2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf Bernie bans fracking, will he take responsibility when price of oil goes right back up?
Just wondering.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Best defense of fracking..EVER.
TheBlackAdder
(28,182 posts).
Anyone who thinks that the plan is to use NG for domestic use, is ignorant of the U.S. LNG ships and ports.
The big push is to sell this to foreign markets, while the U.S. ecology and watersheds become damaged.
There are other byproducts to fracking, such as the radioactive soil and well solution/water, the escape of methane at almost every injection well, besiades the comtaminated ground water and earthquakes.
.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Would it move the needle much on oil?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)U.S. production had been declining for decades until fracking effectively doubled it in just a few short years. Virtually all of the recent price decline had been caused by fracking and OPEC'S response to growing U.S. production.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)fracking has provided jobs to Democrats living in those areas. It would be nice if every issue was as black and white as Bernie tries to paint them.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)that don't destroy the environment and jeopardise the health of nearby populations can also create jobs.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Jesus on a stick..
Cavallo
(348 posts)poisoned by the fracking ground water) to be appalling to support.
We need to focus on developing green energy. Fracking is not clean or green energy.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)
womanofthehills
(8,693 posts)Fracking water chemicals get into the food supply too.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)You are going to need a citation for that, because it has done nothing of the sort.
If you sell fracking equipment or speculate on the oil market perhaps *your* profit line has increased, but it has contributed very little for the price in materials and manpower to extract said oil.
It is not a cost effective method, and all that it has done is screw up aquifers, harmed the environment and contributed to geological instability. And for what? Oil that has 3 to 4 times in extraction costs.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Believe me, that has a lot to do with these cheap gas prices.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that the production increase was due to fracking.
And I'll remind you that the person that just replied admitted that the profit just is not there.
That doesn't even address the harm to the environment, or the waste involved in refining fractured oil.
Every single time I see people attempt to justify this, they seem to think that if you got a teaspoon of usable oil, it is worth the cost to extract it, despite the fact that it is in no way cost efficient.
I understand that a lot of people committed a lot of resources to producing fracking and various methods of getting that oil out of the ground. The problem is that the price, the expense and the methods don't justify the cost.
If you work in the fracking industry, I can absolutely guarantee that the Wall Street speculators are laughing their asses off at you, and at the investors that thought it was a bright idea.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)I didn't say anything about profits... merely that the technology dramatically increased production. I'm afraid there's no easy for you to refute that... nor are their costs anywhere near as high as some thought a year or two ago (which is why OPEC is being forced to knuckle under)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Please produce a citation for that assertion.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)
truthseeker1
(1,686 posts)OPEC is holding the line, which is forcing ND and TX frackers out of business. Costs haven't gone down. That's why they're being forced to get out and close down wells.
Agony
(2,605 posts)unbelievable but true… something like a third of all the nat gas produced is flared in the Bakken shale.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/04102015/natural-gas-flared-north-dakota-oil-wells-study-raises-questions-methane-hydrocarbons
Ya gotta see this…
http://www.ceres.org/industry-initiatives/oil-and-gas/gas-flares-from-space
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)Ok, I'm 1,000% with Bernie on this now.
Thanks for educating me. I was against it because of the earthquakes and water problems, etc. But this ...
What a bunch of unconscionable, disgusting a-holes. In this day and age, there is no defense for that. I thought we criticized Saddam for burning oil fields .....
Agony
(2,605 posts)So even after they implement "best practices" they will still be venting/flaring 15% of the Natural Gas.
Frack Gas is a bridge to nowhere.
Here is a talk by Howarth in 2015 describing how Nat Gas is a greenhouse gas liability, not a bridge to sustainability.
Long but worthwhile if you are interested in Climate Change issues.
