A look back at fracking, from a leading reporter on the beat; environmental questions remain as industry shifts

Mike Soraghan started out with Energy and Environment News, which was bought by Politico, so now he writes for both. His latest opus is a look back at the history of horizontal hydraulic fracturing of deep shale, better known as "fracking," which has had a big impact on parts of rural America. Soragahn has covered it for more than a decade.

Mike Soraghan (Politico photo)

"Shale promised riches, and in some instances, it delivered, saving farms," he writes for Politico Magazine. "Fracking birthed tales of instant 'shale-ionnaires' and oilfield strippers tucking four-figure handfuls of cash in their garter belts for a night’s work. And it also fundamentally changed the United States’ position in the global energy economy, in ways that have been on prominent display over the first half of 2026.

"But a lot of the people you’d expect to profit from fracking . . . were instead crushed by it. And drilling wells could wreak environmental havoc, triggering earthquakes, ruining farmland, polluting airways and contaminating household water to the point it could catch fire. In short: Fracking rewrote the book on American energy, globally and domestically. . . . Today, even if you walk everywhere or drive an electric vehicle, fracking is responsible for keeping your grocery and electric bills down."

But now, "That tumultuous chapter is coming to an end, just as a war-driven energy crisis offers — or threatens — to rewrite the script once again. The irony is that the U.S. is outdoing the petro-kingdoms of the Middle East — just as the world is accelerating its turn toward renewable energy. The easy oil is getting harder to find. Even as production continues to climb, the rate of growth is slowing. Automation is replacing oil workers the way it did coal miners. Environmental protests have moved on to data centers. America’s wildcatters are again starting to scan the horizon for new discoveries abroad. Even Michael Steele, the former Republican Party chair who coined the term, 'Drill, Baby, Drill,' thinks the phrase has outlived its usefulness."

Environmental questions remain, especially "the long-term impact of pumping chemicals from the nearly 2 million fracked wells — questions that may not be answered for years or decades," Soraghan writes. Environmentalists are mostly against fracking shale, but Christopher Knittel, the associate dean for Climate and Stability at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Soraghan that greenhouse-gas emissions have been cut mainly by power plants’ switch from coal to natural gas. More broadly, Knittel worries that the U.S. backoff from electric vehicles means the American industry could be “islanded off” from the rest of the world. "Perhaps the model for the United States’ energy future isn’t Saudi Arabia, but an actual island," Soragahn concludes.

Reporter tips: Spiking gas prices unify many Americans; the general misery offers a multitude of story possibilities

Gas prices in Holden, Maine, after Russia invaded 
Ukraine in early 2022. (Photo by GG, Unsplash) 

Dismayed by soaring gasoline prices, many Americans are coping by sharing their frustration and misery. For journalists, the increase in gas prices combined with eventual transportation-cost price hikes on consumer and grocery goods is an opportunity to explore energy resources, shared financial stresses and the effects of the war in Iran.

"Whatever you think of the war in the Middle East, people’s patriotism is being eclipsed by anxiety over fuel prices," reports Joseph A. Davis for the Society of Environmental Journalists. "That means the whole crisis is an opportunity to report on the environmental implications of burning petroleum. . . . It makes a big difference in people’s lives.”

For the most part, lamenting over eye-popping fuel prices -- and what some Americans are doing to cope -- isn't a partisan conversation. Community reporting can bring those stories to light. Davis writes, "People who live in rural and western areas may have to drive long distances daily. Many commercial truck drivers are independent entrepreneurs who pay for fuel out of their own pockets." 

Local reporting can remind readers about more recent gasoline price spikes and share some history on how older generations weathered previous gas crunches and steep inflation. In the spring of 2022, Russia's invasion of Ukraine caused gas prices to spike to levels similar to today's prices. Davis adds, "In July 2008, crude prices peaked at over $150/barrel, higher than even today, due to several factors, including Mideast tensions. They had previously peaked in late 1973 in response to a Mideast war and the Arab oil embargo."

At some point, there will likely be an opportunity to report on energy resources and the future of energy in your community, region or the nation. 

Davis' story ideas and reporting resources are shared below.

• If you are in a rural area, visit feed and fertilizer stores, and ask farmers how fuel prices affect them. Ask about fertilizer prices, too.
• Go to local car dealers (ideally ones that sell both gas vehicles and EVs). Talk to customers, salespeople and managers about whether interest in EVs is going up.
• If you live in a region, such as the Northeast or Alaska, where people still use fuel oil for heating, talk to customers and suppliers about how people are responding to higher fuel prices.
• Most states use fuel taxes to fund transportation infrastructure. Talk to your state legislators about any proposals to reduce fuel taxes.
• Beyond the steep prices at the pump, many Americans are facing historically high utility bills. Is there anything your community can learn from surrounding communities to help lower bills?  

