Issues 2020: A Fracking Ban Would Trigger Global Recession

fracking global recessionThe Narrative

“I will ban fracking—everywhere.”[1]
— Elizabeth Warren

“Any proposal to avert the climate crisis must include a full fracking ban on public and private lands.”[2]
— Bernie Sanders

“I favor a ban on new fracking and a rapid end to existing fracking.”[3]
— Pete Buttigieg


The extraction of oil and gas through the techniques of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (colloquially, “fracking”) has catapulted the United States into leadership of the world’s energy markets. Since 2007, fracking has doubled U.S. oil production and increased gas production by 60%. Instead of a major importer, America is rapidly becoming the largest exporter of oil and is expected to supply the majority of net new energy traded on global markets over the next two decades.

If the U.S. imposed a fracking ban, the supply disruption would trigger the biggest oil and natural gas price spikes in history—almost certainly by more than 200%—which would, in turn, tip the world into recession. Even the expectation that a ban could be enacted would destabilize markets. U.S. imports and the trade imbalance would soar, as would consumers’ spending on energy. To keep the lights on, America would have to nearly double the quantity of coal burned, as well as import up to 1 million barrels of oil per day for dual-fueled power plants that would lose access to natural gas.

Key Findings

1. Fracking technology has nearly doubled U.S. oil production, an increase of some 7 million barrels per day (mmbd) since 2007, as well as another 10 mmbd (in energy-equivalent terms) rise in natural gas production.[4]

  • The massive increase in supply from U.S. shale fields triggered a roughly 50% drop in global oil and natural gas prices.[5]
  • U.S. net oil imports have collapsed from 12 mmbd a decade ago to nearly zero now. Exports of crude oil have soared from zero to 3 mmbd following the 2015 legislation that revoked the ban on U.S. petroleum exports.[6]
  • The U.S. is expected to account for 70% of the global growth in oil supply over the next five years[7] and to supply at least half the world’s new demands for natural gas.[8]

2. A ban on fracking would eliminate 7% of world oil and 17% of world gas supply in a global commodity market where changes of even 1%–2% in the supply/demand balance trigger huge price swings.

  • When, in 1973, Saudi Arabia implemented an oil embargo and took some 4 mmbd off world markets (approximately 7% of the total at that time), world oil prices jumped 400% and triggered a global recession. Similarly, in 1979, the Iranian revolution took a comparable 5% of oil off world markets and prices spiked over 200%, sparking another global recession.[9]
  • A 200% price hike would increase U.S. consumer spending at the gas pump alone by over $100 billion a year, an average of $1,000 per household. A collateral spike in natural gas prices would also add billions of dollars in heating costs for 50% of all U.S. homes and offices.[10]
  • To keep the lights on, electric utilities would need to quickly replace natural gas (currently 35% of all electricity) with coal. This would mean burning an additional 400 million tons of coal a year. That would increase carbon-dioxide emissions by 300% more than the emissions eliminated by all wind and solar capacity in the United States.

3. Alternative energy sources—in particular, wind and solar—could not replace what would be lost from a ban on fracking in time to prevent massive economic and social disruptions.

  • Oil and gas together supply 54% of global energy, little different from a 55% share a decade ago or the 53% share forecast by the International Energy Agency for 2040. Oil alone powers 98% of all global transportation.
  • Wind and solar together supply 1.8% of the world’s energy, and electric vehicles have displaced 0.1% of global oil use over the past decade.
  • The entire world would have to increase global wind and solar installations by 500% to replace the energy that would be lost from an American fracking ban—never mind the additional energy needed to fuel global economic growth.

On the Record

“A fracking ban, regardless of motivation, is anchored in magical thinking that non-hydrocarbon energy sources could fill a massive global energy shortfall if the U.S. exited the world stage as a major supplier of oil and natural gas. Both fuels will be critical for the global economy for decades to come. The key issue is not whether wind and solar can supply more energy—they can and will—but whether a future American administration would reverse the progress of the last decade in lowering energy prices and enhancing geopolitical stability.”