Cheers...
polly7
(20,582 posts)was caused by the benzene in the flare pits he'd been lighting with no protection for three decades. Mobil Oil hadn't bothered with personal protection or informing its employees of the dangers up here back then. It was just part of his job as an oilfield battery operator. He killed himself, leaving 9 kids and many grandchildren who loved him more than anything behind, but it was his work to feed and clothe us all in such a dangerous environment that led to it.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)A key culprit was benezene. When you breathe a bunch of it, it gives you the feeling your lungs are frozen and you are helplessly suffocating. It's also a carcinogen. Got my wife first. Then me, when I tried to help her. Ambulances, fire department, etc. We were sick for quite some time. I can't imagine working near that stuff daily.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Safety standards are a lot more strict now, thank goodness but there were many of these accidents up here. A father and son from my home town were both lost when the son went in after his dad. Two other operators that I remember were also killed.
My dad wasn't sick a day in his life until about six months before he killed himself - then it came on so suddenly - he didn't want all of us to have to suffer watching him, I know that's why he did it. He loved the oil-patch and his work (he was also a small-farmer), I just wish Mobil Oil had protected their workers - I get so angry thinking of how so many men worked in the same conditions.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)worse than the illness itself. My kids were 2 and 5 at the time. I had disability insurance but you know the drill - they won't pay until you sue them. Took two or three years and the lawyers got a big hunk of it - we got about $9,000 that was left over for two years. The doctors told me I wasn't going to recover. I fought that prognosis and was lucky to survive well enough that I eventually could work and provide for my family. If I could not provide for my family, I would have done what your father did. I would never accept being a burden on them. I weighed that decision and made it easily. I'm very confident it was the most humane for all concerned.
polly7
(20,582 posts)But very, very happy to hear you're doing so much better.
My dad had retired and just finally had an auction sale to sell all his farm stuff (which wasn't really that much, all older machinery he lovingly tinkered with every year to keep running) and was so looking forward to enjoying his grandchildren (who looked upon him as some sort of superman - he was like the pied piper with kids and animals). He worked so hard all his life and took such good care of so many. He just didn't want us to see him suffering and I know didn't want to linger in a hospital - he told me that. It was all just so unfair.
Anyway ... sorry for going on, when I talk about him sometimes I don't stop - it's taken me a few years to get to this point.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)because I was worried that if the kids saw how sick I was, it would really upset them. I only saw them briefly under controlled circumstances where I could look not as ill as I was. I feared existing in our household like a plant - unable to contribute - there's no way I could have done that long term. I didn't want anyone -even my wife to see me that sick. My father was dying and I was too ill to see him much because if he found out how sick I was, it might have killed him. Ignoring the specifics of illness - the general circumstances can mess up family life in a very big way. So you try to be conscious of it, always weighing how to minimize the damage.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
Such a terrible thing to go through ... Jarqui
(10,123 posts)It's to communicate to someone whose father was in a somewhat similar but worse circumstance that I can identify with. From that, I am sympathetic towards his decision. As awful and unjust as the loss was, maybe that might help give you a little more closure or peace of mind. Maybe it won't but it was worth a try.
polly7
(20,582 posts)
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)And DAMN the person who says that cheap isn't worth it." Is that really your argument?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)As would I
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)cheap is such a -variable- term
SDJay
(1,089 posts)if Bernie should apologize to all of those poor insurance company executives who have to change jobs after Bernie unilaterally imposes single payer healthcare.
Lots to wonder about.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)Its incredibly scary that some people will adopt right wing talking points just because their candidate holds that position.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I feel qualified to address that concern. It would be a wonderful thing for CT...and Hartford, in particular.
Vast amounts of money thrown around by Aetna and Cigna are spent to undermine downtown development...they don't want other industry in downtown or a walkable downtown or better public transit or downtown residences...they're the only major tax-base of downtown Hartford and they exploit it to get whatever they want from the city and state. When they don't get what they want...the threaten to leave downtown or actually have in some cases.
The job-loss would be minimal, except among top executives, whose jobs really don't concern insurance...they could just as easily be executives for any other Fortune 500 company.
Pretty much, a change to single-payer for most of the workers is an issue of "New job, same as the old job; new boss same as the old boss." They have unique and specialized skill-sets, the work they do now still needs to be done, it would be too difficult and take too long to train new people to do those jobs, most of them would not relocate...there's basically no way to set up a workable single-payer system without plopping a giant federal bureaucracy into Hartford, CT. It would, like most federal agencies, be headquartered out of DC...but there is really no choice but for the work that needs to be done to be done here by the same people that have been doing it for the last several decades.