Reporting resources:

• Price trackers: AAA, GasBuddy and the Energy Information Administration
• Consumer Energy Alliance: A nonprofit that advocates for lower energy prices for consumers
• U.S. Oil & Gas Association: An industry trade group that lobbies for oil and natural gas producers
• National Consumers League: A nonprofit that educates consumers about vehicle mileage standards, among other things

Report: Despite big output, northern Appalachian states with fracking projects reap fewer rewards than expected

Frackalachia residents don't earn 'higher than average incomes'
from regional fracking projects. (Graph by S. O'Malley, ORVI)

Residents in heavily fracked northern Appalachian states haven't seen the job creation gains oil and gas companies promised, according to a new research report from the Ohio River Valley Institute. "The report uses the term ​'Frackalachia' to describe 30 top oil- and gas-producing counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia," reports Kathiann M. Kowalski of Canary Media. 

Despite the region's surging output, which "increased their share of the country’s gross domestic product by 6%" over the course of 15 years, Kowalski writes, Appalachia residents living near natural shale-gas fracking sites did not benefit from "higher-than-average incomes. . . . [The area's] income growth was 25% below that of the nation as a whole."

Part of the dilemma for communities with shale deposits is that extraction doesn't require a constant workforce, but it does require financial backing and expensive machinery. Kowalski reports, "Most earnings go to shareholders, investors, and suppliers based far from where fossil fuels are extracted, so only a small share of project income stays in the community to stimulate more economic activity."

Transferring employees into a region with extraction is another reason oil and gas companies don't generate jobs for residents. "From 2012 through 2022, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services issued annual reports about the economic impact of the state’s oil and gas industry, including data for ​'core' jobs," Kowalski adds. "More than half of the new hires for the core industry jobs in 2021 came from outside Ohio, according to the state data."

When actual employment data from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services was compared to those predicted by the fossil fuel industry, the number of new jobs the industry created in the region fell short. Kowalski writes, "The agency numbers are also far lower than the 79,000 direct and 375,000 total jobs the American Petroleum Institute cited in a 2021 report based on data from 2019."

The report's author, Sean O’Leary, told Kowalski, "Whatever else it is, the natural-gas boom is not an engine for economic prosperity." Kowalski adds, "He thinks the gas industry is ​'structurally incapable' of delivering lasting growth in jobs and income for the people living in heavily fracked areas."

Vermont is the first state to pass legislation requiring 'Big Oil' to pay for its share in the cost of climate change

A flooded road in Coventry, Vermont, pop. 1,100, on July 23, 2023.
(Adobe Stock photo)

Vermont has passed legislation to make oil producers pay a share of the costs associated with damages attributed to climate change, reports Lisa Rathke of The Associated Press. The state's popular Republican Gov. Phil Scott voiced concerns over the costs of the small state "taking on 'Big Oil' alone in what will likely be a grueling legal fight," but he recognized the pressing need to address the "toll of climate change."

In what some would call the state's worst disaster since 1927, last July's torrential rains "inundated Vermont's capital city of Montpelier, the nearby city Barre, some southern Vermont communities and ripped through homes and washed away roads around the rural state," Rathke writes. "Scores of homeowners were left with flood-ravaged homes heading into the cold season."

Vermont's approach is a polluter-pays model based on the federal Superfund pollution cleanup program. Unsurprisingly, oil companies are on the defensive. "The American Petroleum Institute, the top lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, has said it's extremely concerned about the legislation," Rathke reports. "Vermont lawmakers know the state will face legal challenges, but the governor worries about the costs and what it means for other states if Vermont fails. . . . Maryland, Massachusetts and New York are considering similar measures."

To gauge the cost of fossil fuels, the state treasurer, along with the Agency of Natural Resources, would "provide a report by Jan. 15, 2026, on the total cost to Vermonters and the state from the emission of greenhouse gases from Jan. 1, 1995, to Dec. 31, 2024," Rathke explains. The assessment will consider impacts on "public health, natural resources, agriculture, economic development, housing. . . and would use federal data to determine the amount of covered greenhouse gas emissions attributed to a fossil fuel company."

In a partial win for a Chippewa band in Wisconsin, a federal judge orders a section of oil pipeline to close in three years

The Bad River Band's insignia shows the river's watershed
inside the reservation. (Image from Bad River Tribe website)

A federal judge's ruling gave a partial victory to members of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, who were suing Canadian oil firm Enbridge "over a stretch of pipeline that crossed over tribal lands," reports Zack Budryk of The Hill. District Judge William Conley "ordered the firm to shut down a section of its pipeline in Wisconsin. . . . The tribe has argued the area of the pipeline is at risk of rupture, while erosion of the banks of the Bad River has left only about 15 feet of land separating the pipeline and the river. . . . Conley agreed with the tribe on the environmental risks of the situation but did not agree a state of emergency warranted an immediate shutdown."

