US Chamber of Commerce: What if we banned frac’ing?

Guest “fracking A, Bubba!” by David Middleton

Note: This is a politically charged post. If you don’t like such posts, don’t bother reading it.

What would happen if frac’ing was banned?

The short answer: We all freeze in the dark. For the long answer, read the US Chamber of Commerce paper.

The 2016 report was intended to lay out the implications of reckless, if not treasonous, energy policy demands of politicians and activists.

WHAT IF… HYDRAULIC FRACTURING WAS BANNED?

This paper marks the fourth in a series of reports produced by the Energy Institute being released this fall, each taking a substantive look at what might have happened in the past – or could happen in the future – if certain energy-related comments and policy prescriptions put forth by prominent politicians and their supporters were actually adopted. We’re calling it the Energy Accountability Series.

One doesn’t need to look far these days to find platforms or outlets that claim to be definitive “factcheckers” of all manner of utterances candidates make on the campaign trail. On that, the Energy Accountability Series is not reinventing the wheel. What we’re much more interested in – and what we think will be much more valuable to voters – is taking a step back to better understand (and quantify where possible) the real-world, economy-wide consequences of living in a world in which candidates’ rhetoric on critical energy issues were to become reality.

Too often, there is a temptation to dismiss statements made by candidates as things said “off the cuff” or in the “heat of the moment,” or perhaps offered up merely to “appeal to their base.” This is incredibly cynical, and it needs to change. A candidate’s views and the things they say and do to win the support of interest groups have a real impact on how policy is shaped and implemented. That is especially true on energy issues, as groups continue to advance a “Keep It In the Ground” agenda that, if adopted, would force our country to surrender the enormous domestic benefits and global competitive advantages that affordable energy development have made possible.

[…]

In this report, we explore what would happen if the politicians and environmental activists got what they say they support: a complete ban on fracking. While many proponents of such a ban may choose to ignore these economic impacts, it is our hope that the general public – including in particular the constituents of the politicians supporting these bans – will not so casually dismiss these findings. The job loss numbers alone that would result from a ban on fracking are enough to encourage greater scrutiny of those who have allied themselves with the “Keep It In the Ground” campaign.

[…]

US Chamber of Commerce

The Chamber of Commerce (CoC) then listed some particularly reckless, if not treasonous, energy policy prescriptions by politicians and activists.

By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.

Hillary Clinton, Democratic nominee; Mar. 6, 2016

I’m going to pledge to stop fossil fuels.

Hillary Clinton, Democratic nominee; Feb. 5, 2016
Figure 1. “You’re welcome.”

Let me make it as clear as I can be … we are going to ban fracking in 50 states of this country.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt); June 1, 2016

Which is more likely: The “Bern” knowing jack schist about frac’ing? Or the “Bern” thinking that there might be 57 states in this country?

Figure 2. Despite all of his efforts to block oil & gas producion on Federal lands and waters, not even Barrack Hussein Obama could stem the “shale” revolution in any of the 57 states.

There is an urgent need to keep fossil fuels in the ground if we want to protect the planet for future generations.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.); Feb. 11, 2016

There is an urgent need for Jared Huffman to be institutionalized.

[F]rom this point on, anyone proposing a new fracking field … or oil well is, in effect, a climate denier

Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org & DNC platform committee member; Sept. 29, 2016

WTF is a “fracking field”? Regarding proposing new oil wells… I denied climate four times in 2019!

Until we fully understand the effects [of fracking], the only way to avoid these risks is to halt fracking entirely

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.); April 22, 2015

Only a fracking idiot would say something that stupid… Oh wait, (D-Wisc.)… ‘Nuff said.

We must keep our United States fossil fuel reserves, owned by the citizens, in the ground.

U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.); Nov. 4, 2015

Setting aside the fact the Merkley clearly doesn’t know the difference between reserves and resources… The only way that the citizens can benefit from United States fossil fuel resources is to convert them to reserves and take them out of the ground.

Any serious plan to combat climate change must include a ban on fracking.

Food & Water Watch; June 8, 2016

In which case, Food & Water Watch would be watching food & water disappear from supermarket shelves… Because skyrocketing oil & natural gas prices would quickly make farming and the transportation of food and bottled water to supermarkets unaffordable.

WHAT IF FRACKING WAS BANNED IN THE U.S., STARTING NEXT YEAR?
A fracking ban would be a disaster for the U.S. economy, exceeding the economic harm caused by the financial crisis, the housing bust, and the Great Recession – combined. Those concurrent events cost the United States around 8 million jobs. A ban on fracturing would destroy more
than 14 million jobs, all while raising costs for families and considerably reducing American energy security.

Here are a few of the key impacts:

  • “The United States would lose 14.8 million jobs”
  • “Gasoline prices would almost double”
  • “Natural gas prices would skyrocket to over $12 per mmBtu”

This one would be great for me… I work the Gulf of Mexico. At $12/mcf (~mmBtu), there’s a lot of natural gas to be had, and most of it doesn’t require frac’ing. Of course, the same treasonous idiots who would ban frac’ing, would also ban offshore drilling.

  • “U.S. electricity prices would nearly double”

And… As Marcellus/Utica and Texas “shale” gas production took a nose-dive, we would be importing much more of our gas from places like Russia, Qatar, etc.

Other “lowlights”:

  • “COST-OF-LIVING WOULD GO UP BY NEARLY$4,000 A YEAR, WHILE HOUSEHOLD INCOMES WOULD DROP BY $873 BILLION”
  • “THE U.S. WOULD SURRENDER ITS STATUS AS A GLOBAL ENERGY SUPERPOWER”
  • “U.S. GDP WOULD BE REDUCED BY $1.6 TRILLION”
  • “OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, COLORADO, AND TEXAS WOULD BE AMONG THE HARDEST HIT BY A BAN”

2020: “It’s worse. It’s so much worse.”

Is 2020 any better than 2016?

From The Washington Post

“Yes, I support a ban on all hydraulic fracking operations.”

Tulsi Gabbard

“Yes. Fracking is a danger to our water supply. It’s a danger to the air we breathe. It has resulted in more earthquakes. It’s highly explosive. And, to top it off, methane from natural gas is contributing to climate change.”

Bernie Sanders

“Safe fracking is, like clean coal, pure fiction. … No amount of regulation can make it safe. When [Sanders] is in the White House, he is going to ban fracking nationwide and rapidly move to 100 percent clean, sustainable energy.” 

Bernie Sanders campaign spokesman

“Yes, we should ban fracking, but that can’t happen instantly. We need to push as hard as possible to make the transition as fast as possible.”

“We need to stop the expansion of all forms of fossil fuel infrastructure and production. Under my administration no new fracking or other types fossil fuel development would occur on public lands, and we would implement a responsible plan to phase out existing operations. We need to responsibly phase out the existing operations in line with a transition to 100% clean energy while investing in workers and communities.”

“The question in all of this is how fast can you change your electricity generation and how can you do it without disrupting the economy.”

“When you think about this, when you think about the percentage that’s fracked, and what the alternatives are, and what it would mean, I’m not sure you can just say there is no fracking for starters. You can say there’s no fracking on federal land. You can say, no new federal leases for fracking. I would do that. I think you can push as hard as possible to make the transition as fast as possible.”

Tom Steyer

“I favor a ban on new fracking and a rapid end to existing fracking so that we can build a 100 percent clean energy society as soon as possible,”

Pete Buttigieg

In the Permian Basin, alone, this would destroy somewhere between $25 and $100 trillion of value.