—Mark Mills, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute

Some skeptics caution against overreacting to electioneering rhetoric, citing the practical limits of presidential authority to implement a ban on fracking.[11] But “elections have consequences,” executive orders have an impact, and few industries have been subjected to such consistent attack and misinformation. It might be hard to imagine serious proposals to ban, say, farming or at least all grain farms, but it would be theoretically possible to do so by radically increasing imports. Administrative agencies can pursue creative interpretations of the labyrinth of rules and issue aggressive “guidances.” A broad and coordinated set of such actions can slow or outright stop all manner of industrial activities up and down supply chains, including, especially, the construction of vital pipelines and ports.[12] And lest one forget, Congress enacted legislation in 1972 and 1982 to ban oil production on about 90% of America’s offshore domains.[13]

The fracking ban campaign is neither new nor connected only to the politics of this presidential election cycle. The movement emerged from the intersection of two global trends: the expansion of hydrocarbon production; and a time when many pundits and policymakers believe that an “energy transition” to something different is urgently needed. For example, some 400 domestic and international environmental leaders and organizations petitioned the United Nations in September to demand “a global ban on fracking.”[14] Essentially all fracking production is done in the United States.

Fracking Has Changed the Global Energy Balance

The biggest transformation in energy markets in the past half-century was brought about by American fracking technology. This technology unlocked the astoundingly productive “unconventional” shale fields and has led to America’s reemergence as a global exporter.[15] The transformation has saved U.S. consumers $200 billion a year[16] and restructured the global energy balance: the recent growth in U.S. oil and gas production is history’s biggest increase in global energy supply of any kind in such a short time. The second biggest, with roughly half as much growth in total energy production, occurred in Saudi Arabia during the decade after 1965.[17] America’s emergence as a third major source of oil and gas (alongside OPEC and Russia) on world markets has far-reaching geopolitical implications: 75% of the global economy is found in five regions: North America, Europe, China, Japan, and India. All, except North America, are major net energy importers.[18]

Well before the U.S. began to export natural gas or crude oil, global prices dropped in anticipation. In order to preserve market share, even as U.S. oil output soared, Saudi Arabia incrementally increased production, the opposite direction that was needed to “preserve” price, leading to the epic 2014–15 global price collapse.[19] Similarly, once it was clear that the U.S. was completing construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, global LNG prices dropped more than 50% as markets started to realign with the new competition.[20] Prices also dropped for land-based gas pipeline exports from Russia to Europe in order to compete against prospects of cheap LNG arriving on those shores.[21] The net effect of the global price wars has transferred trillions of dollars from producers, such as Russia and OPEC, into consumers’ pockets.

IEA forecasts—which incorporate bullish expectations for wind and solar production—see 53% of all global needs still met by oil and natural gas in 2040, a minuscule decline from today’s 54%. Of geopolitical relevance, the U.S. is expected to account for 70% of global growth in oil supply over the next five years,[22] and to supply at least half the world’s new demands for natural gas.[23] Growth in U.S. natural gas alone is expected to account for twice as much new energy supply as is forecast for all global growth of wind and solar combined.[24]

The Consequences of a Self-Embargo

A ban on fracking would end U.S. exports, cause imports to soar, and increase the trade deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. The more serious impact would come from the shock to global markets. Global oil prices swing widely when markets are surprised by even a 1%–2% change in the supply/demand balance. A fracking ban would entail a loss of 7% of global oil production, comparable to the 7% lost with the infamous 1973 Arab oil embargo—an embargo that drove world oil prices up 400% and triggered a global recession.[25] Similarly, the 1979 Iranian revolution took 5% of oil off global markets. Prices rose more than 200%, sparking another global recession.[26] Today, taking shale production off the market would also constitute an additional 17% loss to global markets in the form of natural gas.[27] Higher energy prices would hit global consumers; Americans would pay more than $100 billion a year at the gas pump alone, an average of $1,000 per household.[28] Even a slow 10-year production phase-out would trigger an estimated two-year recession in America and eliminate $270 billion of private investment.[29] There would be some winners: Russia and OPEC would derive huge revenue and geopolitical benefits.

