The Fracking Debate: The Risks, Benefits, and Uncertainties of the Shale Revolution (Center on Global Energy Policy Series)

It is an evidence based book, it deals with the main concerns regarding fracking, its one of the most objectives books on the subject, a must-read for those against and in favor of developing unconventional oil and gas with this technic. And for those who know little about it or are interested in understanding the debate, its benefits, risks and uncertainties.

Finally - a clear, succinct, and even-handed discussion on the pros and cons of fracking. Mr. Raimi's writing style is conversational (never pedantic), yet deeply investigative, grounded in science, and extremely well-researched. Fracking is such a heated topic and so many people cling to conventional wisdom or biases one way or the other. I won't give away any conclusions - you should draw your own anyway - but the balance of risk and reward is ever-present on every page, woven page by page in a narrative style that makes it incredibly readable by anyone with any kind of background. You don't need to be a scientist or oil analyst to read this book, just someone who wants to know what fracking is really all about.

An objective wise effort. I want to read his next book when it comes out. A very Balanced and thorough analysis.

An excellent impartial and thorough analysis. He did his homework very well. It was written in a very clear style, which told you just what you wanted to know.

This is a well researched cost benefit analysis of hydraulic fracking, citing three facts: the shale revolution has created benefits, caused damage and imposed costs with still important uncertainties remaining. The book addresses the most common questions and concerns associated with fracking: What is fracking? Does fracking pollute the water supply? Will fracking make the United States energy independent? Does fracking cause earthquakes? How is fracking regulated? Is fracking good for the economy? Anti-fracking activists take the precautionary principle, asking why take the risk? Some locales like France, Germany and NYC respond in the affirmative by banning hydraulic fracking. Available since 1949, improvements like seismic imaging have made fracking viable and profitable. Opponents claiming that legislation is under siege of big oil blame fracking for all problems. The pro-fracking lobby uses more precise verbiage. Does fracking contaminate water? There is some methane or waste water leakage into nearby wells, with industry generally keeping a shelf for safety space to keep risks relatively small. Health risks do not appear as extensive as claimed by anti-fracking groups although there are no systematic studies. Besides methane leakage, accidents have caused spills and VOCs flow-back can produce toxic air. Oil and gas service is a hazardous occupation with or without fracking. It's all compensated by health benefits from displacement of coal. Waste water, sometimes from fracking, injected into pre existing faults, is a leading case of small earthquakes. They have so far been small and harmless although one California quake generated a 6.8 Richter scale quake. Fracking regulations, involving methane migration risk and disclosure requirements are generally state and local not federal. The 'Halliburton loophole' exempts fracking from federal regulation. There is little hard data on the effectiveness of regulation. Shale oil and NG has a net benefit for climate change reducing use of coal. On the negative side is methane leakage and lower pricing extending the economic life of fossil fuels. NG is a healthy moral choice in spite of the need to reduce CO2 and methane. Because of the shale revolution effect on oil prices the US is achieving energy independence, challenging OPEC control of oil pricing. Complete “independence” is not feasible or desirable as buying foreign oil in place of US reserve is economically beneficial if foreign oil can be purchased cheaper than US cost of production. LNG reduces domination of Russia over Europe. Most importantly shale oil discoveries have proven very beneficial for the US economy, spurring job creation and economic growth, but with considerable volatility. There has been creation of high wage jobs and capital investment benefiting small holders. In 2014 shale accounted for 1.7% GDP, or $214 billion, providing taxes to mitigate the Obama deficit. Lower gas and oil pricing was a prime facilitator of the recovery from the financial crisis of 2008. On the negative side is reliance on boom and bust cycling of the oil industry. Shale development is slowly spreading only slowly to rest of the world. In much of the rest of the world private ownership doesn't extend far below ground. It was US dumb luck to recover our leading position as an energy producer. China and Argentina have more shale with China increasing usage of coal as well as NG. The UK is paying more to avoid fracking. North Sea oil not enough to offset price increases by US, Saudi Arabia and Russia What's next? American shale oil is altering OPEC calculus with efficiency increasing volume per day. It's contributing to volatility in the energy market so that we can expect further boom and bust cycles. Since the prior administration did everything without Congress, President Trump is busy reversing Obama's executive orders. Bernie Sanders anti energy, anti growth policies will control a Democratic administration. Opponents are still proposing a ban on fracking. Surveying locals in fracking areas shows a wide range of opinions from love it to hate it. Raimi's conclusion is that, while neither side has all the right answers, the benefits generally outweigh the costs, risks and uncertainties.