What the “shale” revolution has delivered

The CoC graphs are a little dated; they are from the EIA’s 2016 Annual Energy Outlook. However, they clearly demonstrate the value of frac’ing, without which our natural gas and crude oil production would have been declining since 2006.

The dominance of the “shale” plays in our natural gas production is unmistakable. In 2000, tight/”shale” gas only comprised about 25% of our production. By 2018, it accounted for over 80% and EIA projects that it will be over 90% by 2050.

Figure 3. U.S. dry natural gas production, trillion cubic feet per year (Tcf/yr). EIA

The Marcellus/Utica formations in the Appalachia region account for nearly half of our “shale” gas production.

Figure 4. U.S. dry “shale” gas production, billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). EIA

A frac’ing ban would immediately lead to a nose dive in natural gas production. Almost all of the growth since 2010 was due to frac’ing:

Figure 5. Appalachia region natural gas production. (US EIA Drilling Productivity Report)

Without frac’ing, natural gas production would have done something like this:

Figure 6. Appalachia decline curve for legacy production. (US EIA Drilling Productivity Report)

The EIA currently projects natural gas prices to trade in the range of $2.33 to $2.54/mmBtu (million Btu) over the next couple of years.

Figure 7. US natural gas prices. EIA

The upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval reflect the uncertainties about demand, production, economic growth, the weather, etc. Even then, the upper bound is $4-5/mmBtu. A frac’ing ban would quickly drive prices back up above where they were in 2005-2008 and higher.

Figure 8. “Yes we can” would have been the correct reply to Barrack Hussein Obama in March 2012.

We had already drilled our way to lower natural gas prices when Obama uttered that particular lie.

A frac’ing ban would drive prices higher than they were in 2005-2008, to over $12/mmBtu.

We drilled our way to lower gasoline prices from 2008 to 2015, by increasing the supply of crude oil.

We can easily drill our way to lower oil prices… Just like we could easily not-drill our way back to higher oil prices.

The Benedict Arnold One-Two Punch

Most of the treasonous Enviromarxist terrorists politicians and activists, demanding a frac’ing ban, are also demanding an end to offshore drilling: A one-two punch knockout blow to our nation’s energy security.

Figure 9. Federal “lands” includes the Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Washington Post

The vast majority of US crude oil production, and all of the growth since 2008, is from the Permian Basin, Gulf of Mexico and various “shale” plays.

Figure 10. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, November 2019

The only one of those regions that wouldn’t be eviscerated by a frac’ing ban, is the Gulf of Mexico. However, a ban on offshore drilling would be a serious “two punch.”

Hurricanes in 2005 (Katrina & Rita) and 2008 (Ike) inflicted extensive damage on Gulf of Mexico oil & gas infrastructure, depressing production by about 250,000 bbl/d from 2006-2008.  The Obama maladministration’s unlawful drilling moratorium and “permitorium” in response to the Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill depressed production by about 500,000 bbl/d from 2011-2013.

Figure 11. Gulf of Mexico OCS oil production. US EIA

Since then, Gulf of Mexico oil production has surged to record levels and is expected to top 2 million barrels per day in 2020 as a dozen recent deepwater discoveries are brought online.

Figure 12. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook

While a President Fauxcahontas or Commissar Bernie could inflict similar damage, barring new legislation from Congress, the courts would probably slap her/him down even harder than they slapped Obama down.

About 9.2 million barrels per day of current US oil production comes from tight formations and the Gulf of Mexico.

Figure 13. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly and State Energy Data System

Frac’ing and offshore drilling account for over 75% of current US crude oil production and almost all of the future growth potential for US production and reserves growth.

While an Enviromarxist ban on frac’ing and offshore drilling wouldn’t drop our production to zero-point-zero immediately, the decline would be quick and particularly sharp in the tight formations, like the Permian Basin. Obama’s unlawful Gulf of Mexico moratorium, very quickly dropped production by about 500,000 bbl/d and the 2014-2016 crash in oil prices caused a similar decline in the Permian Basin. A ban on frac’ing would be catastrophic in the Permian Basin. It would be even worse for natural gas. About 70% of current US natural gas production and all of the future growth potential is from “shale” and other tight formations requiring frac’ing.

Conclusion

Anyone calling for frac’ing ban is mentally ill. A frac’ing ban wouldn’t change this:

Figure 14. It’s a fossil fueled world. (2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy).

A frac’ing ban would just drive up oil & natural gas prices, force us to import more crude oil and convert LNG export terminals into import terminals. To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian Malcolm in The Lost Word, Jurassic Park

A frac’ing ban would be “the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.”

Any POTUS who tried to enact frac’ing and offshore drilling bans ban would be committing a treasonous act. Our national security is dependent on access to abundant, affordable, useful energy. U.S. crude oil production helped win World Wars I and II.

FRACKING BAN WOULD ERASE PROGRESS TOWARDS U.S. ENERGY SECURITY. API

A frac’ing ban would be a deliberate attempt to sabotage our nation’s energy infrastructure and national security. It would return us to dependence on Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the Soviet Union Russia, Venezuela and other “friendly” nations for the oil needed to defend this nation.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3

A frac’ing ban would be giving “aid and comfort” to the Kremlin, the Mullahs in Tehran and the Communist dictator in Venezuela.

Notes about nomenclature

Fracking vs. frac’ing

Frac’ing is a common well completion procedure that has been safely employed in oil & gas production for more than 70 years. There is no evidence whatsoever that frac’ing has ever polluted groundwater or triggered significant palpable earthquakes. Wastewater injection wells aren’t frac’ing. Frac’ing is a contraction of “hydraulic fracturing”. Fracking is a cleaned up version of the “F” word.

Shale vs. “shale”

I try to put quotation marks around the word shale when I use it in reference to “shale” plays. Many “shale” plays aren’t actually shale.

Is it Shale or not Shale? That is the Question.

In a previous blog on unconventionals, ”Conventional vs. Unconventional Shale: What is my Reservoir?,” Richard Day wrote about the nontrivial problem of classifying reservoirs as conventional or unconventional formations. I would like to continue this topic, as, in Europe, this issue has made it into the headlines of local newspapers. People in small villages have become “experts” in the field of geology, and believe they can determine whether exploration is for conventional or unconventional hydrocarbons, and whether it threatens their tranquillity. If they deem it so, from England to Poland, they voice their concerns.

Personally, if I had a choice, I would prefer to have unconventional drilling in my backyard rather than conventional. The high environmental standards and restrictive regulations give more guarantees that unconventional drilling is more secure and environmentally friendly than conventional drilling. But, sometimes, local people are afraid of whatever we call “shale.” Here, I would like to show examples of rocks that do not meet the definition of shale, but are still perceived as shale. Definitions can be misleading, and the nature of shale is more complex than people believe.

[…]

Recently, I was forced to change my presentation because I used the word “shale” for a rock containing over 45% clay minerals (as was reported in an X-ray diffraction (XRD) test and consistent with my petrophysical analysis), but the operator was wary of naming this rock as a “shale.” Shale can be defined as: ”Shale is laminated, indurated (consolidated) rock with > 67% clay-sized materials.” Jackson, J.A. (1997). Glossary of Geology, 4th Ed., American Geological Institute.

While it is always good to have reliable sources of knowledge, please take a look at the mineral composition of known shale gas plays in the U.S., as presented in Fig. 1 – which shows that almost none of the U.S. shale gas plays meet the criteria of the definition given above. According to this definition, there are no shale gas plays in the U.S. “Houston, we have a problem…”

[…]

Halliburton
Halliburton Figure 1. ” Ternary diagram of all shales in database. The color represents the individual shale, and the size of the bubble represents the brittleness as determined from XRD data (computed by mineral composition).