Reservation and pipeline (WNMU map)

Conley, a Barack Obama appointee and native of Rice Lake, 80 miles southwest of the reservation, ordered a "gradual shutdown within three years, and he ordered the energy firm to pay the tribe $5 million in damages for trespassing," Budryk reports. "His ruling expressed concerns that an immediate halt to the pipeline would disrupt energy security in the area and make consumer fuel costs spiral." The judge pointed out Enbridge's delay in building a bypass pipeline, noting that "'Enbridge has now had 10 years since losing its rights of way, including four years of litigating, to move its bypass forward. Considering all the evidence, the court cannot countenance an indefinite delay. . . . Nevertheless, the court will give Enbridge an additional three years to complete a reroute.'"

Enbridge said the ruling was a partial win, but it plans to appeal. "Mike Wiggins, chairman of the Bad River Band, told Budryk that its "victory is not a cause for unqualified celebration . . . We are under no illusion that Enbridge will do the right thing. We expect them to fight this order with all of their corporate might. This is just one step in protecting our people and water."

Satellites can spot methane emissions from individual wells

Satellite photo over the Permian Basin in New Mexico on Dec. 24
shows methane escaping from an APA Corp. facility. Bloomberg News
gave the photo to APA, which reported the emission to state regulators.

Satellite images of methane emissions from oil and gas production have become so detalied that the emissions can now be attributed to individual wells and other assets, Bloomberg's Aaron Clark reports.

There are three such satellites in orbit now, and at least 24 "are expected to be in orbit by the end of this year, quietly tracking the super pollutant that’s invisible to the naked eye," Clark reports. "Their sensors are able to detect the natural gas component as it spews from pipelines, unlit flares, storage tanks and compressor stations around the world. The images sent back are crystal clear and leave little doubt about who is responsible for leaks. . . . Much of the demand for the data is coming from oil and gas operators themselves, who are increasingly using the systems to identify leaks along thousands of miles of pipeline or remote facilities. . . . The detections are also empowering regulators and the public. New Mexico officials said in March they were inspecting any methane plumes detected by NASA and other entities and would use the data to evaluate reporting and compliance by operators."

While carbon dioxide is the main contributor to global warming because it lasts up to 200 years in the atmposphere, "Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere," Clark notes. "Halting emissions of the greenhouse gas could do more to slow climate change in the near term than almost any other single measure."

Decline in output of nation's largest oil region signals the fracking-driven U.S. oil boom is at its peak, or just past it

Wikipedia map, adapted, highlights Culbertson County

The U.S. oil boom created by horizontal hydraulic fracturing of deep shale beds "is nearing its peak" if it hasn't passed it already, report Collin Eaton and Benoit Morenne of The Wall Street Journal.

"Frackers are hitting fewer big gushers in the Permian Basin, America’s busiest oil patch, the latest sign they have drained their catalog of good wells. Shale companies’ biggest and best wells are producing less oil," the Journal reports. "The average well put out 6% less oil than the prior year, according to an analysis of data from analytics firm Novi Labs."

More recent results from the basin, which stretches across New Mexico and west Texas, "are mimicking the onset of a production plateau that has taken place at other, more mature U.S. shale plays," the Journal reports. "Chevron, one of the largest landholders in the Permian, drilled some of the region’s most prolific wells in Culberson County, Texas, but some of its newer wells there have seen productivity decline. . . . Chevron executives said last week the company missed its oil-production target" in the richest section of the basin. . . Chevron Chief Executive Mike Wirth said last week the rate of production growth and drilling activity the U.S. shale industry saw a decade ago 'is unlikely to be repeated,' though the Permian still has areas that haven’t been developed."

As quakes in West Texas increase, some oil-wastewater disposal has changed, but preparedness questions remain

The Permian Basin is a major oil production area. (Wikipedia map)

In 2017, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said "Texas is ranked first in the U.S. in the variety and frequency of natural disasters. Flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes . . . . Sometimes, even utilization of the state’s natural reserves of oil, gas, and water can lead to subsidence and earthquakes." It's that last part, earthquakes, that has been increasing in number, and raising concerns: "In 2022, the state recorded more than 220 earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or higher, up from 26 recorded in 2017, when the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas began close monitoring," reports David Goodman of The New York Times.

In oil-rich West Texas, two earthquakes were felt in late 2022, one in Pecos and the second in December near Odessa and Midland, all in the Permian Basin. Goodman writes: "The [November] tremor registered as a 5.4-magnitude earthquake, among the largest ever recorded in the state. Then, a month later, another of similar magnitude struck not far away. . . . . The earthquakes, arriving in close succession, were the latest in what has been several years of surging seismic activity in Texas. . . . In 2022, the state recorded more than 220 earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or higher, up from 26 recorded in 2017, when the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas began close monitoring."

The cause of the earthquakes is known. Goodman reports: "Dr. Peter Hennings, the principal investigator for the Center for Integrated Seismicity Research at the University of Texas, said that earthquakes can be induced through human activity: the injection of a large amount of water in a short period of time adds fluid pressure under the earth, which essentially decreases the 'clamping' between rocks along natural faults and allows them to slip, creating an earthquake. . . . seismologists have established a relationship between smaller earthquakes and larger ones, Dr. Hennings said: The more small earthquakes you have, the greater the likelihood of a bigger one." 