Losing the share of new electricity generation that is now fueled from natural gas (produced by fracking) would push utilities to increase the use of existing underutilized power plants where they’re available, which are mainly coal-fired.[30] That would increase carbon dioxide emissions by some 600%—more than all emissions avoided from wind and solar on U.S. grids.[31]

Regions heavily dependent on natural gas but with minimal coal capacity would be faced with rolling blackouts—such as New England (where gas currently provides 49% of electricity), the Mid-Atlantic region (38%), and the Pacific coast (30%).[32] Some of that shortfall could come from burning oil in the 130 GW of gas-fired turbines designed to be dual-fueled.[33] If fully utilized, those turbines would burn about 1 mmbd of oil (necessarily imported), a 10-fold increase in U.S. oil-fired power generation.

The Impossibility of Filling the Gap

The central motivation for the movement to ban fracking is the global abundance of hydrocarbons at a time when many pundits and policymakers believe that an “energy transition” is urgently needed. But America’s shale production could not be replaced quickly by alternatives, at any price, regardless of climate-change motivations. To the extent that there is an “energy transition” to new technologies, it is happening in slow motion.

Politically popular wind and solar power have become far less expensive and have enjoyed massive global subsidies; but together, they still provide only 1.8% of global energy. The 5 million electric vehicles on all the world’s roads now displace 0.1% of global oil use.[34]

Replacing the quantity of energy produced by fracking in the U.S. shale fields would entail (in energy-equivalent terms) expanding all of America’s solar and wind production by 2,000% more than what has been added in the past decade.[35] Somehow accomplishing that miracle wouldn’t help the 99% of Americans driving oil-fueled cars. In fact, because the hydrocarbon market is global, the entire world would have to increase global wind and energy supply by 500% to replace the energy that would be lost from an American fracking ban—never mind the additional energy needed to fuel global economic growth.[36]

Reprinted with permission from - Manhattan Institute - by Mark P. Mills

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pete M
2 years ago

The left opposes fracking because of its perceived threat to water supplies, which has been thoroughly debunked, and because it contributes to “climate change”. Fracking results in more CO2 in the atmosphere, but there’s no correlation between CO2 and global temperatures!!

2 years ago

A very important issue for all Americans, as any of the proposed Democrat plans regarding energy would result in a long-term recession, if not out-right depression, in the United States. The economic ripple effect would result in higher across the board prices of virtually everything and put OPEC and other foreign powers hostile to the United States back in the position of being able to directly influence all of our foreign policies. No doubt China, which will not follow the ludicrous “green energy” path, as proposed by the Democrats, to economic self destruction, nor would Russia and Iran, which all stand to benefit both geopolitically, militarily and economically to any such foolish policy adopted by the United States under any Democrat President.

Policy, whether it be energy or any other topic of national importance, actually does indeed matter. As the consequences of electing people who propose insanely bad policies and pure socialism whether you realize it or not, which in this case refers to ANY of the Democrats running for President, does have profound and lasting effects for all Americans, despite those out there that seem content to make their selection of who should lead the country based on feelings, emotions or other subjective criteria. The election of a President to lead the nation should be based on proposing and then actually enacting policies that are good for the long-term well being of the country. Not on who you want to have a beer with or whether the person sounds like your pastor, priest, rabbi or college professor. Bottom line: It’s about getting positive things done for the country. Just a thought.

Pat R
2 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

I daresay with their (Sanders & Warren anyway) $$ millions, they don’t worry about repercussions. They are globalists and the US must be taken down as we evidently present the biggest threat to that goal, at least for now. Trump put a screeching halt to their rush toward globalism after Obama’s eight years. That’s why their response was shock turned to hate and fierce drive to get rid of him any way possible from the outset.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x