About the author of this WUWT post

I have been a geologist/geophysicist in the “climate wrecking” (oil & gas) industry since 1981. I am a member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) and Houston Geological Society (HGS).

0 0 vote
Article Rating
121 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Martin Howard Keith Brumby
February 11, 2020 2:29 am

Another brilliant post, David

Scissor
Reply to  Martin Howard Keith Brumby
February 11, 2020 5:38 am

Yes, excellent. “We all freeze in the dark” is a great summary.

I woke this morning to 10F and 3-4″ of global warming to be removed by shovel. It’s still dark, the wind is still, and yet I have light, heat and hot water (and coffee). I am so thankful for fracking.

dmacleo
Reply to  Scissor
February 11, 2020 12:52 pm

was out last sunday morning scraping so global warming off lots and was -14F here.

Editor
February 11, 2020 2:30 am

As always, David, thank you much for an educational and entertaining post. Keep them coming.

Regards,
Bob

Ron Long
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 11, 2020 6:58 am

Frack On! Please, David Middleton, don’t ever change, a lot of us depend on your style to get us through the day.

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Ron Long
February 11, 2020 1:33 pm

Ditto! Always read your posts. And frankly, the political element – especially regarding energy production – is great. Sometimes even I forget the stupid things are politicians have said.

Bob boder
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
February 12, 2020 8:58 am

how does David cram this much shcitz in his head!

February 11, 2020 2:32 am

This would be a act of high treason.

It would simply hand world power to the likes of India and China.

MJE VK5ELL

Jimmy Haigh
February 11, 2020 3:10 am

Excellent post.

Steve Case
February 11, 2020 3:11 am

One of my tag lines says:

Left-wing Liberal Democrats and the Main Stream media have no sense of numbers, science and reality.
That’s why they think we can power the world’s economy on wind mills, solar panels, and squirrel cages.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Steve Case
February 11, 2020 5:02 am

Left wingers have no sense. FTFY. 😇

Phil Rae
February 11, 2020 3:39 am

David……

Always good to read your posts………….and, I suspect they make very uncomfortable reading for the folks who don’t have a clue about what powers our civilisation and why those wonderful energy sources CAN’T easily be replaced by wind, solar and unicorn f&rts! Great work!

Alan Chappell
February 11, 2020 3:40 am

When so-called science figures a way to plug the 700++ under sea volcanos I will pay attention to swedish ignorance.

JohnOfEnfield
February 11, 2020 3:47 am

MEANWHILE in the UK……..

…. we’ve put so many restrictions on Fracking that we don’t (Frack).

AND we’re subsidising “renewables” to the tune of £400 pa per household rising to £600 in 2021. This represents 33% of my household (apartment) energy bill. Rising to approaching 50% in the foreseeable future.

And they have banned Natural Gas boilers (furnaces) in newly built houses from 2025 (That only 5 years away) & there is talk of stopping us even cooking by Natural Gas.

Bonkers. Truly Bonkers. And my grandchildren, who’ve been thoroughly brainwashed, look at me as I’m the one who needs putting in an asylum.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  JohnOfEnfield
February 11, 2020 5:07 am

Ask them to do the maths. They can’t.

Malcolm Bell
Reply to  JohnOfEnfield
February 11, 2020 3:28 pm

I have taken a photo of the graph showing the world-wide energy consumption. Now it’s on my phone I can use it to explain to the ‘greens’ how stupid their argument is that ‘renewables’ can be used to replace fossil fuels!
Thank you!!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  JohnOfEnfield
February 12, 2020 1:55 am

I am originally from the UK and we all welcomed natural gas when it arrived in the 70’s. But what you say sounds totally bonkers alright. Glad I migrated away in 1995. Having said that, Australia and New Zealand are not far behind.

commieBob
February 11, 2020 4:29 am

The national debt now exceeds the GDP. link That isn’t necessarily a problem as long as the economy continues to boom. On the other hand, if the economy goes south, America and her creditors have a big problem.

America has a tiger by the tail. Banning fracking lets the tiger loose.

If Americans are afraid of global warming, they should be really afraid of something that could be worse than the Great Depression.

President Trump is campaigning on the jobs he’s created. He should remind people of how they felt when things weren’t so good, and how they would feel if things got much worse because of a fracking ban.

Drake
Reply to  commieBob
February 11, 2020 11:05 am

Remember, the Great Depression took the action, or inaction of the Federal Reserve Bank and Roosevelt to make it last for so long, just as the recent Great Recession took the actions of the Fed to create and Obama and the dems at the beginning to make last so long. Recovery from natural recessions or depressions cannot be delayed without much effort by governments.

Look at Japan’s recent (1990s) decade long recession, caused by bank and government and lengthened by bank and government.

Natural cycles will occur without unnatural interference by governments. The current boom in the US is unnatural due to the creation of optimal conditions by 8 years of the government strangling the natural recovery, mostly due to the costs/requirements of Obamacare and Dodd/Frank. Remember the Dems had total control of all levers of governmet for less then 2 years and caused 8 years of economic strangulation. They have had less than 2 years of control of 1/2 of one branch of government since the 2018 election and are slowing the further unleashing of free enterprise, again limiting economic recovery and growth.

TRUMP! 2020, return of Republican control of the house without a swamp dweller like Paul Ryan as the speaker, and the USA could reach it’s true potention in the next 4 years leading to 20 years of growth as Reagan’s policies did.

Note that people give Clinton credit for his 8 years of growth, but it was just a continuation of the Reagan growth. No one can say WHAT Clinton did to maintian the growth, just that he was there after the 3 quarters of Recession at the end of the GHW Bush presidency caused by the first Gulf War and the call up of reservists and oil price shocks. That recession was over before anything Clinton could put into place through a natural recovery with soldiers coming home and return of international stability. The same for the dems claim that Obama should be credited for the TRUMP! economy. As stated above, I somewhat agree that Obama should get some credit for the recent surge since his and other Democrat’s policies created the LACK OF GROWTH over the years of his presidency, allowing for a springboard to the new economic growth cycle we are seeing.

Paul
Reply to  David Middleton
February 11, 2020 8:29 pm

Remember Clinton’s failed attempt to pass a BTU tax. He tried like hell to ruin the economy but failed.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Drake
February 12, 2020 9:19 pm

If inflation returned to its 1979 level, and interest rates responded accordingly, the interest payment on the national debt would exceed today’s national budget.

What’s all this talk about “sustainability”?

February 11, 2020 5:23 am

Thank you. My thought this morning was the time it takes for an energy transition such as proposed by the energy innumerate. My grandparents grew up using horses, my parents remembered when electricity came to their farms, and I remember when natural gas replaced coal in my home. I see no reason that an energy transition to a massively different energy mix would take place before my grandchildren get to my age, i.e. 60 years or so. These immediate bans cannot help but end in failure.

DocSiders
February 11, 2020 5:54 am

The Democratic Party Establishment (Leadership, Press, Deep State, Academia, Entertainment, Law, Finance, Social Media, etc.) has always been a barrier to security, wealth, and progress. But more recently, they have turned the corner past the point of no return towards insane reckless damage to the country and the world.

They must be stopped and then crushed. The 2020 elections must be won in both Houses and the White House. Then, if the Republicans fail to fight back against the Deep State and the Press and Academia and the Entertainment Industry the country may be lost.

We dodged a fatal bullet back in 2016…we best not fail to take advantage of the current changing political tides. A repeat of 2018 Republican voter turnout could be fatal.