Many Texas earthquakes "have been concentrated in the highly productive oil fields of the Permian Basin, particularly those in Reeves County, north and west of the city of Pecos," Goodman writes. "Where oil and gas production has increasingly meant hydraulic fracturing, a process of extraction that produces, as a byproduct, a huge amount of wastewater. Some of that wastewater is reused in fracking operations, but most of it is injected back under the ground."

An oil field near Pecos; Texas only recently began its statewide program of
monitoring for earthquakes. (Photo by Paul Ratje, The New York Times)

And what about the quakes? Rod Ponton, a former Pecos city attorney, told Goodman, “In West Texas, you love the smell of the oil and gas patch because it’s the smell of money. If you have to have the ground shaking every two or three months to make sure you have a good paycheck coming in every month, you’re not going to think twice about it.” But the area has made some changes. Goodman writes: "To address earthquakes outside of Odessa and Midland, state regulators suspended permits for deep disposal wells. . . . For local officials the earthquakes have presented new and unforeseen concerns about the structural integrity of buildings and buried pipes, as well as basic questions, such as, what are you supposed to do in an earthquake?"

Odessa Mayor Javier Joven told Goodman, "The big popular discussion out here is: Did you feel it? Did you feel it? And everyone goes on Facebook: I felt it. I felt it.” Joven also noted that the city has yet to alter building safety codes to prepare for earthquakes.

Housing shortage triggers skyrocketing rents, but construction costs slow affordable housing projects

A housing shortage is fueling skyrocketing housing costs in rural areas and elsewhere. But rising construction costs—especially for lumber and petroleum-based products such as asphalt—make it difficult to build more housing and ease the crunch, and federal laws make it hard to apply pandemic aid to the problem, Kristian Hernandez reports for Stateline.

"For developers of market-rate apartments, [cost increases mean] charging higher rents. For those building rent-restricted projects using tax credits or other government aid, the rising costs could quash an entire project. And the construction slowdown is coming at a time when there is a desperate need to increase the nation’s supply of affordable housing," Hernandez reports. "The stock of low-cost rentals has been shrinking for some time: In 2019, there were 3.9 million fewer units renting for less than $600 than there were in 2011, according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. The overall rental vacancy rate in the fourth quarter of 2021 was just 5.6%—the lowest figure since the mid-1980s—evidence that there is an extremely tight supply."

Average rents have gone up more than 17% in the past year, and tenants' income hasn't kept pace, and neither have government housing programs, Hernandez reports. About half of the nation's renters are paying more than the recommended limit of 30% of their income in rent, but government rental assistance has remained essentially flat for the past 20 years, according to Ingrid Ellen, director of New York University's Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.

Though the federal government has allotted billions in aid for the pandemic, its rules bar the money from being used for the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. LIHTC is the largest source of affordable housing financing, and has an outsized impact in poverty-stricken rural areas. "The problem is that, under the current rules, recovery funds must be spent by the end of 2026. That means the money can’t be used for long-term loans to help finance LIHTC developments," Hernandez reports. "Some state housing agencies have found a way around the restriction by mixing federal coronavirus aid and other funds ... Some agencies have been able to use recovery funds to cover up to 75% of the cost of a loan with these workarounds, but the process is complicated and adds costs to a project." A bipartisan bill would let states loan pandemic aid for LIHTC sites.

Interior opens federal land for new drilling but raises fees

"The Interior Department announced on Friday plans to hold its first onshore oil and gas lease sales since President Biden took office," Anna Phillips reports for The Washington Post. "The department said it plans to open roughly 144,000 acres up for lease next week and will charge oil and gas companies higher royalties to drill on federal land, raising the fees for the first time. Under the plans unveiled Friday, royalty rates would increase to 18.75 percent from 12.5 percent for oil and gas lease sales. The long-awaited announcement follows a report the department issued last fall, which called for royalty fees to be more in line with the higher rates charged by most private landowners and major oil- and gas-producing states."

Matthew Brown reports for The Associated Press, "Friday’s announcement comes amid pressure for Biden to expand U.S. crude production as the pandemic and war in Ukraine roil the global economy and fuel prices have spiked. The Democrat faces calls from within his own party to do more to curb emissions from fossil fuels that are driving climate change."

 

The announcement angered climate activists and violates a campaign promise not to allow any more drilling on federal lands. Biden tried to follow through on that promise, and suspended new leasing a week after taking office to give Interior time to create a report on the state of the leasing programs. But a federal judge in Louisiana ordered the administration to resume the sales, Brown reports.

"In opening new land for drilling, while at the same time requiring companies to pay more to drill, Biden appears to be trying to walk a line between trying to both lower gas prices and fight climate change," Coral Davenport reports for The New York Times. "While Biden came into office with the most ambitious climate-change agenda of any president in history, his climate policies have been largely stalled, stymied by inaction in Congress."

