Fracking fortunes are putting naysayers on the back foot. The number of million-dollar earners in oil-rich North Dakota now has almost doubled in a year. Average incomes are booming, too. Such wealth makes it easier to brush aside ecological worries over fracking. But smart policy doesn't need to choose between regulation and profit.
Nowhere has benefited more from this controversial extraction technique than North Dakota. Since fracking went mainstream some seven years ago, the state's oil output has climbed almost eightfold. Its latest tax statistics now reveal that almost 1,200 residents can boast a seven-figure salary.
That alone might not translate into broad political support for drilling. But the oil spurt has also boosted average salaries by about 71 per cent since 2006, propelling North Dakota's average per capita income to the sixth highest in the nation from a lowly 38th. It has also ensured the state has the lowest jobless rate in the country.
Of course, such concentrated gains are exceptional. North Dakota's population is about a third the size of Brooklyn's, a single borough in New York City.
But the state's windfall underlines how successfully America has spread the benefits of drilling. Private landowners from Texas to Ohio have got a cut of the profits. Cheaper natural gas prices and booming employment have lifted the average household income by about $1,200 a year, according to a recent study by consultancy IHS. With such rewards on offer even ecologically sensitive Democrats like California's Governor Jerry Brown have embraced fracking.
But the drilling method's success is no argument against bringing in tougher regulation. At present, drillers operate under a patchwork of state rules. That's hardly ideal, and not just because energy lobbyists can have a lot of influence in small states like North Dakota. An extra layer of federal regulation would ensure that best practice is applied everywhere.
Fracking is safe when carried out properly, but sloppy practices can lead to air and water pollution. There's also little incentive for states to regulate methane emissions from fracking wells, since this greenhouse gas has a global rather than a local impact.
Sensible federal oversight might siphon off a small amount of profit, but it wouldn't change the economics of fracking. It would, though, reduce the risk that an isolated incident in a regulation-light state could put a stopper in the entire industry. That wouldn't be good for anyone's pocket.
Nowhere has benefited more from this controversial extraction technique than North Dakota. Since fracking went mainstream some seven years ago, the state's oil output has climbed almost eightfold. Its latest tax statistics now reveal that almost 1,200 residents can boast a seven-figure salary.
That alone might not translate into broad political support for drilling. But the oil spurt has also boosted average salaries by about 71 per cent since 2006, propelling North Dakota's average per capita income to the sixth highest in the nation from a lowly 38th. It has also ensured the state has the lowest jobless rate in the country.
Of course, such concentrated gains are exceptional. North Dakota's population is about a third the size of Brooklyn's, a single borough in New York City.
But the state's windfall underlines how successfully America has spread the benefits of drilling. Private landowners from Texas to Ohio have got a cut of the profits. Cheaper natural gas prices and booming employment have lifted the average household income by about $1,200 a year, according to a recent study by consultancy IHS. With such rewards on offer even ecologically sensitive Democrats like California's Governor Jerry Brown have embraced fracking.
But the drilling method's success is no argument against bringing in tougher regulation. At present, drillers operate under a patchwork of state rules. That's hardly ideal, and not just because energy lobbyists can have a lot of influence in small states like North Dakota. An extra layer of federal regulation would ensure that best practice is applied everywhere.
Fracking is safe when carried out properly, but sloppy practices can lead to air and water pollution. There's also little incentive for states to regulate methane emissions from fracking wells, since this greenhouse gas has a global rather than a local impact.
Sensible federal oversight might siphon off a small amount of profit, but it wouldn't change the economics of fracking. It would, though, reduce the risk that an isolated incident in a regulation-light state could put a stopper in the entire industry. That wouldn't be good for anyone's pocket.