The only reprieve from a Democratic Party resurgence would result from the grim lessons learned from the pain of the inevitable Stock Market Crash and 25% unemployment and the several regional wars we get embroiled in to keep from starving and freezing in the dark.

Sheri
February 11, 2020 5:57 am

Let’s try it and find out. Come on, politicians, put your action where your words are. A 6 month ban. NOW. Why wait????

Maybe we should start a group “Conservatives to Ban Fracking”, speed things up so we don’t have to be pummeled with this garbage all the time. It could terrify the progressives if the Senate passes a bill to ban fracking nationwide, in honor of say Bernie, and start it today. We want bipartisanship, right? And we want it now.

Polski
Reply to  Sheri
February 11, 2020 7:19 am

Sheri I was thinking the same thing. Here in Ontario well paid teachers with dreamy pensions have started rotating strikes to inconvenience everybody. Parents scramble to look after kids and kids learn nothing. Maybe voluntary rotating strikes of fossil fuel suppliers would be welcome by all the environmentalists, liberals and Gretas. Imagine no heat, hydro or fuel for your car, tractor, truck, ambulance or airplane? I’m sure the econuts would rejoice!

Then again if the U.S. adopted this my oil/gas stocks would fuel my retirement unless stupid liberals in Canada followed along.

Kamikazedave
February 11, 2020 6:27 am

Excellent post, David. But you can remove New York State from the Marcellus play. They have enacted a ban on fracking. I worked for the NYS Geological Survey in the 70’s on the Eastern Gas Shales Project. To see all our work go for naught is so sad.

bonbon
February 11, 2020 6:38 am

There is something seriously wrong with fracking, not addressed here.

https://wolfstreet.com/2020/01/22/the-great-american-shale-oil-gas-bust-fracking-gushes-bankruptcies-defaulted-debt-and-worthless-shares/
Quote :
” It’s a cycle that the shale industry has a hard time getting out of, under the current loosey-goosey monetary conditions.”
So a direct effect of the FED’s interest-rate policies.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  bonbon
February 11, 2020 11:51 am

You have been wrong about everything you’ve stated here since you started showing up; why should anybody believe anything you have to say? Looking forward to ridiculing you for even more failures over the next year, including your stand on hydraulic fracturing.

bonbon
Reply to  Paul Penrose
February 11, 2020 2:38 pm

Hey its your money, go ahead and invest!
Too bad the Wolf Street guys know what loosey-goosey really means.
Be a plucked duck!

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
February 11, 2020 4:05 pm

Interesting how only the people who agree with you constitute “Wall Street”.

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
February 11, 2020 4:04 pm

The oil industry has always been a boom-bust industry.
Once again you are seeing what you want to see.

Will
February 11, 2020 7:11 am

Ignorance is dangerous. Most people have no idea that the consequences of not producing gas and oil in the USA would be dire. When they know, they will not vote for the people who would cause depression, inflation, and misery for millions. Fortunately, educating the millions needed to win against the Socialists is not impossible. Even the liberal media will abandon the Left when they realize how dangerous their plans are. The politically connected are likely already making the videos and ads to make this case. This issue alone could be enough to cause a devastating defeat for the Left.

MarkW
February 11, 2020 7:20 am

“We must keep our United States fossil fuel reserves, owned by the citizens, in the ground.”

If it’s on private land, it isn’t owned by the citizens, it’s owned by the property owner.

Scissor
Reply to  MarkW
February 11, 2020 7:31 am

Bernie would say there is no such thing as private ownership (except for his property).

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Scissor
February 11, 2020 12:12 pm

Scissor
That should be plural, “properties.” I’ve often wondered how he could afford them.

James P
Reply to  MarkW
February 11, 2020 2:23 pm

This is my thought when I read comments elsewhere urging a ban on exports of “our” oil and gas… If it’s on private land it’s not “ours”, it’s the land owner’s.

MarkW
Reply to  James P
February 11, 2020 4:08 pm

That’s right up there with people who complain about companies that are shipping “our jobs” overseas. Right before they run down to the store where they intend to shop carefully in order to get the best deal, regardless of where the product was made.

Bob boder
Reply to  MarkW
February 12, 2020 9:00 am

Mark W
+1000

Al Miller
February 11, 2020 7:29 am

From what I see it may well take a few more complete nutbars like Sanders getting into high power and causing economic “Hari Kari” before the masses wake up and then there will be blood in the streets literally. Life has never been better for humanity- but just try convincing an alarmist of that.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Al Miller
February 11, 2020 2:18 pm

It’s true that people once burned tend to wise up, but I find it hard to rationalize inflicting Venezuela-style hardships on the US population just because some of them deserve it, all the while hoping everyone else will know better the next time.

Winston Churchill gave the Theme of Volume 6 — “Triumph and Tragedy” — of his series The Second World War as:

How the Great Democracies Triumphed,
and so Were able to Resume the Follies
Which Had so Nearly Cost Them Their Life

So I suspect I’m not alone in thinking it is better to avoid a disaster in the first place, as you can’t place too much confidence in people learning from it. That probably explains why after 100 years of unbroken and spectacular failure, people are still following Communist ideology.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Al Miller
February 12, 2020 3:54 am

No good – it’s already happened in South Africa with its Socialist (would-be Communist) ANC government. Our monopoly power system is bankrupt, and having rolling blackouts (called ‘load shedding’) daily just to be able to repair the badly maintained generating equipment. The national airline is broke, just about every state-run enterprise is broke and being held up with taxpayers’ money. Even the education system is shot, with locals comparing it unfavourably to Apartheid’s ‘Bantu Education’. And now the ANC is after the private health system, because the public one is a disaster area. And all of this before they even start with ‘renewables’, which are thought to be a SOLUTION!

Andy Pattullo
February 11, 2020 7:30 am

This was the quote that most caught my attention. I may be wrong but I think there is a misprint:

“There is an urgent need to keep fossil fuels in the ground if we want to protect the planet for future generations.”

I am almost certain they meant to say:

“ There is an urgent need to keep fossil fuels in the ground if we want to protect the planet FROM future generations.”

Steve Oregon
February 11, 2020 7:47 am

How dare you.
Greta is gonna explain it better in her new documentaries.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/feb/10/greta-thunberg-to-make-new-documentary-series-for-the-bbc

Andy Mansell
Reply to  Steve Oregon
February 11, 2020 11:01 am

Well, that’s all pretence of ‘impartiality’, (huge lol), gone out of the window for the BBC. How the hell am I still funding this woke, pious drivel? Even their fiction drips with their utter contempt for us normal types. They are nothing but very highly paid heads in jars making programmes for themselves and their admirers in the Guardian, etc.

Michael Keal
Reply to  Andy Mansell
February 12, 2020 12:11 am

Greta and the BBC! A match made in … I was going to say Heaven but I think Hell would be more like it!

Nicholas McGinley
February 11, 2020 7:57 am

On the plus side, many would no doubt starve to death long before they had a chance to die of hypothermia.

Tom Abbott
February 11, 2020 8:15 am

From the article:

“Yes, I support a ban on all hydraulic fracking operations.”
-Tulsi Gabbard”

I like Tulsi, but it is positions like this that would cause me to reject her as being qualified to be President of the United States. She demonstrates she is too clueless on an issue essential to all our futures.

All the Democrats do the same thing. They are all clueless, and/or diabolical. None of them should get anywhere near the White House. It would be a disaster of monumental proportions for not only the United States but for the entire world, excluding U.S. enemies. They would be celebrating.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 11, 2020 9:45 am

Most candidates say these sorts of things on the campaign trail with no intention of implementing them if elected. Trump was an exception.

bigoilbob
February 11, 2020 8:40 am

Catch all frac bans are bad idea. Much better to make the extractors/transporters pay for their Trumpian YUGE ongoing and legacy external costs.