Webinar at 3 p.m. ET Thursday will offer information about new federal grants for plugging orphan oil and gas wells

Environmental Defense Fund map locates abandoned oil wells. To enlarge any image, click on it.

The National Conference of State Legislatures is hosting a webinar series that can help you study up on policy issues that can affect your readers (along with its target audience of state legislators). The webinars are free, and will be recorded for those unable to attend. The series kicks off at 3 p.m. E.T. on Thursday, April 7 with "Orphaned No More: Federal Oil and Gas Well Reclamation."

From the website: "States across the country face a backlog of orphaned oil and gas wells, which can continue to emit methane and other pollutants if left unaddressed or improperly sealed." They also pose safety risks. "However, the costs of plugging and reclaiming oil and gas well sites often exceeds the amount available for reclamation. Further, many older wells have long been abandoned, and their owners no longer exist. It is often unclear who can or should be responsible for paying the plugging and reclamation costs. Recognizing these challenges, Congress included $4.7 billion for orphaned well plugging, remediation and restoration in the federal infrastructure bill. This webinar will educate state legislators on this new program, how their states can obtain funding and their options for directing these funds to meet their states’ needs and reclamation priorities."

NCSL Associate Director Aaron Ray will moderate a panel of speakers who include:

• Dave Andrews, orphan well program manager of Colorado Department of Natural Resources' Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
• Sarah Solomon, senior program associate at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Center for Scientific Evidence in Public Issues.
• Steve Tryon, director at the Department of the Interior's Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
• Steve Feldgus, the Interior's deputy assistant secretary of land and minerals management.

Register here.

Fact-checking assertions about oil and gasoline prices

Who or what is to blame for the record-high price of gasoline, which does disproportionate harm to rural areas? A video ad by former Vice President Mike Pence's political group "falsely blames" President Biden for increased purchases of Russian oil, thus helping the invasion of Ukraine, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler concluded March 9. A week later, Kessler produced a much longer fact check, headlined "The truth about gas prices and oil production." With his permission, we republish it.

By Glenn Kessler

In a moment of national unity against Russia’s attack on Ukraine, Democrats and Republicans are fighting passionately over the steep increase in the cost of gasoline. Prices have already risen sharply since Biden became president — and he acknowledged that his ban on Russian oil and gas exports could send them even higher.

Figuring out the root causes of inflation is subject to interpretation. Biden has been quick to claim that it’s mostly the result of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, tagging the latest inflation report as “Putin’s price hike.” But a credible case has also been made by some economists, including former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers and former Obama treasury official Steven Rattner, that the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan passed by Congress helped spark the current rise in prices across the board.

A separate debate is taking place over U.S. oil production and whether Biden administration policies have played a role. Partisans on all sides, as is often the case, are misrepresenting the facts, obscuring the complicated truth about oil production, gas prices and the role of renewables. Here’s a guide to that issue.

Gasoline prices have soared overnight. How is that possible?

The war — and efforts by the United States and its allies to stem purchases of Russian energy products — sent the price of crude oil skyrocketing. Many gasoline stations have only two or three days of product in stock, and so price gasoline at what it will cost to refill those tanks underground. This is an economic term known as “replacement cost.”

Every $10 increase in the price of crude oil adds about 24 cents to the cost of each gallon of gasoline and is quickly reflected in what you pay at the pump. It’s not an example of price gouging. Still, the price of gasoline is nearing — or may exceed — previous inflation-adjusted highs reached in 1918, 1981 and 2008.

Is the United States ramping up its oil production, or holding it back?

The oil business in the United States is run by private companies, not the U.S. government. It’s also a cyclical business and oil prices have been low for some time and drilling has also been low.

During the initial stages of the coronavirus pandemic, when oil prices fell sharply, to about $23 a barrel, production plummeted because it was no longer as profitable. Now, with crude oil above $100 a barrel, there is more of an incentive to ramp up U.S. production, though it is still below the high reached in 2020 before the pandemic struck.

In February 2020, U.S. oil production reached 13.1 million barrels a day. Two years later, in February of this year, production was about 11 percent lower — 11.6 million barrels a day.

Gasoline prices have steadily risen in the United States since April 2020, when the weekly price dropped to as low $1.77 a gallon. It had already risen to $2.38 a gallon when Biden took office.

There’s little evidence that Biden’s policies have had any direct impact on oil production. However, the U.S. government can have an effect of shaping market perceptions that on the margins can affect prices.

As soon as he took office, Biden terminated the Keystone XL pipeline and signaled a hostility to the fossil fuel industry with a major push for clean energy, including a pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.

Keystone XL still would not have been built by now even if Biden had permitted it to go forward — and even if it were in place, the impact in prices would be measured in pennies. Moreover, even without Keystone XL, imports from Canada have increased about 50 percent over the past decade. But Biden’s actions early in his tenure, some experts say, sent “yellow light” signals to the market that cost of drilling for oil might rise and so caution was warranted.