"The Fracking Debate" displays several inexcusable, fatal flaws from both an environmental and social justice perspective. The author not only failed to adequately address the full spectrum of negative impacts that result from the industrial extraction of this fossil fuel, he also did not properly examine the disproportionate bearing of these impacts by disenfranchised populations and third world countries. Raimi clearly understands that climate change is real yet he embraces what can best be termed "Eco-nihilism" - the false belief in infinite economic expansion within a finite ecological system coupled with the psychological need to deny the very denial inherent in this belief. If climate change is indeed the existential threat to both ecological and geopolitical stability that the science indicates it is we cannot afford to continue to subsidize our economic expansion with fossil fuels such as natural gas. Raimi, however, apparently feels natural gas gives us time to implement "strong climate protection policies". Why would we bother to embrace "strong climate policies" after investing billions in gas extraction and transmission infrastructure (investment that is predicated on the maximum utilization of the known gas reserves)? The science tells us that radical changes in our carbon and methane emissions are required immediately. Investing in natural gas is contraindicated for both planetary health and the survival of civilization. As mentioned by a previous reviewer, Raimi has succumbed to and promotes what the author Naomi Klein has termed the "fetish of centrism". This is a logical fallacy in which the location of the proper course of action can be determined by seeking the "middle of the road" solution amongst various opinions. A seductive option that appeals to a sense of fairness, it has the added benefit of effectively marginalizing competing views by claiming they are emotional and extreme. Standing in the middle of the road is, of course, a very dangerous place to be and the climate will not hesitate to mow down those reckless enough to reside there. Unfortunately those that will get run over first are being placed in the road involuntarily by the forces of capitalist hegemony. "The Fracking Debate" contributes little to the discussion and effectively provides operational cover for those seeking to delay our rapid transition to a carbon neutral economy. If not for the type of disingenuous apologetics found in this book the Fracking Debate would have been settled long ago. For a better--more honest--assessment of our current trajectory with respect to climate change and the role of hydrocarbon emissions, please see: https://www.amazon.com/Eco-Nihilism-Philosophical-Geopolitics-Climate-Apocalypse/dp/0739176889. Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

This volume is a disappointing update of the tired and discredited “Bridge Argument” – the idea that natural gas constitutes a transitional fuel between a high carbon energy economy and one based upon renewables or nuclear. The author Daniel Raimi acknowledges that natural gas does indeed reduce investment in alternative fuels but feels that the use of natural gas provides us with a short term opportunity to enact better climate policies. This however assumes that the ecological systems upon which we depend operate in a linear fashion and will respond accordingly when these policies are eventually enacted. Unfortunately this assumption is inconsistent with what we know about ecological systems. Once a critical threshold is reached system collapse is inevitable – you cannot canoe back upstream after going over the waterfall. The precautionary principle requires that we not delay our transition to a carbon neutral economy given the uncertainty regarding the location of these thresholds. I had the opportunity to hear the author speak during a recent book promotion at Lycoming College in PA. The event was sponsored by a grant from the Williams energy company, the same organization building the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline – a massive natural gas transmission line in PA. During his presentation the author demonstrated only a superficial understanding of the full externality costs associated with natural gas development and based a large portion of his conclusions on anecdotal evidence collected during his travels to various shale plays. As an example, Raimi expressed appreciation for what he felt were the limited landscape impacts of natural gas development in PA - based solely upon his personal, roadside observations. He made this claim despite multiple scientific studies by the USGS detailing the forest fragmentation impacts throughout the Marcellus region. His research into public opinions regarding the benefits and liabilities of natural gas also lacked any type of scientific or statistical rigor. Raimi based his conclusions on interviews with local public officials and impromptu discussions with random people in restaurants and taverns. No attempt was apparently made to address socio-economic demographic characteristics that might provide real insight into the motivations behind these opinions. This type of anecdotal evidence is of little value in understanding the underlying dynamics behind, as the author calls it, “The Fracking Debate”. Raimi could have produced information of value if he had addressed potential correlations between differences in income and educational level along with the geospatial distribution of gas infrastructure. This disparity is readily evident in the large variation in regulatory response to natural gas development between the two river basin commissions in PA – the Susquehanna and the Delaware. A glaring example of an environmental justice issue was left unexamined by Raimi. Raimi repeatedly characterizes the “Fracking Debate” as highly polarized and overly emotional. He then attempts to claim the moral high ground via an appeal to moderation. This is a common technique utilized by politicians and the regulatory community when formatting policy. The implicit assumption being that the “truth” lies in the middle. We would all be better served by following the scientific evidence as to the location of the “truth” and then aligning our policies accordingly. While Raimi’s work could easily be dismissed as a poorly constructed overview of the fracking controversy it is problematic given its potential use as propaganda by an industry desperate to maintain its social license.