In terms of downtown development, a federal agency would be a better tenant than a handful of rapacious insurance and financial industry firms that spend as much time as humanly possible trying to figure out how to avoid investing in their communities or paying their fair share of the cost of being HQed in a nice city. (They basically behave the same way towards us as they do towards their victims...I mean customers...err, the people they take money from to not pay for healthcare as often as they can get away with it.)
Save Connecticut...murder the "health insurance" industry!!
SDJay
(1,089 posts)Thank you for that post.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)......or even the use of hemp as a fuel? grows fast. But fuck fracking. Maybe you would like your water to burn, but others would rather not.
djean111
(14,255 posts)If Hillary promotes fracking, will she take responsibility for poisoned water?
If Hillary promotes fracking, will she take responsibility for the earthquakes it causes?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,666 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)At the present time, fracking is operating at a huge net loss, and the only reason why they are continuing to do so is that they have to do something with the hefty investments they made, despite them operating on a loss.
The world is moving to different energy sources than fossil fuels, and fracking has only been profitable when oil prices are sky high.
They aren't, and the situation does not look to be improving anytime soon as the oil market is flooded.
If somebody is dumb enough to keep fracking at a loss, they probably should be stopped from doing it because they are clearly idiotic. That doesn't even get into the environmental damage it does. On pure economics, it has always been a boondoggle that was propped up by commodities speculation.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)the price of oil will sky rocket right back up.
panader0
(25,816 posts)And let's frack in your back yard if you think it's so great.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)Commodity speculation is apolitical. It doesn't matter one whit who holds the keys - a vast amount of factors have come together to depress the price of oil, and if fracking were stopped tomorrow by I don't care who, Satan, Jesus, Julius Caesar from the grave, it won't make a bit of difference, except we won't be damning our water supplies, environment and disrupting geological underpinnings.
Hillary Clinton could come roaring in to stop fracking. So what? It is still a boondoggle cooked up to massage the commodity speculation market.
Don't take my word for it - look it up.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Fracking is a boondoggle and an abomination.
Cavallo
(348 posts)womanofthehills
(8,693 posts)Fracking costs lots of money - For fracking to be profitable, the price of oil can't be $40 a barrel. There is so much oil on the world market.
IEA says oil market may 'drown in oversupply' in 2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iea-sees-oil-market-struggling-to-absorb-excess-supply-1453194130
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Really?
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)NowSam
(1,252 posts)but I suppose it fits my perspective that true change doesn't matter to some - only winning. They are okay if winning means losing the future. They don't care if winning means having dirty water or air or perpetual war. Just as long as they win. Shaking my head.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)dealt with?
Right wing talking point after right wing talking point.
How do you get away with it?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)that fracking has played a part in driving oil prices down?
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)but still the way you frame things (from what I have read here) is always Right Wing Republican framing.
panader0
(25,816 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,182 posts).
This really is a RW talking point. Congrats, again!
Obviously you haven't been clued in on why KLX will go to the Gulf of Mexico and multiple states are in the process of building LNG depots and a whole bunch of LNG ships are under construction. Several LNG ships are being filled right now in the US.
But the bullshit that NG is keeping oil prices down is just that... bullshit!
.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)in Oklahoma having a +500% increase in earthquakes.
No it has not, it has just been a tiddlywink used on the commodity speculation market.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)The current price of oil has nothing to do with fracking. Currently, the price of oil is through the floor because the Saudis and OPEC are waging a price war against the US and Canada, trying to set back the future-line when we become energy-independent and leave the oil marketplace which will tank global demand and price-per-barrel beyond OPEC's ability to control the market price. They, in short, don't want to lose control of the price of oil...which will happen if we're able to produce and refine 100% of our needs domestically and buy whatever occasional shortfall might occur, off the Canadians.
They're trying to force us back into the international oil marketplace by selling at price below what it costs domestically to get it out of the ground and refined, selling it at a loss. Their hope is that our refining capability will dry up as refiners go out of business or cut production to avoid going under; wagering that the American people will not countenance an energy sector bailout to keep refiners in business and forcing us to start importing again. The Saudis are losing their shirts, made worse by the reentry of Iran into the oil market, but hedging that our oil production and refining will go under before they exhaust their fiscal reserves.