The reverse can also be true. The Trump’s administration’s opposite “green light” approach — few regulations and no restraints — led some oil drillers to invest in unprofitable wells.

Biden also issued an executive order that paused new oil and gas leases on government land, but within months a federal judge blocked it. After his first year, Biden had outpaced Donald Trump in issuing drilling permits on public lands.

Just because a company has received a permit to drill, it has no obligation to do so. One important metric is what is known as a DUC — a drilled but uncompleted oil or gas well. In other words, production equipment has not been installed and so the well cannot yet produce hydrocarbons. The number of DUCs reached a high of 6,340 in June 2020, and as of February had dropped to 4,372, according to EIA.

Can the U.S. truly change oil prices by encouraging more drilling and allowing pipelines?

Not really. The United States in 2020 was the biggest oil producer in the world and also the biggest consumer, but it is just one player in a global oil market. (“Oil” includes crude oil, all other petroleum liquids, and biofuels.) Much of what happens in the market is beyond the government’s control.

In 2021, the United States slipped to third place in oil production, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. That’s mainly because large shale companies committed to Wall Street that they would continue to limit production and return more cash to shareholders — “an effort to win back investors who fled the industry after years of poor returns,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, told investors in February: “$100 oil, $150 oil, we’re not going to change our growth rate.”

U.S. oil producers boosted output by more than 50 percent between 2016 and 2020, so it’s certainly possible for the United States to once again become the world’s biggest oil producer. But investors are demanding that companies do not overspend on new investments this time around.

If the United States is a top oil producer, why do we still need to import oil?

The United States actually exports more oil than it imports. In 2021, according to the Energy Information Administration, the United States imported about 8.47 million barrels per day of petroleum, compared to exports of 8.63 million barrels per days. Crude accounts for about 35 percent of those exports. One key reason is that foreign countries use more diesel than the United States and the United States uses more gasoline.

The boom in U.S. shale oil has certainly reduced reliance on foreign oil imports, but not all crude is the same. Refiners on the Gulf Coast, for instance, have been optimized for Venezuelan crude, which has a high sulfur content. When the Trump administration put sanctions on Venezuelan petroleum, refiners started imported Russian petroleum products because they are roughly similar. Now that Russia has been sanctioned, refiners probably will have to adjust to a cleaner type of crude.

In other words, the United States cannot be an island in the worldwide energy market. But it is more secure as a net exporter of petroleum.

Would funding more renewables help make the U.S. energy independent?

Not in the short run. Renewables replace natural gas or coal. You still need oil to drive cars and trucks and fly planes. At this point, the electric-vehicle market is not growing fast enough to make much of a difference in the current standoff with Russia. But long-run investments over time could begin to make a difference.

Living near oil booms is correlated with lower lifetime earnings and later retirement, USDA research finds

People who live near booming oil-production areas may earn less over their lifetimes and retire later than others their age, says new research by the Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service, the University of Oregon, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The research aimed to assess the long-term affects of boom-and-bust cycles on households in top oil-boom areas in 1980. From the report:

"Although incomes rose for both boom and non-boom households during the oil boom, they increased by an average of about $5,000 more annually for boom households during the early boom (1975–79) and $6,900 more each year during the late boom (1980–84) compared with similar households in counties that were not producing oil. The subsequent bust, however, saw incomes rise by an average of $8,000 less annually from 1985 to 1992 for households in boom counties compared with households in non-boom counties. The lower average household gains were driven in part by increased unemployment and the dissipation of relative wage gains during the boom. The oil boom and bust appeared to have no effect on relative changes in household income after 1993. Aggregating across all years, cumulative income for the average household in a boom county was $7,600 lower than for an average household in an otherwise similar non-boom county between 1975, the beginning of the boom, and 2012, the final year of the study."

Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas created fewer jobs than anticipated in Appalachia, and most of them are gone

The hydraulic fracturing boom is waning in Appalachia. Though advocates have touted fracking as a manufacturing-jobs booster in recent years, it created "startlingly few" jobs in the region, and most no longer exist, Colin Jerolmack reports for MIT Technology Review. Jerolmack is a New York University environmental studies and sociology professor and author of the new book Up to Heaven and Down to Hell: Fracking, Freedom, and Community in an American Town.

"What happened? As a Bloomberg report put it, 'The numbers never added up.' Fracking has always been expensive; extraordinarily generous fossil-fuel subsidies helped hide the true cost. With new wells facing average production declines of 60 percent in the first year, petroleum companies had to frantically drill more of them. The entire model was premised on high oil and gas prices. But nationwide, the glut of gas (and, to a lesser extent, oil) precipitated by the fracking boom depressed prices to their lowest levels since the 1990s," Jerolmack reports. "The result? Frackers pumped the brakes. A wave of consolidations and bankruptcies swept across the sector. The stock prices of premier energy firms like Chesapeake Energy Corp. crashed (it declared bankruptcy in 2020). Some, like Anadarko Petroleum Corp., liquidated their shale gas holdings. Chevron announced in December 2019 that it would write down up to $11 billion in shale-gas assets."