1. API best practices for drilling/completions.
2. Fully fund (with cash in fist) ongoing and legacy asset retirement obligations. For “modern” completions and for the hundreds of thousands of neglected, hydraulically incompetent old wells in old fields. Catch up on those in 15 years.
3. True election funding reform that would run off the thousands of oil/gas biz lobbyists, now extant.
4. Make the state regulatory enforcers stop the Ben Dover “temporary” flare permits. Instead, make them enforce rules that almost all states have about energy waste.
5. DOT to page 1 rewrite train tanking regs that allow the transport of (essentially) charcoal lighter fluid in snuff box tin tank cars.
6. Bring the 5th fleet home from Bahrain. Let our “partners in peace” the Princes and Emirs, (who treat their women like sheep and visa versa) put out their own ~$50B/year to pay for the security/military risk of oil production/transportation from their neck of the desert.
7. A carbon tax, calculated to pay the P90 costs of AGW, and rebated monthly, equally, totally all those affected.
7. THEN, stop the relatively tiny green start up helps.

Then we would be “Free to Choose”. Milton Friedman would approve…

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 11, 2020 9:13 am

BOB, (or should I call you Vladimir from St Petersburg?)

What a ‘tard.
Your first #7 gave away your love of Marxist political ideology.

So sorry Vlad that the price of your Siberian oil and gas is now controlled by Texas and Pennsylvania. Oh wait… no I’m not.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 11, 2020 9:46 am

Vlad the Exhaler.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 11, 2020 12:10 pm

“Your first #7 gave away your love of Marxist political ideology.”

Just the opposite. TRUE capitalism makes those who accrue costs pay for them. FYI, external costs are COSTS. You would COMMUNIZE those costs on the rest of us, as is now the case….

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 11, 2020 4:17 pm

If you knew anything about capitalism, you would know that to properly account for costs, you also have to count the benefits.
The closest you have ever been to a book on capitalism was when you passed by the economic shelf on the way to the political Marxism counter.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 11, 2020 7:47 pm

@MarkW

“If you knew anything about capitalism, you would know that to properly account for costs, you also have to count the benefits.”

Bernie couldn’t have said it better. We decide whether or not to do things in the public or private realm, based on costs/benefits. As a non Bernier (unlike you) I wonder what ever happened to the “miracle of the marketplace”.

Earth to Mark. If the “benefits” are worth it, then we will be more than willing to pay for the TRUE costs of oil and gas at the meter. Milto nFriedman would UNDENIABLY approve……..

Bob boder
Reply to  MarkW
February 12, 2020 9:12 am

Big what ever

So who would pay the costs of not using fossil fuels, its amazing how death, privation, starvation and servitude don’t count in your cost benefit equation of not having fossil fuels?
And if the fossil fuel industry has to “pay” for all your ridiculous externality costs why shouldn’t they also derive all of the benefit from there use, we should all have to pay not only for the cost to produce the product plus a small profit but also pay for whatever benefit we derive from its use. Since pretty much everything in modern life stems directly from the use of fossil fuels the bill is going to be really large, not sure how you pay for increase life expectancy though, maybe it should be with servitude.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2020 8:37 am

There are no costs to using oil.

Have you gotten your paycheck from Putin yet?

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2020 9:58 am

Bob boder

“Again if they have to pay for the “full” cost they should also receive the “full” benefit.”

Again, you overlook the fact that that is what I am proposing. Use whatever hydrocarbons you are willing to FULLY pay for. Why is it that you hate capitalism so much?

bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 12, 2020 12:54 pm

“So who would pay the costs of not using fossil fuels, its amazing how death, privation, starvation and servitude don’t count in your cost benefit equation of not having fossil fuels?”

No, that’s a sideways perversion of what I said. I believe that, in accordance with Econ 101, the markets will only b e properly informed if those who use a product pay for it’s FULL costs. Both those that the providers can’t shuck, and those that have been successfully communized on the rest of us.

I’m no class warrior. If Bill Gates is willing to pay for the FULL costs of equipping an airliner as as a stable, to transport his daughter to and from horsie events world wide (which he did) OK by men. And by him as well….

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 13, 2020 8:39 am

The louder one proclaims oneself to not be a class warrior, the more likely it is that one is a class warrior.

The fact that you have to invent non-existent costs in order to justify your desire to tax the US oil companies out of business just goes to show what your real motive is.

Bob boder
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 13, 2020 9:48 am

Again if they have to pay for the “full” cost they should also receive the “full” benefit. made BS is still made up BS.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 11, 2020 11:59 am

bob,
The fact that you don’t want to apply these things to windmill and solar power projects shows your true colors.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Paul Penrose
February 11, 2020 12:04 pm

“bob,
The fact that you don’t want to apply these things to windmill and solar power projects shows your true colors.”

Reading comprehension. I said that we could jet all of the “tiny green start up helps” as soon as the playing field is leveled…

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 11, 2020 4:18 pm

But according to you and your fellow useful idiots, the playing field will never be leveled.
BTW, why wait, why not cut them off now, if your goal actually was capitalism?

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 11, 2020 8:19 pm

“But according to you and your fellow useful idiots, the playing field will never be leveled.”

Please point me to where I ever said that. In fact, my recommends could be easily, quickly, implemented.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2020 8:39 am

The fact that you completely ignore the many facts that completely refute your bosses opinion.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 12, 2020 4:27 am

That’s not the same as applying the same standards to existing wind and solar projects, now is it? For example, fully funding retirement requirements, or using best practices for siting and environmental protection. The “renewable” industry is a far worse threat to the environment and the economy than the oil and gas industry, yet they get a pass on just about everything. You can’t “level the playing field” by digging trenches on the other side.

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
February 11, 2020 1:25 pm

“1. API best practices for drilling/completions.

Should be doing this anyway.”

Agree. Too bad they are not, by a long shot.

“2. Fully fund (with cash in fist) ongoing and legacy asset retirement obligations. For “modern” completions and for the hundreds of thousands of neglected, hydraulically incompetent old wells in old fields. Catch up on those in 15 years.

That’s a business decision and not the business of government.”

Uh, no. The oil bizzers uniformly agree to take responsibility for asset retirement. But then they Trump it and shuck that responsibility. Here, there, everywhere, and always. Except for the Norwegians who have promised to do the work with their sovereingn wealth fund. It
s an obligation, and when you call fulfilling an abiigation or not a “business decision” that’s just more external cost communization.

“3. True election funding reform that would run off the thousands of oil/gas biz lobbyists, now extant.

Just gives more power to the government.”

As opposed to those bribing it?

“4. Make the state regulatory enforcers stop the Ben Dover “temporary” flare permits. Instead, make them enforce rules that almost all states have about energy waste.

That’s up to the states. When oil is $50/bbl and natural gas is less than $1/mcf, it makes no sense at all to not flare it in the Permian Basin or Bakken.”

Agree that it’s up to the states. And the regulatory enforcers cowed by the producers. But ALL of those states have energy waste regs, for a good reason. We will want it later. To go hysterically blind when biz conditions (justifiably) deteroriate is just more corporate welfare.

“5. DOT to page 1 rewrite train tanking regs that allow the transport of (essentially) charcoal lighter fluid in snuff box tin tank cars.

Or just make it more difficult for Enviromarxist terrorists to block pipeline construction.”

