–zero emissions economy by 2050. Still, Biden and others have seen natural gas in particular, which produces less carbon emissions than oil or coal, as an important part of achieving those goals. Other proponents assert that growing oil and gas production has lowered energy costs and helped reduce U.S. dependence on foreign imports. 

But critics point to fracking’s other environmental harms. Natural gas is responsible for large amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas some eighty times more potent than carbon dioxide. The drilling process can also contaminate and deplete the water supply. Fracking has also been linked to seismic activity. In 2018, Texas recorded a 4.0 magnitude earthquake, the largest earthquake known to be induced by fracking activities, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Strong local opposition has led five state legislatures—in California, Maryland, New York, Vermont, and Washington—to impose fracking bans. Meanwhile, Oregon and Massachusetts have put moratoriums on the practice.

What are fracking’s prospects?

Despite growing investment in renewable energies—which generate more than 21 percent of all U.S. electricity—and softening demand for oil, some energy analysts say fracking’s centrality to the U.S. market is likely to persist. Research from the U.S. Department of Energy suggests that without fracking, consumer oil and gas prices could potentially double [PDF].

Noble Energy employees work at a fracking site in Pecos, Texas, in 2017.
Noble Energy employees work at a fracking site in Pecos, Texas, in 2017. Steve Gonzales/Houston Chronicle/Getty Images

Still, ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the two main parties have sharply diverging climate agendas that could shape the nation’s fossil fuel use for years to come.

Former President Trump promises to “drill, baby, drill.” He also opposes much of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s signature climate law that budgets roughly $370 billion for emissions-reduction efforts, including tax credits and subsidies for clean energy projects. Meanwhile, Vice President Harris recently walked back a 2019 statement in favor of a fracking ban, arguing for “diverse sources” to reduce reliance on foreign energy.

Still, the dominance of fossil fuels shows no sign of slowing down. Despite Biden’s clean energy initiatives, his administration has approved a range of new fossil fuel projects, including in northern Alaska, and overseen record levels of oil production. Under Biden, the United States has also set in motion a major expansion of its export infrastructure for liquefied natural gas (LNG). Growing LNG supplies allowed for quick redirection to European markets amid the continent’s resulting energy supply crunch from Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Will Merrow helped create the graphics for this In Brief.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.