ShareThis Page

Fractured fracking facts: Rewriting energy history

| Friday, Jan. 20, 2017, 8:57 p.m.

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz at best exaggerates wildly by claiming credit for the benefits of America's fracking boom in his department's exit memo.

That's quite something from an administration that, as The Daily Caller notes, “has pushed regulations to curb drilling” and “has repeatedly taken legal action against fracking.”

The Daily Caller puts Mr. Moniz's exit-memo claim in context: “DOE put an inflation-adjusted $4.5 billion into unconventional oil research during the 1970s — for reference, that pales in comparison to the $13 billion green energy got in subsidies during 2013 alone.”

And don't forget that fracking was “first developed by private industry in the 1940s.”

Moniz no doubt wants to burnish the Obama administration's legacy. But the dramatic reductions in “energy-related carbon dioxide emissions” and energy prices that he cites in his exit memo happened because fracked natural gas replaced coal in power plants and fracked oil replaced imported oil — not because the administration lavished billions of dollars on pie-in-the-sky green energy projects.

In fact, fracking has brought about a domestic energy revolution because the U.S. oil and gas industry invested enough to make the process commercially viable, not because federal bureaucrats spent some taxpayer money four decades ago. And that — not Moniz's self-serving rewrite of history — is the real fracking story.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me