Coronavirus has been an interesting time, when experts are given the stage and us mere mortals are told to not question their logic or decisions due to our lack of qualifications, particularly by certain New York papers. It seems with fracking, the total inverse occurred, with Josh Fox's Gasland poor attempt to look at the subject now engrained in mainstream thinking. Those with Petroleum Engineering degrees with a desire to point out the holes in the movie were dismissed as corrupt, rather than competent. In this book, Daniel Raimi does a great job of addressing the issues with the claims in Gasland, most notably the flaming faucets and groundwater pollution. Like most outrageous viewpoints, there is a nugget of truth in there and Daniel Raimi points out that is theoretically possible in extreme circumstances but very unlikely. The risk is tiny next the plethora of other risks to our groundwater (I often point out to folk worried about water pollution, that the chemicals in the shampoo they put on their body and wash into the water system are worse than the majority of frac chemicals). Raimi goes on to address the many concerns people have with fracking along with plenty of well referenced papers and graphs. He points out the technicalities where and how fracking is carried out, how it can cause earthquakes through wastewater disposal and regulation. He also address bigger questions - regulation, climate change (methane leakage), energy independence and the economic impacts. The chapters on big picture US are then shrunk down to local interviews pointing out the local booms which have overall been a positive effect, despite the downsides (traffic, house prices etc) I have worked in oil and gas industry in Europe for a while and was well aware of most of issues. Even still, I was impressed at Raimi's distillation of the benefits and risks and picked up some new info along the way. The book, although littered with statistics and references, is far from dry but written in a really well flowing and story-like manner. The boots on the ground approach worked really well, akin to Russell Golds "The Boom". My only concern is that book is probably too statistical and dense in information for the average "ban fracking" Joe, or at least someone who knows nothing about the subject. Fracknation - the counter movie to Gasland - is probably worth a watch first if one is in that category. Daniel Raimi has done a good job with this, hopefully it at least crosses the palms of some of those in Washington.

It is an evidence based book, it deals with the main concerns regarding fracking, its one of the most objectives books on the subject, a must-read for those against and in favor of developing unconventional oil and gas with this technic. And for those who know little about it or are interested in understanding the debate, its benefits, risks and uncertainties.

Finally - a clear, succinct, and even-handed discussion on the pros and cons of fracking. Mr. Raimi's writing style is conversational (never pedantic), yet deeply investigative, grounded in science, and extremely well-researched. Fracking is such a heated topic and so many people cling to conventional wisdom or biases one way or the other. I won't give away any conclusions - you should draw your own anyway - but the balance of risk and reward is ever-present on every page, woven page by page in a narrative style that makes it incredibly readable by anyone with any kind of background. You don't need to be a scientist or oil analyst to read this book, just someone who wants to know what fracking is really all about.

An objective wise effort. I want to read his next book when it comes out. A very Balanced and thorough analysis.

An excellent impartial and thorough analysis. He did his homework very well. It was written in a very clear style, which told you just what you wanted to know.

