Public opinion plays an important role in shaping the policy debate over hydraulic fracturing at both the state and national level. However, most Americans report having little to no information about this controversial practice that has transformed the U.S. energy market. Employing an experiment embedded on a nationally representative survey, we examine how citizens respond to arguments concerning the costs and benefits of fracking, and incorporate them into their policy preferences. Arguments emphasizing the economic benefits of fracking bolster support for the technique; however, these gains are completely canceled if paired with a discussion of fracking's environmental costs. Additionally, we find mixed evidence of partisan motivated reasoning in how this information is processed. Individuals whose partisan attachments and preexisting beliefs about global climate change conflict are particularly responsive to arguments about the benefits and costs of fracking. Our results have important implications for scholars and policymakers concerned with partisan polarization in public opinion toward energy and environmental policy.