Summary of The Frackers
2013, from THE FRACKERS by Gregory Zuckerman. Summarized by arrangement with Portfolio, a member of Penguin Group (USA) LLC, a Penguin Random House Company.
Looking for the book?
We have the summary! Get the key insights in just 10 minutes.
Reporter Gregory Zuckerman offers two books in one. He provides an overview of the fracking industry, explaining its chemistry and processing, and its role in US energy independence. He portrays the pivotal people who built fracking into a stand-alone energy giant. His compelling account reads like a vivid descriptive novel, intertwining history and science with intriguing profiles of the wildcatters, risk takers and oil executives who drove the fracking business through its rough, uncertain launch – with bankruptcy for some and billions for others. Zuckerman is alert to the concerns of environmentalists who oppose fracking, and contend that it causes pollution and, possibly, even earthquakes. Yet, he asserts – perhaps controversially – that “many of the environmental threats can be addressed or are over-stated.” While always neutral politically, getAbstract recommends this significant reporting achievement to entrepreneurs facing adversity and to anyone interested in the fracking industry, the history and politics of the energy industry, and the history of American business.
About the Author
Gregory Zuckerman is a special writer for The Wall Street Journal and the best-selling author of The Greatest Trade Ever.
Comment on this summary
5 years agoContrary to the above rating, I did NOT like this summary. (Was moving toward the east end of the scale when I heavy handed the mouse.) I don't understand how the book and review can completely dismiss the significant controversy around real and potential risks and damage done by fracking. This is a huge part of the story and it is completely ignored. Does fracking contaminate groundwater? Does it destabilize and cause or contribute to earthquakes? How damaging are the chemicals used to the environment? Brushing these questions aside as "overstated or can be addressed" is dismissive of genuine scientific concern regarding the health and safety of those in the area. And you say this is "non-political?" Hardly. Not addressing the concerns or evidence is highly political.