This is a well researched cost benefit analysis of hydraulic fracking, citing three facts: the shale revolution has created benefits, caused damage and imposed costs with still important uncertainties remaining. The book addresses the most common questions and concerns associated with fracking: What is fracking? Does fracking pollute the water supply? Will fracking make the United States energy independent? Does fracking cause earthquakes? How is fracking regulated? Is fracking good for the economy? Anti-fracking activists take the precautionary principle, asking why take the risk? Some locales like France, Germany and NYC respond in the affirmative by banning hydraulic fracking. Available since 1949, improvements like seismic imaging have made fracking viable and profitable. Opponents claiming that legislation is under siege of big oil blame fracking for all problems. The pro-fracking lobby uses more precise verbiage. Does fracking contaminate water? There is some methane or waste water leakage into nearby wells, with industry generally keeping a shelf for safety space to keep risks relatively small. Health risks do not appear as extensive as claimed by anti-fracking groups although there are no systematic studies. Besides methane leakage, accidents have caused spills and VOCs flow-back can produce toxic air. Oil and gas service is a hazardous occupation with or without fracking. It's all compensated by health benefits from displacement of coal. Waste water, sometimes from fracking, injected into pre existing faults, is a leading case of small earthquakes. They have so far been small and harmless although one California quake generated a 6.8 Richter scale quake. Fracking regulations, involving methane migration risk and disclosure requirements are generally state and local not federal. The 'Halliburton loophole' exempts fracking from federal regulation. There is little hard data on the effectiveness of regulation. Shale oil and NG has a net benefit for climate change reducing use of coal. On the negative side is methane leakage and lower pricing extending the economic life of fossil fuels. NG is a healthy moral choice in spite of the need to reduce CO2 and methane. Because of the shale revolution effect on oil prices the US is achieving energy independence, challenging OPEC control of oil pricing. Complete “independence” is not feasible or desirable as buying foreign oil in place of US reserve is economically beneficial if foreign oil can be purchased cheaper than US cost of production. LNG reduces domination of Russia over Europe. Most importantly shale oil discoveries have proven very beneficial for the US economy, spurring job creation and economic growth, but with considerable volatility. There has been creation of high wage jobs and capital investment benefiting small holders. In 2014 shale accounted for 1.7% GDP, or $214 billion, providing taxes to mitigate the Obama deficit. Lower gas and oil pricing was a prime facilitator of the recovery from the financial crisis of 2008. On the negative side is reliance on boom and bust cycling of the oil industry. Shale development is slowly spreading only slowly to rest of the world. In much of the rest of the world private ownership doesn't extend far below ground. It was US dumb luck to recover our leading position as an energy producer. China and Argentina have more shale with China increasing usage of coal as well as NG. The UK is paying more to avoid fracking. North Sea oil not enough to offset price increases by US, Saudi Arabia and Russia What's next? American shale oil is altering OPEC calculus with efficiency increasing volume per day. It's contributing to volatility in the energy market so that we can expect further boom and bust cycles. Since the prior administration did everything without Congress, President Trump is busy reversing Obama's executive orders. Bernie Sanders anti energy, anti growth policies will control a Democratic administration. Opponents are still proposing a ban on fracking. Surveying locals in fracking areas shows a wide range of opinions from love it to hate it. Raimi's conclusion is that, while neither side has all the right answers, the benefits generally outweigh the costs, risks and uncertainties.

"The Fracking Debate" displays several inexcusable, fatal flaws from both an environmental and social justice perspective. The author not only failed to adequately address the full spectrum of negative impacts that result from the industrial extraction of this fossil fuel, he also did not properly examine the disproportionate bearing of these impacts by disenfranchised populations and third world countries. Raimi clearly understands that climate change is real yet he embraces what can best be termed "Eco-nihilism" - the false belief in infinite economic expansion within a finite ecological system coupled with the psychological need to deny the very denial inherent in this belief. If climate change is indeed the existential threat to both ecological and geopolitical stability that the science indicates it is we cannot afford to continue to subsidize our economic expansion with fossil fuels such as natural gas. Raimi, however, apparently feels natural gas gives us time to implement "strong climate protection policies". Why would we bother to embrace "strong climate policies" after investing billions in gas extraction and transmission infrastructure (investment that is predicated on the maximum utilization of the known gas reserves)? The science tells us that radical changes in our carbon and methane emissions are required immediately. Investing in natural gas is contraindicated for both planetary health and the survival of civilization. As mentioned by a previous reviewer, Raimi has succumbed to and promotes what the author Naomi Klein has termed the "fetish of centrism". This is a logical fallacy in which the location of the proper course of action can be determined by seeking the "middle of the road" solution amongst various opinions. A seductive option that appeals to a sense of fairness, it has the added benefit of effectively marginalizing competing views by claiming they are emotional and extreme. Standing in the middle of the road is, of course, a very dangerous place to be and the climate will not hesitate to mow down those reckless enough to reside there. Unfortunately those that will get run over first are being placed in the road involuntarily by the forces of capitalist hegemony. "The Fracking Debate" contributes little to the discussion and effectively provides operational cover for those seeking to delay our rapid transition to a carbon neutral economy. If not for the type of disingenuous apologetics found in this book the Fracking Debate would have been settled long ago. For a better--more honest--assessment of our current trajectory with respect to climate change and the role of hydrocarbon emissions, please see: https://www.amazon.com/Eco-Nihilism-Philosophical-Geopolitics-Climate-Apocalypse/dp/0739176889. Wendy Lynne Lee, Professor Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