None of that has anything to do with fracking and banning fracking would have as much of an impact on oil prices as banning cow-farts would have on the price-per-cubic-yard of methane.
More so, I know all this because it's been mentioned in just about every major business publication every month for the last 5 months.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)You think fracking has driven prices down?
hill2016
(1,772 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)
earthside
(6,960 posts)hill2016 isn't concerned in the slightest about logical and/or economic consistency.
This person is just engaging in a smarmy rhetorical attack on Sen. Sanders.
Fracking is expensive and is only possible financially when oil prices are already high, that is a fact.
The market right now has "banned" fracking.
The greed of oil producers, foreign and domestic, are their own worst enemy and that accounts currently for the low price of oil.
If we enter another recession (which may be happening), the price of oil may stay down for quite sometime as a consequences of lower demand.
But hill2016 isn't really inquiring about the future of the oil markets, this individual just thinks they are launching a clever attack on Sanders by means of a question they don't even know how to answer themselves.
enough
(13,256 posts)Better read up on the current oil market.
fbc
(1,668 posts)Maybe read a little as the post you are replying to suggests
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)As a practical matter, the price of oil is such that no one is digging new wells; fracked or otherwise.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)wouldn't the price of gas shoot right back up, hurting Americans?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I guess if you define the "americans" as "those currently alive who drive lots of miles and who don't derive their living from developing or selling alternative energy solutions"...
Cheap taxes! Cheap gas! Fuck future generations! Vote DNC!
fbc
(1,668 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)With these talking points? Holy hell. I seriously feel like it's Free Reoublic vs DU sometimes. How does this shit stand?
Enrique
(27,461 posts)there is some chance she herself will be making this argument if she wins the nomination. Not before, of course.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Yes or no.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)The price of gasoline has fallen because there is a glut on the market. Overproduction or a drop in consumption, either of those things can do that.
In any case, gasoline prices are probably too low, low enough to encourage people to buy inefficient gas guzzlers like SUVs, which is very bad for the planet.
Zynx
(21,328 posts)That has a lot to do with the oversupply.
truthseeker1
(1,686 posts)Very unlikely to pass Congress though.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)and job losses.
It's easy to say fracking is bad, but looking at the big picture it becomes more complicated.
I invite people here to go to the shale oil fields and tell those workers they don't have jobs anymore. Then go arrange more oil from foreign markets, keep increasing military spending and foreign wars.
The best solution is to get ourselves off fossil fuels, a proposal people here ridiculed Clinton for because it didn't punish frackers. The emphasis always seems to be on bans and punishment rather than finding solutions.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Because 'I invite you' suggests that you are there with those workers, but you are not there with those workers, you have no idea how they are faring now, how they live nor the challenges they are facing. The affectation that you know and speak for people you do not know nor speak for is a casually dismissive of those persons and places....
What I can tell you is this: OK has lots of fracking, OK voted for Bernie Sanders for a reason.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...gas emissions?"
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Had same opinion as you money > safety of public. I bet fracking would be issue if it was in your back yard/
0rganism
(23,937 posts)last i checked, we were dumping some pretty serious cash into the oil companies to subsidize low oil prices.
in Europe at that time the price of gas was well over $5/gallon. people in the USA were complaining about gas prices around $3/gallon (the W years).
what is the appropriate price of oil, in your opinion?
djean111
(14,255 posts)The price per gallon is not comparable, really.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)litlbilly
(2,227 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Banning Fracking will drive up the cost of gas, which will make cheap coal, once again, a desired commodity for power plants. This is the problem with providing overly simple answer to a complex problem. If you turn of the gas, you have to replace in very quick order with something. Coal is easy and cheap.
We've made real strides in renewables, but we have ways to go before the nation can turn off the gas and shut down coal. The easy answer of banning fracking will not help. Also, banning outright will require congressional action.