So, common sense DOT regs are now “terroristic”. Your Dan Kahan System 2 rationalizing is showing. And your amygdala is overamping in it’s “flight” mode.

“6. Bring the 5th fleet home from Bahrain. Let our “partners in peace” the Princes and Emirs, (who treat their women like sheep and visa versa) put out their own ~$50B/year to

Changing the home port of a fleet command won’t have any effect. The Navy still has to run freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) all over the globe, with the Persian Gulf and South China Sea areas being among the most strategically important. Oil is a global commodity.”

Just more external cost communization rationalization. We aren’t the worlds cops, especially to cover for royal kleptocraacies.

FYI, you went full denier with your “AGW costs of zero” wishful thinking. Even here, your world is getting SMALLER.. And MF HATED external cost communization. Apparently you, not so much…

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
February 11, 2020 2:08 pm

“Global FONOPS have been one our Navy’s primary missions since the First Barbary War.”

Not always. Not everywhere. Using your logic, we should be protecting all conflict products, of which oil is one.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/06/time-to-disband-the-bahrain-based-us-fifth-fleet/240243/

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 11, 2020 4:20 pm

Actually p90 is negative, since CO2 is a very strong net positive.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 11, 2020 4:15 pm

1) Why not demand that every industry adopt best practices? After all, cost never matters.
2) Retirement of old wells is fully funded.
3) Why is it that leftists always want the government to lock out anyone who disagrees with them?
4) I love it how leftists are so fixated on finding new ways to spend other people’s money.
5) Do you have any evidence that current regulations are too weak, or are you just bound and determined to find any way you can to make things more expensive?
6) What does that have to do with energy? Other than your desire to make sure the US has no influence in the region?
7) There are no AGW costs, it’s all benefit.

I doubt Milton Friedman would agree to anything you wrote.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 11, 2020 8:13 pm

“1) Why not demand that every industry adopt best practices? After all, cost never matters.”

These are from the API, an OIL INDUSTRY group.

“2) Retirement of old wells is fully funded.”

Uh, no. Not even close. Not even here in the CONUS. Wells are typically bonded for ~4 figures of USD. The actual costs are 1-3 orders of magnitude higher. Overseas, they don’t even try to pretend that these asset retirement obligations (that even the NOC’s don’t try to deny) are going to be honored.

“5) Do you have any evidence that current regulations are too weak, or are you just bound and determined to find any way you can to make things more expensive?”

It’s a combo of weaker regs and Ben Dover enforcement.

#1, the Trumpian YUGE increase in “temporary” flare permits.

#2. The Trumpian YUGE increase in shirked upstream hydrocarbon asset retirement obligations.

#3. The lack of progress on rail oil tank car safety.

#4. The Trumpian campaign against government scientific research on AGW and the human costs of hydrocarbon pollution.

#5. The bullying we are able to do on the regulatory enforcers. The math is easy. Private sector US petroleum engineering managers make twice what our public sector counterparts make, and we select accordingly. I’ve been well – extremely well – compensated for the easy job of bullying them into doing what I wanted them to do. And when it got difficult, my lobbyist intervened.

“6) What does that have to do with energy? Other than your desire to make sure the US has no influence in the region?”

Uh, everything. We all want the best. lowest ultimate cost energy. I thought that I was helping to provide it for the last 50 years, from pulling slips (underage) on a Sooner Trend workover rig, to managing international regional petroleum engineering operations in several different areas. The scales have been lifted from my eyes. Better late than ever….

“7) There are no AGW costs, it’s all benefit.”

Fact free, with science begging to differ..

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
February 13, 2020 8:41 am

BigRussiaBob complaining about no facts. That’s funny.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
February 13, 2020 8:57 am

“BigRussiaBob complaining about no facts. That’s funny.”

Getting increasingly desperate, MarkW. The unfunded asset retirement obligation debacle has been widely known for years. Here’s a good link. Need a dozen more…?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-oil-industry-cannot-afford-retire-yet-greg-rogers/

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
February 13, 2020 10:12 am

“Too fracking funny!

Ecologists are pleading to force oil companies to leave abandoned platforms in place.”

Why funny? This is a site by site evaluation. What is not mentioned is the general UK resistance, under BJ, to make the E&P’s dow aht they promised to do 50 years ago. Thankfully, the Norwegians will man up..

“In the Gulf of Mexico, abandonment rules are strictly enforced.”

Uh, no in spite of what the number free government link claims. The GOM is replete with leaking wells and platforms that hardly cast a shadow. The E&P mantra has been and always will be “PLEASE, just one more year! This is a bad time for us” As with the Montana copper mine clean up, most of hese facilties will be (and have been) passed around afew times, after which the last owner will pull rabbit ears, and we’ll get stuck with the 11-12 figure tab.

“The problem is mostly with very old wells that were improperly abandoned decades ago, for which there are no records, by companies that no longer exist.”

Uh, no, agaian. The orphan well problem is bad, but it pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of antique wells in ACTIVE fields. Ever year, petroleum engineers submit budget requests to start cleaning them up. And every year the managers whine “Not this year. It’s not the right time” Since we make twice what our guv enforcement counterparts do, we have little problem bullying them along.

“Idiotic SJW claims that climate warriors will forced to strand actual reserves and then be unable to afford to properly abandon the infrastructure are Bill McKibben stupid.”

Interesting conclusion. Too bad your link says nothing of the kind…

jtom
February 11, 2020 9:00 am

Perhaps us red-staters should become sanctuary states for frac’ing, drilling, and use of fossil fuels.

If we could delay the federal government long enough, the Blue states would discover they have bigger problems than worrying about what the red states are doing. I find it mildly amusing that most blue states are frozen during the winters. They will turn even bluer with no heat. Wonder how long it would be before some inner cities are burned to the ground for heat.

Joel O’Bryan
February 11, 2020 9:05 am

Today’s entire US Democratic Party has once again completely descending into one big frac’ing schist show. Every damn one of them has lost their mind. They’ve sold out to the GreenSlime, and would destroy this country for virtue at the altar of their climate religion.

As we’ve seen the past 3 years since Trump was elected, Democrats haven’t been this mad since Republicans took away their slaves. Since Abraham Lincoln was elected in November1860, Democrats have been throwing a regular string of tantrums and hissy hits like the petulent children they are. A mental state that we saw once again when Pelosi tore up Trumps SOTU copy on national TV last week.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
February 12, 2020 5:08 am

“As we’ve seen the past 3 years since Trump was elected, Democrats haven’t been this mad since Republicans took away their slaves.”

Lol! I like the way you put that!

Today, the Democrats may be mad for the same reason: Trump is taking away the Democrat’s modern-day slaves. Trump got eight percent of the Black vote in 2016. He’s getting anywhere from 20 to 30 percent approval from Blacks today. If 20 percent of Black folks vote for Trump this time, it will put Trump over the top.

Just like “Honest Abe”, Trump is freeing the slaves.

Beta Blocker
February 11, 2020 9:10 am

Sanders intends to impose a ban on the import of all fossil fuels, in addition to banning their export.

He is strongly opposed to nuclear power and would impose a ban on the issuance of NRC licenses for new reactor designs and for the extension of existing plant licenses.

If Sanders is elected president, all development work now underway in the US for building the small modular reactors (SMRs) will come to an end.

NuScale out of Portland, Oregon, is far ahead of the pack in getting an NRC license for their design and in making preparations for placing a practical SMR into production operation, once that license is in hand.

The NRC license for the NuScale SMR design is expected to be issued in the September 2020 timeframe.

