Fracking to lead to a new golden age?
 

Dunno if this should be in DC or not, but it seems more societal than political. I thought it was interesting and had no idea that fracking would have that big an impact.

I added the bold formatting in places because doing so will draw your attention to it since I think it's interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/23/busine...html?hpt=hp_c1

U.S. set for fracking bonanza, says historian Ferguson
By Andrew Stevens, CNN
updated 12:30 PM EST, Fri November 23, 2012

Hong Kong (CNN) -- If there's been one consistent thread running through the U.S. economic story since 2008, it's been the steady drumbeat of gloom.
Outright recession or sub-standard growth, stubbornly high unemployment and fiscal crises have been the topics du jour when it comes to the world's biggest economy.

But now an unlikely champion for U.S. growth under the Obama administration has emerged -- a former adviser to a Republican Party presidential candidate and Harvard history professor, Niall Ferguson, who says America could actually be heading toward a new economic "golden age."

And it has nothing to do with Washington and everything to do with energy.

Ferguson, who is also an author and commentator, believes the production of natural gas and oil from shale formations via a process known as "fracking" -- forcing open rocks by injecting fluid into cracks -- will be a game changer.

"This is an absolutely huge phenomenon with massive implications for the U.S. economy, and I think most people are still a little bit slow to appreciate just how big this is," he said in Hong Kong this week.

"Conceivably it does mean a new golden age."

U.S. energy production has been booming in recent years. The International Energy Agency made a jaw-dropping forecast two weeks ago that the U.S. would pass Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer by the end of this decade -- and would achieve near energy independence by the 2030s.


That energy boom, asserts Ferguson, will create jobs in the United States.

Lots of jobs.

The energy sector currently supports 1.7 million American jobs directly or indirectly, according to economic forecaster IHS global Insight. That could rise to 3 million by 2020, it says.

"It's not only in the extraction industry and infrastructure, but more importantly cheap energy is going to create employment in manufacturing. I think you'll see a renaissance in manufacturing," said Ferguson.

"That is being helped by the fact U.S. labor costs have been pretty competitive over the past decade, even as labor costs are going up in China."

It is also, he says, a big deal for the dollar. "As the U.S. moves towards energy independence and becoming the biggest producer in the world, the dollar can only benefit. Anybody who thought the financial crisis was going to lead to the demise of the dollar as an international currency is wrong -- it's quite the opposite."

And what of U.S. engagement in the Middle East?

Ferguson says it would be naive to assume that Washington would withdraw in any significant way from the region.

"Nobody is going to step in and take the job of being global policeman in charge of Middle Eastern stability. I think everyone would be nervous, if the Chinese suddenly volunteered to take that job on, which by the way they are not going to do anytime soon," he said.

For the recently reelected U.S. president though, the energy boom looks like it could provide a welcome tailwind for his second term.

It's something that Ferguson acknowledges -- though one suspects through gritted teeth.

As a supporter of Mitt Romney he penned a controversial pre-election cover story in Newsweek headlined "Hit the Road, Barack," which was highly critical of the president's first term.

He concedes the irony that the president will now be the beneficiary of the "good times that lie ahead."

These things never live up to the fracking hype.

I hope this ain't no Fracking joke !

Yes, it is an interesting prediction. However, the energy companies are under no obligation to sell and refine the crude for purely American consumption.

Energy independence but a destroyed environment.

There's an interesting prediction that would come out of this. Let's say we pull this off; massive increases in oil production, a decline in energy costs, and a new golden age of the economy.

Do we...

a)...continue planning for the long term when it runs out, developing alternate energy, emphasizing efficiency, and building a conservation mentality?

b)...go back to conspicuous consumption and really big cars with tail fins?


I look forward to seeing the return of tail fins.

I think that's somewhat overly dramatic.

No, I think that the move toward more and more fuel-efficient vehicles is a reality now.

I hear fracking and I think of that video clip of that guy lighting the fracking water on fire coming out of the tap in his sink in his house.

I don't think long term planning is one of our strengths (except maybe in the defense industry and even there I'm not sure).

We don't pipe fracking water to anyone's faucet in this country.

Natural gas certainly has potential to be a cleaner fuel than coal or oil. But it has to be done correctly with treatment, reuse, and proper disposal of the fracking fluid; proper well construction and inspection; and controls for methane gas release. These will add to the cost of energy production, but I think overall I think natural gas produced through proper fracking can provide energy at costs competitive with coal, but much cleaner.