More than 100,000 oil and gas jobs were lost in 2020, and about 70% of them may not come back this year or ever, according to a Deloitte report. And even those jobs may not have helped local economies the way fracking supporters promised. A recent Ohio River Valley Institute report "details how fracking boosters’ promise of jobs and prosperity for the broader Appalachia region was a mirage," Jerolmack reports. "In the 22 Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia counties that produce most of America’s natural gas, economic output grew by 60% from 2008 to 2019, but little of the income generated by that growth stayed in local communities. The region saw only 1.6% job growth, compared with 9.9% nationally; its share of the nation’s population fell by 11%."

Fracking is still a major factor in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico, but wastewater disposal problems may hinder its growth.

Progressives' push for renewable-energy measures in Biden policy worries moderate Democrats from major oil states

Progressive Democrats are urging President Biden to include in his infrastructure agenda steps to encourage use of renewable fuels, but "The more the progressives succeed, the more moderate Democrats in energy-producing states become vulnerable to losing seats that are crucial to the party’s hold on Congress, current and former House members say," Siobhan Hughes and Aaron Zitner report for The Wall Street Journal. 

Last week Biden announced he had made a roughly $1 trillion infrastructure deal with a bipartisan group of centrist lawmakers. However, "on a separate track, Democrats are advancing a second bill—without Republican input—that among other goals aims to eliminate greenhouse-gas emissions from electric power generation by 2035," Hughes and Zitner note. "The Democrats have a similar target of 2050 for other emissions sources, including factories, trucks, automobiles and homes. That is a political headache for moderates such as Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D., Texas), who in 2018 flipped a Republican-held House seat. Ms. Fletcher’s Houston-area House district ranks second in the nation for employment tied to the oil and gas industries, according to the American Petroleum Institute."

In January Fletcher and three other House Democrats from Texas wrote to Biden asking him to nix an executive order suspending new petroleum leases on federal public lands and waters. "Texas is the nation’s top producer of natural gas, according to U.S. government statistics, and gas production is a key economic driver in the country as a whole," Hughes and Zitner note. "A fracking boom in recent decades enabled the U.S. to tap into vast new sources of domestic energy. Gas displaced coal in 2016 as the biggest source of U.S. electricity and helped the U.S. become a net fuel exporter for the first time since the 1950s. Natural gas not only fuels power grids but is used in factories and homes by businesses and consumers alike. Revenues from natural gas production contribute to federal, state and local government budgets. And gas industry jobs pay about twice as much as the U.S. average."

Biden bid to save prairie chickens could spark oil-patch fight

A lesser prairie chicken
(USFWS photo by Greg Kramos)

"The Biden administration called for new protections under the Endangered Species Act for an iconic bird of the Great Plains on Wednesday, a move with major consequences for the oil and gas industry," Joshua Partlow and Juliet Eilperin report for The Washington Post.

"U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials proposed listing as endangered a portion of the lesser prairie chicken’s population living in Texas and New Mexico, whose range overlaps with the oil- and gas-rich Permian Basin," the Post reports. "The agency stopped short of awarding the same protections to the birds’ northern population, in Oklahoma and Kansas, on the grounds that their numbers had declined less drastically. The decision, one of nearly two dozen new conservation measures the administration has adopted in the past four months, underscores President Biden’s push to unravel his predecessor’s environmental policies."

The move echoes the years-long battle over the sage grouse, a similarly oddball-looking cousin of the lesser prairie chicken that also nests on prime drilling land.

Haaland poised to become first Native American cabinet official, at Interior; Vilsack USDA nomination also proceeding

Rep. Deb Haaland, D-N.M., during today's hearing.
(Photo by Jim Watson, The Associated Press)

U.S. Rep. Debra Haaland, D-N.M, is poised to become the first Native American secretary in a presidential cabinet with the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hearing her nomination as interior secretary today.

Meanwhile, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack is expected to be easily confirmed for his second stint as agriculture secretary today too, the Des Moines Register reports.

"The Interior Department manages one-fifth of the land in the U.S., including national parks, wildlife refuges and tribal lands held in trust," Nathan Rott notes for NPR. "Those lands generate billions of dollars of revenue not only in energy production but from recreation. They are also the source of roughly one-quarter of the country's total greenhouse-gas emissions."  

Haaland is a controversial pick, with many conservatives concerned about her views on energy development. During the hearing, "numerous Republican Senators focused their questioning on Biden's oil and gas leasing 'ban' on federal lands, citing projected economic and job losses from the executive action," Rott reports. "Haaland repeatedly pointed out that the president has not banned new oil and gas leasing, but paused it while his administration reviews the federal leasing program."