Clinton's solution to regulate it out of existence will be slower, but a lot of that can be done with the EPA. It could done by coupling reductions in Fracking (higher prides) with increases in the using renewable energy. Renewable energy sources is the answer, but it there is not short cut.
PITTSBURGH - In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier- burning coal.
Many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't see the drop coming, in large part because it happened as a result of market forces rather than direct government action against carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.
Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said the shift away from coal is reason for "cautious optimism" about potential ways to deal with climate change. He said it demonstrates that "ultimately people follow their wallets" on global warming.
"There's a very clear lesson here. What it shows is that if you make a cleaner energy source cheaper, you will displace dirtier sources," said Roger Pielke Jr., a climate expert at the University of Colorado.
The gas boom has led, not just to a reduce use of coal but the closure of coal mines.
Last month, Arch Coal, the operator of one of the biggest mines in the county, announced a round of devastating layoffs — more than 1,300 employees in West Virginia and Kentucky alone. Between the other big players in central Appalachia — Consol, Patriot, Alpha — thousands more jobs have been lost. This past week, Patriot Coal filed for bankruptcy protection.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)The low price of gas is related to American and European anti-Putin measures against Russian exports, which the Saudis are using to their advantage by pumping gas at very high rates.
The fracking industry is depressed because of it.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)even to the point of invading countries for oil profits.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Fracking has made us energy independent for the first time in many decades. No need to invade; no need to become involved.
Natural gas is clean burning -- the best fossil fuel available with no other comparison.
bvf
(6,604 posts)will she say "Sorry for all the dead bodies. My bad."?
Just wondering.
Sheesh.
LettuceSea
(337 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)Just wondering.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Bernie lives in a world of socialist utopia. A world where everything is black and white and you must be 99.9998% pure to enter.
It is a world of special privelege only open to a select few. Substantial fees are charged. 
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Fracking will shut down on its own. Oil must be above $80/barrel to make a profit. Additionally fracking wells have a steep drop off in production after the first 18 months and production of less than 20% after 5 years.
We're going to see it significantly reduced without any changes to laws very soon. They can't operate at massive losses forever.
GreatGazoo
(3,937 posts)The Saudis started this oil glut right when there was a lot of investment in fracking America. They hurt the investors who went for fracking, and still are.
Just like pumping oil, for fracking to be profitable the total cost of production (extraction + refinement + transportation to market) must be lower than the market price or they don't use the dirtier and more costly to extract sources. Those sources and methods just sit and wait until prices rise again. For example Light Sweet Texas Crude can be profitable at lower market prices than say Brent Crude (sea north of the UK) which is dirtier and more costly to refine. The deep sea wells, the Canadian Tar Sands will all mostly wait for the price to go up. They have to.
So oil and gas are cheap right now and because fracking is costly there is very little fracking going on until the prices go up again.
In other words, the lack of fracking right now is because of low oil prices. Your question seems to assume that fracking is what lowered oil prices but low prices are what is stopping fracking for the moment.
The Saudis have inadvertently given us all a gift. A little more time to start a serious transition and we should take it because, like I said above, the higher the price of oil goes, the dirtier and more environmentally damaging the average production of that oil becomes. The cost / benefit of transitioning now is much much better than waiting until prices go up again.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)even one post saying banning fracking will promote cheap coal...
it is great to have another situation of 'the least of two evils' as opposed to working, forcing, energy changes...
like everything else in the status quo view of progress...things must go in small steps...and hey...
what harm does fracking do?
go to my hometown in southern Kansas and ask them how the earthquakes are doing?...you know, the earthquakes that no one ever felt...EVER...until the past few years
fine if you live in some part of the planet where there is no oil/gas production...your water won't get fucked but you think you'll have cheap energy so it's all good...
wait until the aquifers are polluted and the deep-earth water is fouled...what price you want to pay for that?
plus, your understanding of energy economics is so fucking simple that it is beyond obvious you are merely cut & pasting oil industry shill talking points...you have no idea how the price of oil and gas is determined in the marketplace...
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)I don't think Bernie worries about taking responsibility if it is for the greater good of the community and the environment. Something I'd like to see in all Democratic candidates.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)I am going to be politely blunt here. You can support your candidate and have distaste for some of his/her stances. I am flabbergasted by this.