This volume is a disappointing update of the tired and discredited “Bridge Argument” – the idea that natural gas constitutes a transitional fuel between a high carbon energy economy and one based upon renewables or nuclear. The author Daniel Raimi acknowledges that natural gas does indeed reduce investment in alternative fuels but feels that the use of natural gas provides us with a short term opportunity to enact better climate policies. This however assumes that the ecological systems upon which we depend operate in a linear fashion and will respond accordingly when these policies are eventually enacted. Unfortunately this assumption is inconsistent with what we know about ecological systems. Once a critical threshold is reached system collapse is inevitable – you cannot canoe back upstream after going over the waterfall. The precautionary principle requires that we not delay our transition to a carbon neutral economy given the uncertainty regarding the location of these thresholds. I had the opportunity to hear the author speak during a recent book promotion at Lycoming College in PA. The event was sponsored by a grant from the Williams energy company, the same organization building the Atlantic Sunrise Pipeline – a massive natural gas transmission line in PA. During his presentation the author demonstrated only a superficial understanding of the full externality costs associated with natural gas development and based a large portion of his conclusions on anecdotal evidence collected during his travels to various shale plays. As an example, Raimi expressed appreciation for what he felt were the limited landscape impacts of natural gas development in PA - based solely upon his personal, roadside observations. He made this claim despite multiple scientific studies by the USGS detailing the forest fragmentation impacts throughout the Marcellus region. His research into public opinions regarding the benefits and liabilities of natural gas also lacked any type of scientific or statistical rigor. Raimi based his conclusions on interviews with local public officials and impromptu discussions with random people in restaurants and taverns. No attempt was apparently made to address socio-economic demographic characteristics that might provide real insight into the motivations behind these opinions. This type of anecdotal evidence is of little value in understanding the underlying dynamics behind, as the author calls it, “The Fracking Debate”. Raimi could have produced information of value if he had addressed potential correlations between differences in income and educational level along with the geospatial distribution of gas infrastructure. This disparity is readily evident in the large variation in regulatory response to natural gas development between the two river basin commissions in PA – the Susquehanna and the Delaware. A glaring example of an environmental justice issue was left unexamined by Raimi. Raimi repeatedly characterizes the “Fracking Debate” as highly polarized and overly emotional. He then attempts to claim the moral high ground via an appeal to moderation. This is a common technique utilized by politicians and the regulatory community when formatting policy. The implicit assumption being that the “truth” lies in the middle. We would all be better served by following the scientific evidence as to the location of the “truth” and then aligning our policies accordingly. While Raimi’s work could easily be dismissed as a poorly constructed overview of the fracking controversy it is problematic given its potential use as propaganda by an industry desperate to maintain its social license.

Coronavirus has been an interesting time, when experts are given the stage and us mere mortals are told to not question their logic or decisions due to our lack of qualifications, particularly by certain New York papers. It seems with fracking, the total inverse occurred, with Josh Fox's Gasland poor attempt to look at the subject now engrained in mainstream thinking. Those with Petroleum Engineering degrees with a desire to point out the holes in the movie were dismissed as corrupt, rather than competent. In this book, Daniel Raimi does a great job of addressing the issues with the claims in Gasland, most notably the flaming faucets and groundwater pollution. Like most outrageous viewpoints, there is a nugget of truth in there and Daniel Raimi points out that is theoretically possible in extreme circumstances but very unlikely. The risk is tiny next the plethora of other risks to our groundwater (I often point out to folk worried about water pollution, that the chemicals in the shampoo they put on their body and wash into the water system are worse than the majority of frac chemicals). Raimi goes on to address the many concerns people have with fracking along with plenty of well referenced papers and graphs. He points out the technicalities where and how fracking is carried out, how it can cause earthquakes through wastewater disposal and regulation. He also address bigger questions - regulation, climate change (methane leakage), energy independence and the economic impacts. The chapters on big picture US are then shrunk down to local interviews pointing out the local booms which have overall been a positive effect, despite the downsides (traffic, house prices etc) I have worked in oil and gas industry in Europe for a while and was well aware of most of issues. Even still, I was impressed at Raimi's distillation of the benefits and risks and picked up some new info along the way. The book, although littered with statistics and references, is far from dry but written in a really well flowing and story-like manner. The boots on the ground approach worked really well, akin to Russell Golds "The Boom". My only concern is that book is probably too statistical and dense in information for the average "ban fracking" Joe, or at least someone who knows nothing about the subject. Fracknation - the counter movie to Gasland - is probably worth a watch first if one is in that category. Daniel Raimi has done a good job with this, hopefully it at least crosses the palms of some of those in Washington.