Still natural gas still puts upward pressure on climate change. I view it as a bridge technology to widespread use of renewables.

you are correct. We don't need clean water fr crops or livestock.

Big Oil's dirty little secret.

The gullibility and stupidity of Americans never ceases to amaze me.

Fracking Cylons

Just put two Great People together. Boom, instant Golden Age.

At the same time, fracking won't be used exclusively on energy resources located in the US.

We have LNG import facilities that were built just a few years ago. Now, with the relatively low NG production costs compared to those in Europe, some are discussing conversion of those import facilities to export facilities. However, the oil and gas industry is backing off that type of planning due to the realizaton that Europe and China have plenty of frackable resources.

Ultimately as fracking technology spreads, a global market become established with more uniform prices for NG, resulting in less incentive to export.

My only problem with fracking is the pollution of the underground water tables..

someone will post soon about that being a myth.

Informed look at the groundwater contamination issue:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...t-the-problem/

The problems are:

1) the oil and gas business is extremely fragmented. There are literally hundreds of mom and pop drilling companies and not all of these are operated responsibly.
2) Therefore, proper installation and inspection of the the well doesn't always occur. This is where the big risk for groundwater contamination exists.
3) regulations vary a great deal from state to state. In some states the regulations are significant with good well inspection programs while in others the situation is much more lax. Resource development is profitable in both environments if the geology is favorable.

So if you are worried about groundwater contamination, better well head inspection programs is the key.

That's the same reason I oppose unicorn ranching.

;)

It is a myth. The fracking takes place well below the water tables and is sealed in with casing. When people are affected it's from inappropriate disposal of wastewater and similar stuff, which creates problems that get blamed on the actual frac site.

Bad well casings and well heads are an issue too, as noted in the link I posted.

In your opinion, is there any significantly greater reason to fear the environmental impact of fracking than to fear that of poorly regulated oil extraction or nuclear energy production? Or for that matter, the disposal of chemical waste?

Again, you are being overly-dramatic.

It really isn't a secret. Even though some of this oil will be exported, it's still a beneficial thing for every American.

So the video clips on you tube of people lighting their tap water on fire in the area of the country where fracking is occurring are all fake?

Nope

That's the issue, for sure.

There are a ton of people who are very concerned over that particular problem.

In fact, it's possible that improper fracking can reduce our dependency on oil but increase our dependency on clean water (which, of course, is already a bit of an issue).

I'm not sure which is better; a full tank of gas, dying of thirst, or breaking out in giant, oozing, boils on the face.

FAX

Okay, please show me one instance where fracking has lead to what you are apparently claiming.

Myth ? No, certain fracking fluids are just not suitable around water tables. A lot of alternative fracking fluids is being looked at now because of the concern from the environmentalist.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...ale-wells.html

I read where they were able to light the groundwater on fire is somewhere back east (Pennsylvania?). Apparently this is a natural phenomenon due to how shallow the hydrocarbons are to the surface. The Indians knew of this area and had a name for this which I don't recall and, no, it was not firewater. The environmentalists did not disclose this was a naturally occurring issue in their film because it opposed their agenda.

It hasn't, yet. They just don't want it to.

I base a lot of my business off of the oil and gas projects in the US and it's in the pipeline news all the time somewhere.

But it's changing due to the concern, let the little birdies chirp.

Sorry, but you are presenting that article as evidence of a destroyed environment?

I see nothing wrong with expressing concern for our water resource ... not that it's done much good so far, of course.

FAX

Nor do I. But I think that such overly-dramatic and unfounded prognostications aren't exactly beneficial.

Complicated question when you look at it from a life cycle perspective.

From the stand point of putting the well in place oil drilling and NG fracking are roughly equivalent.

The main risk of fracking a well is the impact on overall water resources (how much water are you losing to the fracking process that you might need for other uses) and the removal of pollutants from the production water (the water that comes back up the well) before disposal.

For both types of wells, I think it is important to control NG emissions during the initial period before the well is put into productive operation.

During transport there is potential for natural gas leakage. Since methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, that needs to be monitored and controlled.

Oil has to be refined and there are environmental risks associated with that process, largely regulated.

Oil is a dirtier fuel than natural gas when you burn it.