Newsflash: Let the price of oil go right back up. Force the car companies (I come from a long line of employees in the automotive industry) to put the technology they already have into affordable and energy-saving use. As far as natural gas, I already run on affordable 100% windpower.
This is just no good. Why should we even have two parties anymore, if we are going to defend fracking?
I just can't wrap my head around this post on a Democratic board.
NHprogressive
(56 posts)That would be pretty far from my understanding of what we're about, or, at least, unrelated to what I am personally about.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Hate to break it to you , but gas taxes need to be raised. Also, realistic energy costs would make Chinese goods expensive, and actually bring jobs back to the U.S. It would also help the environment by forcing people to adopt hybrid an EV transportation.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)This is another example.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)on the face of the earth?
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)Keep that Fracking money pouring in.
I say we frack in your hometown near your water supply and schools if it's so fucking honky dory.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)The problem with fracking, from what I've seen in TX, is that it has start up costs, and just when things get profitable the Saudis easily beat our production. That makes fracking no longer economically profitable, and the fracking infrastructure might not last until the next oil price increase.
As far as gasoline, "our" multinational oil companies are now free to sell gasoline, instead of just crude oil. You didn't think they would keep gas prices low for America did you?
Furthermore, like I hinted at in my reply title, fracking ruins underground water sources. It sucks not to have gas, but not having water is lethal.
Broward
(1,976 posts)A worthy progressive goal is to move this Party far enough left again to where people that hold right-wing views change their party affiliation to (or back to) Republican.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
roody
(10,849 posts)
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Just wondering. One day, you lot will realize money can not be eaten, drank, or breathed in.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)the fact remains that we must stop being dependent on oil. We have little time to lose.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)BTW, Hillary wants to frack away, I suppose? Just wondering, of course.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Sounds like a shitty idea.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)"Fuck the planet, what about MUH WALLIT!!!"
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)It's a legitimate question that you seem unwilling to address.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)The "Third Way" imperative to turn this party into a bunch of corporate ass-kissers has made money more important than the environment to the OP, apparently.
And to address the idiotic question, just get an electric vehicle. Reduce consumption as price goes up, break even. Easy. Assuming the price does rise, which is not a settled question.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Never mind.
I don't talk to people with your attitude.
Sorry I troubled you.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)That conflicts in the Middle East are no longer Police Actions but conflicts directly influencing our economic survival?
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Hopefully a moot point for years to come. The depletion rates on fracked wells is high. By the time oil is high again the technology will have improved as well. Imo fraxkings off the table anyway unless the US can't get cheap oil from anywhere else...like Mexico.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)The peak oil true believers were certain that producing oil from shale by fracking could not break even below $80/bbl. They further told us that the depletion rates are so high that production would plummet without ever-increasing expenditures in new drilling.
When OPEC relied upon these beliefs to attack US production (along with other non-OPEC members like Russia) and defend their market share, it was thought by many that US production would take mere months to dry up.
As is so often the case... Reality has proven many assumptions to be false. It's now almost two years since OPEC's move and it's the OPEC nations that are starting to panic... even to the point of joining with Russia (their former target) to try to reduce production and prop up prices. Shale drilling has collapsed, but production has been FAR more resilient than the naysayers predicted.
On top of this... efficiencies have driven the cost of production down - even to the point that many in the industry have declared that they will resume drilling and completing of wells if the price gets reliably back over $40/bbl - and OPEC can't afford for prices to stay below that line for much longer. The latest news is that they're targeting a $50/bbl line to defend.
Yes, there are some drillers who have been devastated... but their loses are nothing compared to what OPEC nations have lost. Their goal was to drive prices down below that $70-80/bbl line and destroy US production... and then hold them at or above $80/bbl once their market share was assured. Their strategy has been a total failure... and (absent a major M.E. disruption), prices won't hit those levels sustainably for many years.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)Actually worked. Oil is much cheaper now. Amazing isn't it?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Not fucking up the planet > cheaper gas.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)I want people to see Hillary supporters shilling for fracking.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Just wondering.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)CdnExtraNational
(105 posts)Big Oil talking points!
