What are the economic and political ramifications of the fracking boom?

[Clamdick McClaw]

Of course, bogged down in endless details like a lot of the threads on here. 

What is the economic impact of fracking?  Just another long delay from the United States actually using what I would like to call "nuclear-squared".

A. Nuclear power, which we were scared away from in the 1980s.

B. The giant nuclear generator in the sky we sometimes refer to as "the Sun". 

It fits in with American economic policy perfectly.  A nice little short-term boom... with prices dropping for a little while so Americans can go buy more crap... followed by a long series of periodic depressions spurned on by our same dependence on gooks and gases that emerge from the ground.  Of course, this is what the gas companies want.  So it's what they'll get. 

So what are the economic and political references of the fracking boom? 

[Link]

It fits in with American economic policy perfectly.  A nice little short-term boom... with prices dropping for a little while so Americans can go buy more crap... followed by a long series of periodic depressions spurned on by our same dependence on gooks and gases that emerge from the ground.  Of course, this is what the gas companies want.

Nat gas producers are not the villains here in regards to prices to consumers.  They are not living high on the hog.  People have gone crazy with fracking and dropped the floor out from under the price of domestic Nat gas.  This is not the same as soaring gas prices, record profits at big oil companies, and demanding subsidies from the tax payer.

These guys are creating good paying domestic jobs and producing cheap energy for domestic consumption.

What's wrong with this graph?



I like it.

[Clamdick McClaw]

It fits in with American economic policy perfectly.  A nice little short-term boom... with prices dropping for a little while so Americans can go buy more crap... followed by a long series of periodic depressions spurned on by our same dependence on gooks and gases that emerge from the ground.  Of course, this is what the gas companies want.

Nat gas producers are not the villains here in regards to prices to consumers.  They are not living high on the hog.  People have gone crazy with fracking and dropped the floor out from under the price of domestic Nat gas.  This is not the same as soaring gas prices, record profits at big oil companies, and demanding subsidies from the tax payer.

These guys are creating good paying domestic jobs and producing cheap energy for domestic consumption.

What's wrong with this graph?



I like it.

This is a CAPITALIST country, oh proud and valiant savior of Hyrule... you expect THAT to stay the same?  

[Link]

This is a CAPITALIST country, oh proud and valiant savior of Hyrule... you expect THAT to stay the same?  

Relax man.  I was just stating the case as it is today.  There  is no fracking conspiracy.  These guys are just drilling and trying to get in on the boom.  They are not toppling governments and exploiting people in third world countries.

I have nothing against nuclear and I think it is insane not to provide federal funds to research it.  We should follow a French model and have one or two plant designs and move forward with that.  But ignoring the dirt cheap gas under our feet would be crazy and exploiting it is not a conspiracy.

I don't know how many real years worth of energy we have under our feet.    But we should be researching the next big thing.  That's what the government is there for.  Let these guys frack all they want and the government should look out for environmental concerns, coal miners, and nuclear research.

There really is no need for anyone to be hostile or accusatory.

[opebo]

Yeah I'm very fond of fossil fuels myself.  Probably comes from growing up with Real Cars.

[traininthedistance]

And fracking will continue providing energy independence for America, despite a few people in PA being able to light their water on fire.

The stakes are a lot sharper than just "a few people in PA being able to light their water on fire", even if one were to accept the premise that their inability to carry out normal life going forward is No Big Deal, as you so blithely seem to do.  The stakes are more like millions of people don't have drinking water anymore, and local governments are bankrupted- you are aware of where NYC's water comes from, and how by spending millions to preserve land around their reservoirs, they have saved $billions in construction and running of treatment plants in addition to all the other wildlife/air quality/recreational/etc. benefits of open space, and how they basically have some of the best water in the country because of it, and how it could all come crashing down if we blindly charge ahead with "drill baby drill", and cause economic devastation greater than the value of the gas?  (Sorry for the run-on sentence there.)

And keep in mind that those poor folks in PA are not getting compensated for damages at all, because the state government is rather deliberately looking the other way and refusing to do due diligence to see whether water supplies can be held harmless in the face of fracking- both from overuse (since fracking uses a lot of water), and also from the more well-publicized contamination issues.  Now look, I'm very much a pragmatist here- if they can find a way to do it that's guaranteed to not f**k up these people's lives, and actually be serious about paying damages when they mess up, I'd be willing to accept some drilling.  It is way better than coal, that I recognize. But we all know what those "if"s add up to.  First and foremost, the government needs to do get its head out of regulatory capture, do its job and regulate- and if that means a moratorium, if that means some marginal plays are just going to have to wait, if that means we don't drill anywhere near important reservoirs, then fine.  Take the time to get things right first, take all the externalities into account.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I challenge anyone to defend the wastefulness of the Bakken oil fields. It's pretty obvious that these things are terrible for the environment.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-north-dakota-the-gritty-side-of-an-oil-boom/2012/07/18/gJQAZk5ZuW_story.html

[(CT) The Free North]

I challenge anyone to defend the wastefulness of the Bakken oil fields. It's pretty obvious that these things are terrible for the environment.