Done properly with fuel reprocessing nuclear is potentially the cleanest. Fuel reprocessing is currently politically infeasible in this country. And the number of actual accidents shows that the risk of accidents is far underestimated. The financial risk for utilities is also huge, but that isn't an environmental risk.

Chemical waste disposal doesn't really fit with the others. It is a collection of diverse operations that get rid of an environmental liability, while energy production is concerned with obtaining an asset. So I'll leave that one out.

I'll throw in coal and renewables for reference.

So I'd rank them with respect to environmental friendliness once the fracking regs come to steady state:

renewables > fracked natural gas > nuclear > oil > coal

So far nothing has happened. Oil drillers have guidelines they must go by with the fracking, especially in the area and knowing the potential it could do to waterways, above and in the ground.

Bad wells. Not the fault of the technology per se.

Someone has played Civilization. :LOL:

Oh, please.

Every election cycle, people claim "But gas prices were less under "John Doe"!

The POTUS nor his policies do very little, if anything, to affect the price gasoline and anyone that claims as such is either a liar uninformed.

:spock:

Why are you bringing up politics?

I was referring to there relatively suddenly being a new flow of oil coming into the global market. One of the items that is very closely watched is the global spare capacity. If we start putting millions more barrels of crude into the market, it eases the space capacity concerns.

That has nothing to do with politics.

Evidence that the water supply can be in danger in areas that are being fracked.

That article is about how energy companies may have difficulty finding water for fracking when water supplies are scarce, not about local people having difficulty. It's pretty unlikely that local populations will put energy company access to water ahead of their own, IMO.

I live in a pretty heavy fracking community and all my family is from one that is even heavier. It definitely boosts the economy, but there are serious issues with it as we'll from an environmental standpoint. And that's not just speaking as a hippie. My redneck relatives all have mixed feeling about fracking as well.

B.S.

Wouldn't the cost of export mean that our own demand will be mostly met before it economically makes sense to ship oil out?

Actually I believe some of those stories were proven to be fabricated. I'm not saying it can't be a problem if not handled correctly. But, there is no reason the technology can't be used in a safe manner to benefit society and the environment.

I'm far from a tree hugger, but it's pretty clear to me that the practice poses a serious risk to the environment. A real, immediate, risk. It's not just the underground water table that's at risk, the waste water the process creates is also a major issue.

DT

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

My family is in the coal mining business, but my company is in the natural gas business, so I have some exposure to the experts in the field.

Fracking is a new technology. As such, it will take a while for safety, regulation, and legislation to catch up with it, but they will, just like they did with oil back in the late 19th century. As it is now, however, yes, it's dangerous to the water table in the areas around it. As far as I'm concerned, we should be regulating and monitoring all of those drilling companies more than we are, but if it helps us get away from coal and more into natural gas, it would be worth it.

As for Niall Ferguson, I haven't read any of his books myself, but he doesn't have a great reputation among historians who have. This is second hand, of course, but I'm not sure I would automatically assume every position he takes is representative of the academic consensus.

Not if the importing party is willing to pay the export costs. We also don't exactly have much spare refining capacity.

I must admit, you are confusing the hell out of me right now, Dane. I wasn't being political at all if that is what you are saying.

Can we please move to renewable resources? JFC.

I just quoted him because he was on the Internet, which gives him credibility to me.

Sure. You like darkness and cold?

This, clearly, is another one of those delineating, partisan issues. There could be double blind studies coming out with 90% of the population in a fracking area coming down with cancer, and a certain group of people would say "treehugger pussies! You want to send us back to the dark ages?" And another group would say, even if the fuel source was the perfect one, "OMG! It's the death! Run from Saruman!!!" Sad really.

I truly believe that my generation is going to be the one to stand up and put an end to the issues being posed by our reliance on combustible, non-renewable fuels as our energy sources.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and I think it will when the current generation dies off.

I don't know which generation is yours, but whoever they are, my bet is that they'll end up selling out just like the hippies of the 60s did.

Even if we had unlimited solar and wind, there are real infrastructure and technology limitations that prevent us from using 100% renewables at this time.

Electricity has to be generated the instant there is demand for it. If there is demand when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, it cannot be met.

We need to develop electrical storage technologies and smart grid to increase renewable usage above a certain fraction. Plus we need better grid infrastructure. All this is under development, but it is some time off. Natural gas is far, far better than coal in the meantime.