Is this the same universe we were in only a month ago?
dchill
(38,468 posts)But you still won't give him credit for saving your water supply.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)so that we use less of it. Care about the environment, much?
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)We need to the final price of the refined outputs (gasoline/plastics/fertilizers/whatever) to be high enough to impact demand... but we don't need to pay OPEC more.
We could do that with a carbon tax... and bring some revenue in as a bonus.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)Was oversimplifying in argument.
Botany
(70,488 posts)
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)The price of oil is low because we're in a deep global depression.
OPEC can't agree on limits, Russia doesn't want limits, Iran is now coming on-line into the global market.
Fracking, meanwhile, is dying off because it's too expensive at current prices.
Fracking's main effect on oil price was that it was part of what incented the world's major oil suppliers to ramp up production to keep market share. But right now, it's being abandoned throughout the whole US because it's just not cheap enough to produce oil that way when the market price is below $40/barrel.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Our high production was due to fracking and that's why the Saudis blew up the market, if you will. Lower global demand was a contributing factor.
FBaggins
(26,727 posts)Global demand isn't done substantially (and it's up significantly from when oil prices were so high - see note)... but the world is now production about 1.5 million barrels per day more than that demand.
The output from fracking is still around 4 million bpd. If it weren't for that... there would be a significant shortage and prices would be painfully higher.
Note - When OPEC started down this part in mid 2014, global demand for oil was at 92 million bpd. It's currently about 2 million bpd above that for demand and 3.5 million bpd above that in production. Both of those figures are down about 1million bpd from their peaks, but this clearly isn't caused by a global economic slowdown.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)And you admit it?! How sad.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)You DO know that we have little control over world's supply of oil and thus its price correct?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Or was that just last week.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Vinca
(50,260 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)if that were the case. Not gonna happen.
PatrickforO
(14,570 posts)Climate change caused in part by carbon emissions poses an existential threat to us. This means that if we don't address it, many of us, our children or grandchildren could end up being killed because of it. Air and water are two of the most important resources we have, and fracking is known to put high levels of methane gas in the atmosphere, and dangerous chemicals in our water tables.
The other thing I take issue with you here is that the US is now an OIL EXPORTER. What that means is that we aren't just fracking as a national economic defense against dependency on oil from politically volatile regions (the middle east, Venezuela). Nope. Now we're raping the continent's natural resources so that Noble, Anadarko and others can increase sales revenue and thus profit.
Yes, when we stop fracking, the price of oil will go up. However, what you fail to mention, so I will for you, is that necessity breeds invention. As oil goes up, more and more entrepreneurial effort will be spent on energy alternatives, and as these become more efficient to produce, their costs will go down. Will we be inconvenienced? Yes. Will it adversely affect our economy in the short term. Yes.
And, hill, we must ask ourselves if we have the courage to delay gratification so our species may reach a higher goal. Or will we continue to be mired in the glorified individual greed that is capitalism.
JesterCS
(1,827 posts)Thereabouts to produce, no. Fracking is a joke
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Or ANYWHERE?
EmperorHasNoClothes
(4,797 posts)Keep oil prices down, and damn the consequences? Really, that's what you're going with?
The republican party is that-a-way -->
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)how short-sighted of you.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)
(As if its needed)
shawn703
(2,702 posts)How does that privilege feel?
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)I'm stunned at the number of posts, including this one defending such outrageous destruction of our earth and environment. I don't care if it's being proposed here or half way around the world, the answer to fracking proposals should always be, no! We should invest that money in to renewable energy research and technology.
If the prices go up due to a shortage of natural resources in the interim, that's the fault of apathy, inaction, ignorance (including willful), legalized quid pro quo via our election/lobby system, and corporate greed. It wouldn't hurt to be responsible in personal use, too.
So, what are YOU doing to elect leaders that just say NO to fracking?
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)We survived a national average of $4+ for regular unleaded in 2008. We can survive any spike caused by the end of fracking. The environmental damage from fracking simply isn't worth the cost. Besides, if we truly want to remain the world's leader in natural gas production, we should force oil drillers to harvest the natural gas which they find rather than burning it off. Such a waste!