Wastefulness? What?

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-north-dakota-the-gritty-side-of-an-oil-boom/2012/07/18/gJQAZk5ZuW_story.html

F'ing bastards.  Where is the government?!

[bballrox4717]

Honestly, it's great for the economy and would likely lead to more jobs. You'll likely see both sides pushing over each other for votes from natural gas/fracking lobbyists with the environmentalists on the left mumbling and grumbling.

I'd like to add that though that just because it's good for the economy doesn't mean fracking is good whatsoever and we should ignore the economic benefits because of how poor it is for the environment. People here have already made pretty good anti-fracking arguments.

[Beet]

I cant see how anything negative comes from this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8

Fracking has been criticized for being water intensive. With the entire country covered in drought, increasing the usage of a resource that destroys groundwater and requires massive amounts of fresh water doesn't seem practical to me.

[traininthedistance]

Wastefulness? What?

Do you know what gas flares are?  That's when they burn excess gas (that they get as a byproduct of other drilling/refining operations) just to get rid of it, because they don't want to bother transporting it to somewhere it can be used to productive effect.

It is the very definition of pure waste.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Wastefulness? What?

Do you know what gas flares are?  That's when they burn excess gas (that they get as a byproduct of other drilling/refining operations) just to get rid of it, because they don't want to bother transporting it to somewhere it can be used to productive effect.

It is the very definition of pure waste.

As wasteful as a field of windmills on a calm day?  Or snow covered solar panels? 

I agree, it is extremely stupid to simply flare off a valuable fuel for producing electricity... but even so I've seen natural gas bills plummet while electricity bills creep higher and higher due to more renewable energy mandates.

The green agenda is fine for upper middle class urban whites who can both afford and choose that kind of lifestyle.

It's actually funny to see the granola crowd gnash their teeth at the GOP for being obstructionists... when the green crowd pioneered the tactic.

Don't debate!  Litigate! 

[bgwah]

Meanwhile, Britain is converting coal plants to wood pellet burning plants... where are those wood pellets coming from?  Not from deforested Europe... but from American forests.  Europe's shortsighted "green" energy policy is deforesting America now.  Not long after they helped deforest the Amazon to grow soybeans for their eco-friendly vegan BS food.

2/3 of the world's soybeans are used in animal feed. another 1/5 is converted to oil, much of it  used in processed and fast food frying up those soybean-fed animals. Grains and beans for human consumption are generally less resource intense per calorie than when converted through animal feed so you can't blame vegans for deforestation.  Ethanol however...

Hehe, I'm pretty sure he's just trolling me. He likes to do that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wastefulness? What?

Do you know what gas flares are?  That's when they burn excess gas (that they get as a byproduct of other drilling/refining operations) just to get rid of it, because they don't want to bother transporting it to somewhere it can be used to productive effect.

It is the very definition of pure waste.

As wasteful as a field of windmills on a calm day?  Or snow covered solar panels? 

I agree, it is extremely stupid to simply flare off a valuable fuel for producing electricity... but even so I've seen natural gas bills plummet while electricity bills creep higher and higher due to more renewable energy mandates.

The green agenda is fine for upper middle class urban whites who can both afford and choose that kind of lifestyle.

It's actually funny to see the granola crowd gnash their teeth at the GOP for being obstructionists... when the green crowd pioneered the tactic.

Don't debate!  Litigate! 

Fossil fuels are not sustainable. We need to switch to better sources of energy.

[Virginia Yellow Dog]

Don't quite know where else to put this, but this is a significant discovery:

Ala. Oil Sands Hold Lucrative Promise, Environmental Peril

Mary Sell, TimesDaily Published: Aug 11, 2013, 8:22 AM EDT

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A financial boon could be awaiting Alabama just below the earth's surface in parts of north and west Alabama.

That's what some consider to be the potential of oil sands — or tar sands as they also are called — that geologists said are called in some areas, including Colbert, Franklin and Lawrence counties.

According to some estimates, the oil sands hold 7.5 billion barrels of crude oil and a revenue source for the state that has remained untapped to this point.

Environmental groups call it unnecessary and potentially disastrous.

Late last month, Gov. Robert Bentley and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant signed a memorandum of understanding, commissioning an assessment of the oil sands that contain bitumen, which can be transformed into usable oil. Bitumen is a black, oily viscous material that is an organic byproduct of decomposed organic materials.

The study will be the first of the oil sands resources since the 1980s, state geologist Nick Tew said.

The study reportedly will lead to better reserve estimates and models, "and other information critical to stimulate private sector interest and guide prudent development," he said.

[TNF]

Something like this, I hope:

[Joe Republic]

You must be logged in to read this quote.