Her nomination is historic on several levels. "Haaland, an enrolled member of the Pueblo of Laguna, was one of the first Native American women elected to Congress, along with U.S. Rep. Sharice Davids of Kansas. And if confirmed, she will be the first Native American to head the agency that administers the nation’s trust responsibility to American Indians and Alaska Natives," Traci Morris writes for The Conversation. Morris, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, is the executive director of Arizona State University's American Indian Policy Institute.

Many Native Americans say they're excited to see Haaland's nomination, and said she has worked hard to represent their interests, The Associated Press reports. The story includes interviews with Native Americans reflecting on how she has helped them or how they believe she will help them.

EPA sides with corn and ethanol producers on small-refinery exemptions to the Renewable Fuel Standard

The Environmental Protection Agency "is changing course on small-refinery exemptions to the Renewable Fuel Standard, announcing Monday it agrees with a Court of Appeals decision last year that the agency had mismanaged the program under the Trump administration," Todd Neeley reports for DTN/The Progressive Farmer. The marked increase in such exemptions over the past four years hurt rural America and the biofuels industry, EPA said. 

"The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Denver, had ruled in January 2020 that EPA mishandled the exemptions program when it came to three small-refinery exemptions in particular. The Trump administration delayed action on the Renewable Fuel Standard to reflect the court's decision," Neeley reports. The Biden administration said it agrees with the ruling, which said the exemptions were meant to be temporary and that the agency can only extend pre-existing exemptions.

With the appeals court ruling "before the U.S. Supreme Court this spring, the EPA statement Monday means the Biden administration will not be defending the Trump administration's stance on the small-refinery exemptions to the RFS," Neeley reports.

The announcement was welcomed by corn growers and the ethanol industry, as well as the states where they have a large footprint, Neeley reports: "Republican Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said although the Biden administration's decision is welcomed, she wants to see the Supreme Court uphold the RFS."

Bureau of Land Management lost more than 87% of staffers in move; it's unclear whether Biden will bring it back to DC

Moving most of the Bureau of Land Management headquarters staffers to Grand Junction, Colo,, "prompted more than 87 percent of the affected employees either to resign or retire rather than move, according to new data obtained by The Washington Post," Juliet Eilperin reports for the paper. "The exit of longtime career staffers from the agency responsible for managing more than 10 percent of the nation’s land shows the extent to which the Trump administration reshaped the federal government." 

Of the 388 jobs at BLM headquarters, it moved 328, and "287 BLM employees either retired or found other jobs," according to the Department of the Interior. Only 41 went to Colorado. The move was "designed to shift power away from the nation’s capital," Eilperin reports. By shedding longtime employees, the agency could hire employees more loyal to the administration.

Interior communications director Melissa Schwartz declined to comment to Eilperin on how the move had affected the bureau's operations, "but several experts, including former high-ranking Interior officials, said the shake-up has deprived the agency of needed expertise and disrupted its operations. The bureau oversees all oil and gas drilling on federal lands, which has emerged as a flash point in the early days of the Biden administration."

It's unclear whether the Biden administration will—or should—move headquarters back to D.C. Though the 287 employees who didn't make the move either retired or found new jobs, "a key justification for undoing the move to Grand Junction is that a significant number of the Washington-based staffers who left the bureau are still in the D.C. area, and Biden administration officials have said privately that Interior will try to rehire some of these employees," Scott Streater reports for Energy & Environment News.

Steve Ellis, an Obama-era BLM deputy director of operations, told Streater that some of the staff would likely return to BLM if the agency headquarters were moved. That would help the agency, he said, since many employees with institutional knowledge had been lost.

Biden to halt new oil and gas leasing on federal land, water

President Biden plans to halt new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters Wednesday, delivering on one of his campaign pledges, The Washington Post reports.

"The White House has prepared documents that would pause new oil and gas auctions on federal land and water as the new administration reviews the program," says anonymous administration sources, the Post's Juliet Eilperin and Dino Grandoni report. "The moratorium would not affect existing leases, meaning drilling would continue on public land in the West as well as in the Gulf of Mexico." One source said the administration considered halting new federal coal leasing, but probably won't.

"Fossil-fuel leasing on federal and tribal land accounts for nearly a quarter of the country’s annual carbon output. The drilling program also generated $11.7 billion in tax revenue for the federal, state, local and tribal governments last year, according to the Interior Department’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue," Eilperin and Grandoni report. "Environmentalists say the pause will allow the new administration to assess whether taxpayers are being adequately compensated for the minerals extracted from land they own."

Fossil-fuel industry groups say a freeze on new leases will hurt state and local economies, and deprive the Treasury of much-needed revenue, Grandoni and Eilperin report.

Biden also plans to outline steps on Wednesday "aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and elevating the role of science in federal decision-making. Other new policies include protecting 30 percent of federal land and water by the end of the decade and identifying climate change as a national security priority," Eilperin and Grandoni report.