I guess I'm going to have to move forward with inventing cold fusion. It's really the only reasonable solution to the energy problems facing humanity. I've been putting it off, but I suppose I need to go ahead get it done.

FAX

yeah! get er done, mr. fax!!! :BLVD:

Okay. Step one is completed, Mr. go bowe. I made a bunch of ice in the ice maker. In fact, the little container thing is overflowing with little half-moons of ice.

Now that that's done, I am already half-way to cold fusion. I just need to find something to fuse. I'll keep you posted.

FAX

Vodka should be considered for step two. If you suggest decent Scotch with ice, the erasers will visit your homestead presently.

If there was a way to extract energy from fapping, then the world's energy problems would truly be solved.

Just sayin'

:D

Meet the Frackers.

For those that are curious about how this process works


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VY34PQUiwOQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

great video

I'm sure the energy companies will take all of the environmental issues into consideration and proceed as responsibly as they've always done.

:thumb:

Which begs the question; If the energy companies over-frack, can they make the entire planet explode? 'Cause that would be bad for the fishes and water fowl.

FAX

Of course they won't, that's why we need regulations. As Aries Walker said, regs are presently lagging behind the technology and vary greatly from state to state. Right now, many of their operations are exempt from the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Clean Air Act. There may be reasons for not applying those acts to the drilling industry, but that doesn't mean they should be completely unregulated. Done well, natural gas has the potential to be far greener than coal at competitive cost.

Just throwing things out there , aren't you.

Link ? Exempt from the Clean Water & Air Act ?

Yes, Natural Gas is our future for energy independence in the US

Drilling companies have to follow guidelines & regulations. Currently because of the fear of fracking, Chesapeake & Hughs Baker are both working on an environmentally safe foam fracking fluid that will secure the water safety even further that what it is today.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/Free-Pass...try-Exemptions

I'm in favor of fracking. It just needs to be regulated properly.

I like a good frack as much as the next guy, but I am also acutely aware of and will no longer underestimate the sheer power of greed.

I'm sure that we had a whole passel of awesomely cool regulations designed to prevent the Gulf Of Mexico from becoming a giant wok, too. Point being; regardless of how many rules you make, you can be certain that somebody, somewhere, some time down the line will cheat or forget or feign incompetence in order to clear a few more bucks and the result will be millions of dead animals and hundreds of thousands of Americans bathing in imported Chinese beer.

FAX

Yep. But BP paid dearly. Was it enough to change their behavior in the future? Maybe not. However, us all being humans and all, we are going to screw things up. We'll try to make things right, but we we'll screw that up as well. But I don't know what else to do but to go forward and keep trying. I'd much rather go forward with well regulated NG that depend on coal. And I'd rather use coal that nothing. Renewables can play a role, but they can't deliver all the power we need when we need it right now. Right now, NG is the cleanest technology that we have that can reliably deliver the power we need for our way of living. Of all the bad options, it seems the least bad.

I don't disagree, Mr. cdcox. Not one bit. I don't hug trees every day or anything, but I'm just ... I don't know ... skeptical, I guess.

A lot of people view frackage as totally manageable and safe technology ... and it may be very soon (I don't think it's there yet). However, if there's one thing that big, enormous, oil companies know how to do, it's squirm their way through fine print in order to gain an advantage.

The problem in this case is that a bad fracking problem could have very, very serious and long-lasting ramifications that could dramatically affect the quality of life for a whole lot of people (not to mention livestock and crops). And, of course, after the fan is thoroughly doused in feces, the oil company executives won't give a damn because they won't have to live with the consequences of their actions ... just the residents of whatever locality they've ecologically destroyed.

That's probably an over-statement, but you get the idea.

FAX

I'm not saying that you're being political. I'm saying that the masses are constantly fooled into believing that the POTUS somehow has an affect on gasoline and oil prices.

If public lands were to be opened up to oil companies and production were increased, there is absolutely no guarantee that prices at the pump would be considerably reduced, nor are there any guarantees that the oil extracted from public land would be available exclusively to Americans.

That's the dirty secret.

Cold fusion is the answer. Until then, nuclear fission plants should be everywhere.

North Dakota has a unemployment rate of 3.1% lowest in the country and a billion dollar budget surplus. Also North Dakota surpassed Alaska this year in oil production.