Since an NRC license is the gold standard of nuclear safety requirements, having had one issued makes it easier to obtain regulatory permission in other countries to construct a new reactor design.

At least as it impacts the future of nuclear power in the United States, NuScale’s diligent work will be lost to us if Sanders becomes president.

If that happens, I can see NuScale and its US funding partners shifting their SMR development work offshore, possibly to South Korea.

Jeff Alberts
February 11, 2020 9:29 am

“There is an urgent need for Jared Huffman to be institutionalized.”

The “Rep-” in front of his name means he has been institutionalized.

Michael Jankowski
February 11, 2020 9:29 am

Dem candidate should automatically lose OH and PA. Some dolts in those “swing states” will still vote Dem. Texas and Colorado too…

Boris
February 11, 2020 9:50 am

I used to work in the oil patch in Canada until 2 years ago where I retired to the farm. Fracking is nothing new it has been going on since the sixties in the oil patch. The reasons that it has become more used and more common is that technology has advanced to the point that it can provide cheaper energy for many years to come. The reduction in costs has allowed the new technology to open up areas that were marginal for production like shale formations and shallow deposits. Directional drilling has allowed for multi frack points in the horizontal pay zone from well head. The introduction of step fracking in these pay zones allows for a number of different openings in the pay zone to be added in one operation. One of the big factors for the cost reductions in the process is the development of lighter larger horsepower diesel engine that could be mounted on skids, trailers or the backs of trucks. This allowed for the reduction of costs to a point where it became more common to use this technology on marginal wells.

In the sixties it would be used on a high production well to extend its life or to keep production up. In the sixties the costs were running $1500 a horse power per hour running for the fracking process. I was involved as a service representative for a turbine company that was there to keep the gas turbines mounted on the back of truck running to allow for the maximum amount of horsepower to be applied to the well head. These 1100 Horsepower unit would be ganged together in clusters up to 14 units on a single well head to use their high pressure pumps to deliver the fracking solution into very deep wells. The units would run for up to 6 hours per well so there was a lot of expense during that period and a lot of companies would forgo that expense.

The use of multi-point fracking widely today was mainly developed in the shale fields of northern Canada. The reduced depth that fracking is performed on shale formation requires less horsepower to achieve the results to bring in production. The fear mongering by the Greens is just that as most of their points are ridiculous to the extreme. Water pumped in with solutions and sand is recovered and reused as much as possible. Cross contamination from the well bore to the ground water is not only gas lighting it is almost impossible as the well bore casing is cemented and sealed for a great depth from the surface before the fracking process is under taken. At the start of the fracking process the well bore is lined with production casing and the pay zones are identified as to where the casing will be penetrated. In some cases a penetration “BOX” is added to the casing area to allow for better control. The well bores are pressure tested before the fracking and if any loss of circulation is seen then the process is halted until the leak is identified. Ground water is usually seen in the first 200 to 300 feet of the well bore and these areas are isolated from the fracking areas that range at the 1200 feet to 1500 feet or deeper in these formations by steel casings and pumped in sealer cement.

In Canada the well funded Greens have been ahead of gas field development in some areas where fear mongering and a well run propaganda campaign have limited the development of new Shale gas fields. This was seen in New Brunswick and Quebec where the Greens went all in to stop this development with a gas lighting smear propaganda campaign to force legislation to ban the use of fracking. In New Brunswick a lot of people still burn coal, wood and diesel fuel oil to heat their homes as natural gas is not available. This is criminal as there are shale gas fields in the northern part of this province and all development was halted because of this fear mongering brought on by the Greens. The use of these other fuels puts way more CO2 and particulates into the atmosphere but that known fact is lost in the shuffle. Heating better electrically New Brunswick is enough to put you in the poor house after one season. Now the Greens have started to target wood fire heat in the same province. The government needs to STOP listening to this vocal minority of Green destroyers and put the good of the major population first.

SMS
Reply to  Boris
February 11, 2020 2:19 pm

I am not disputing anything you have written. I would just like to add that here in the States we were fracing in great numbers in the 50’s using pumps powered by Allison radial engines left over from the war. And as I understand it, it was noisy.

Not necessarily newly drilled wells. Mostly old wells that were nearing their economic limit. These wells were fraced using lease crude and walnut hulls. They were refered to as Adomite fracs. Fracing revitalized many old fields that had been abandoned or shut-in.

Gilbert K. Arnold
February 11, 2020 10:57 am

David:
I have a REALLY radical idea. Let’s mandate that all students at a state supported college or university must take AND pass a basic course in mineral and petroleum economics in order to graduate from said institution. I can hear the wailing now!

Reply to  Gilbert K. Arnold
February 11, 2020 12:24 pm

I think you need to mandate a basic course in applied energy numbers. None of the claims add up.

SMS
Reply to  Gilbert K. Arnold
February 11, 2020 2:10 pm

A class in basic macro and micro economics would cure most of their ills. But then again AOC managed to bastardize even basic economics.

Bindidon
February 11, 2020 11:08 am

“What would happen if frac’ing was banned?

The short answer: We all freeze in the dark. ”

Ha ha haaah.

That reminds me the time in 1975, as in Germany, Baden-Württemberg’s Prime Min Karl Filbinger told on an evening in the TV, hand on heart and with dachshund eyes

.
Wenn wir das AKW nicht schnell bauen, dann gehen noch vor 1980 die Lichter aus!
.

i.e. “If we don’t quickly start building the nuke plant, then light will go off before the year 1980 comes to us”.

*
Forty years later, Germany moved from 57 % coal/lignite, 28 % nuke, 7 % gas and 4% ren (hydro) in 1990 to 35 % coal/lignite, 12 % nuke, 11 % gas and 35 % ren (of which 17 % are wind).

Und die Lichter, Herr Middleton, sind bei uns – Sie werden es nicht glauben! – immer noch an.

And… let me add, Sir, that we are far from where we should be according to even the weakest plan, what we funnily have to thank both the conservative camp and the social democrats.

While the former still couldn’t stop pushing nuke, the latter are as usual busy with saving hopeless jobs, this time… in the coal/lignite industry.

That electricity production is only about 17 % of total energy consumption, is known even here, oh yes. But we must start somewhere…

No, Sir, I’m no Greenie. Nothing to do with them.

We simply
– live here in a desert-free corner,
– do not know where to put the waste accumulated since decades becaused all long time storage facilities utterly failed, and
– do not want to leave all that to the next generations.

Rgds
J.-P. Dehottay

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Bindidon
February 11, 2020 12:13 pm

Nothing you said refutes anything that the OP stated. The U.S. today is not Germany from 1975. In fact, other than being about energy, what you posted has nothing to do with the original article! In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon.”

Bindidon
Reply to  Paul Penrose
February 11, 2020 12:41 pm

Paul Penrose

If a German person came along and would read your reply, s/he would say

“Oh Gott! Dieser Herr Penrose ist ja richtig bierernst!”

(https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#de/en)

And let me please add, Mr Penrose, that if your job was to collect all comments published at WUWT having ‘nothing to do with the original article’, you would be busy 24/7…

J.-P. D.

MarkW
Reply to  Bindidon
February 11, 2020 4:25 pm

They started shutting down the nuclear plants and as a result many people are freezing in the dark because they can no longer afford electricity.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Bindidon
February 12, 2020 4:34 am

OK troll.

MarkW
Reply to  Bindidon
February 11, 2020 4:24 pm

They built the plants and they didn’t freeze in the dark.

Clyde Spencer
February 11, 2020 12:28 pm

David
You are being entirely too hard on these compassionate politicians, who really care about the world, and just want world peace and cake for everyone. You have to understand that it is people who can’t do anything else who become professional politicians. They should be treated with the same respect and deference as those who didn’t manage to get elected and ended up being admitted to a different kind of institution. The real tragedy is that all of these people consider themselves to be the only sane ones, and believe that everyone else is mentally unstable. Humor them.

DipChip
February 11, 2020 1:17 pm

Fracken A Ditty Bag, Dave; Says a Navy veteran with 40 years upstream oilfield experience.

SMS
February 11, 2020 1:44 pm

If the socialists Democrats were really focused on denying the citizens the fruits of fracing, then they should also demand that any well fraced in the past be shut-in and abandoned.

It should be done immediately. Now!!! If not, we will all die a horrible death.

If fracing is so terrible, then acidizing will also have to be banned. I guess then that an entire ban on drilling would then need to be instituted. We could even go to war to prevent other countries from drilling and mining. I’m joking but a lot of the “I’m nobeler than you” socialist democrat college students and current presidential candidates would mind-meld their way to this conclusion using the Miss Latella school of thought.

There are very few people commenting on this post that realize the true impact that fracing has had on the oil and gas industry in the US and in the world.

Its not just the horizontal plays that are fraced. Wells that were drilling in the thirties were fraced later in their production lives in order for them to remain economic. Many of those older wells are still producing.

To shut down fracing, and by extension, all wells that have been fraced, would bring ruin to this country.

Fracing is the current scape goat chosen by the democrats. They must have run out of nasty things to say about coal and nuclear.

Roger Knights
February 11, 2020 2:58 pm

“U.S. crude oil production helped win World Wars I and I.”

And German / Italian crude oil shortages helped lose it for them:
“The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 – OIL” (by TIK)

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Roger Knights
February 11, 2020 7:01 pm

This guy is so wrong, I hardly know where to begin. Oil *was* a big factor, but the main reasons Germany lost WWII were economical might, manpower, and ridiculous time schedules.

Germany could not economically compete with Russia, let alone the rest of the world, and the U.S. was (is) mightier than the Soviet Union. The energy to power America was mostly COAL. It is a ridiculous statement to suggest Great Britain was a power because of oil – they were a power because of their economic might (especially through colonization) and this LED to high coal production. Cause and effect are completely backwards in this guys mind.

Germany assumed it could win quick decisive wars. Well, it did against completely unprepared countries that were using old tactics. Once they invaded the Soviet Union it was game-over. Too much land, too many people, taking too much time. Even had they taken Moscow, it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.

Oil became a huge factor BECAUSE of the Soviet invasion. Had they never invaded the Soviet Union, they were well on their way to producing massive amounts of oil through coal-conversion. There was no way Germany could ever take the Soviet Union using their own manpower, and this was their second major front. They lost the war because they planed and acted stupidly.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-2ef40074c8dd3c54ca24e840bbff60a8

German generals knew they could not win a war of attrition – they knew they had to win quickly. After they failed, all they could hope for were better terms if they drew out the war long enough.

Germany suffered from many shortages that limited their production, but the loss for air supremacy hurt them worse than any one shortage. Once the allies could bomb at will, production of raw materials (including oil), manufactured goods, and especially transport were greatly harmed.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 12, 2020 5:22 am

Yes, if you can’t stop the bombers from flying over you, then you are a cooked goose.

Bob boder
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 12, 2020 11:34 am

There is only one reason Germany lost the war. It attacked Russia. The war was won, if Hitler hadn’t gotten greedy and just consolidated his victory and pursued his tech advantage in both rocketry and Atomic weapons it would be a vastly different world right now.

Stevek
February 11, 2020 3:10 pm

I some sense I wouldn’t mind Bernie getting elected because some in this country need a huge wake up call to the dangers of socialism. The best teacher is experience.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Stevek
February 11, 2020 7:05 pm

Most experiments like this result in a huge amount of economic damage and many countries never seem to recover. Please wait until after I am dead to experiment on our economic model that has been the most successful in the history of all mankind.

(Note to feminists: I use the word “Mankind” as in all Human Kind and include the female gender just like the word is intended to)

(Note to self: Why is the expression “all mankind”? Is there a “partial mankind”?)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 12, 2020 7:37 pm

RoT
Yes, there are the “Haves” and the “Have Nots.” And there are the “Woke” and the “Clueless.” But, all of the ‘partials’ are a derivative of “Mankind.”

KT66
Reply to  Stevek
February 11, 2020 7:23 pm

The problem is once you have crossed that frontier there is no going back. Socialism has no opt out clause.

You are forced to participate right through to the bitter end as it runs it course toward economic despair and eventually the reeducation camps and finally the killing fields.

In every case as it begins to fail, the socialist blames the failure on not doing it intently enough, or not providing enough funding, or not being sufficiently committed to the cause, or on the individuals who selfishly put individual rights and freedoms ahead of the community. They claim with a little more regulation, more gov power, and more money, they can make it work. More, more, more and more socialism to make it work. The Great Society then needs a Great Leap Forward to a Cultural Revolution. It very rapidly becomes too big to fail. We might already be breaching that line of demarcation with so many dependent on Gov jobs.

Jay Johnson
February 12, 2020 2:09 am

When one digs a bit, one will find that fracking is part and parcel of the “renewable” energy scam.

The various pol, crat, and the connected’s “renewable” energy scams require traditional generation plants to back them up. The only traditional plants that are flexible enough to do so are natural gas powered plants.

The fracking industry is also extremely debt laden, and will implode with the “renewable” energy scam. Unfortunately, millions of Americans will lose much of their pension savings when that occurs.

For the technical and mathematical details of the “renewable” energy scam and the need for natural gas generation plants backing it up, read “Power Hungry” by Robert Bryce. He is neutral, but the details speak for themselves.

bigoilbob
February 13, 2020 10:19 am

David Mittleton

“From 1984-2008, Texas spent $163 million P&A’ing “orphaned wells”… In 2008, alone, oil & gas operators in Texas paid $8.55 billion in state & local taxes (mostly state) and royalty payments to the State of Texas. In 2017, the state spent $11.6 million on P&A’ing “orphaned wells”, while generating over $11 billion in tax and royalty revenue.”

Uh, ok. They pay the royalties they must. Royalties that they obligated themselves to pay ALONG WITH their asset retirement obligations. They let the state assume a part/thousand of their true asset retirement obligations, so far. They shirk the rest. Got it….

bigoilbob
February 13, 2020 10:26 am

David Mittleton

“Horst schist. There are very few “leaking wells and platforms” in the GoM. BSEE efficiently enforces the regulations and the vast majority of operators proactively comply, because failure to do so is extremely expensive.”

Cleopatra is is just another Queen of Denial. Dream on. Here’s just one example. The GOM is is an antique junk pile of hydraulically incompetent well bores and platorms that are already sagging under gravitational force. Ben Dover BOEM and state regulators are paid up to look away….

The CONUS is full of Taylor Energy’s…

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/uncapped-wells-have-been-leaking-oil-into-the-gulf-of-mexico-for-14-years

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/uncapped-wells-have-been-leaking-oil-into-the-gulf-of-mexico-for-14-years

bigoilbob
February 13, 2020 10:31 am

David Mittleton

“The vast majority do properly fund their ARO obligations.”

Uh, no. AGAIN. They put up token “bonds” that cover a few parts/thousand of the actual costs. Per the link I spoon fed you earlier, we will either end up with 12-13 figures communized on the rest of us, or settle for parts of our nation turning into trash cans (per the FSU), or some combo….

%d bloggers like this: