End of fracking.....economic impact to United States

[SunsetBengal]

(04-11-2016, 09:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: At what cost?

Who knows?  That is why I questioned your post, and wished for the educated opinion of Stewey.  As he works in the oil and gas industry, and always seemed to give good answers on the topic, along with personal insight.

[NATI BENGALS]

Those Oklahoma numbers are down right crazy.

[Stewy]

(04-11-2016, 08:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I can't help but think that your statement is total BS.  The water can be cleaned and purified, and thus put back into the ecosystem.  I really wish Stewey, from the old board, were around.  He could set the record straight on this topic.

Im here.  Just not touching the topic for many reasons.

[fredtoast]

(04-11-2016, 11:14 PM)Stewy Wrote: Im here.  Just not touching the topic for many reasons.

Now I am really scared.



I wish you had not said anything.

[*michaelsean*]

We keep talking about companies investing in alternative energies, and they do, but let's be realistic. Investing money with little forseeable return isn't healthy for a company. You can't go all out or your stock plummets. Hell for once let China figure it out and steal it from them.

[Rotobeast]

(04-11-2016, 11:14 PM)Stewy Wrote: Im here.  Just not touching the topic for many reasons.

Understandable, on many levels.

[Yojimbo]

(04-11-2016, 11:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We keep talking about companies investing in alternative energies, and they do, but let's be realistic.  Investing money with little forseeable return isn't healthy for a company. You can't go all out or your stock plummets.  Hell for once let China figure it out and steal it from them.

The problem with pure capitalism in a nutshell. Not worth investing unless there's an immediate return. Who cares about the future and long term health of the company?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-12-2016, 12:47 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: The problem with pure capitalism in a nutshell. Not worth investing unless there's an immediate return. Who cares about the future and long term health of the company?

I don't know about you, but Im not investing my 401k or IRA in something that isn't paying off for a few decades.

What is your time frame on long term?

[*michaelsean*]

And I don't know what you mean about the trouble with pure capitalism. There is nothing about capitalism that excludes long term planning.

[Brownshoe]

(04-11-2016, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The U.S. economy received a huge boost from fracking technology.  Oil companies made a killing from cheap natural gas and oil using this technique.  But now it seems it has ran its course.  The oil companies are finally admitting that fracking has contributed to the massive increas in earthquake activity in Oklahoma and other western oil producing states.

In 2007 Oklahoma experienced one earthquake of magnitude 3 (the lowest level where they can be felt).  In 2015 there were 907.  Oklahoma, which used to have next to zero seismic activity, now has more magnitude 3 earthquakes than California.  The number of level 4 earthquakes has also doubled, and 10 of the 12 biggest earthquakes in Oklahoma history have occurred since 2011.  Residents of Oklahoma are shocked to find that the damage from these quakes is not covered unless the home/business owner had special "earthquake insurance" (just like "flood insurance" riders).  And the cost of "earthquake insurance" (which used to not even be offered in that state) is skyrocketing.

Even though 20% of the jobs in Oklahoma are tied to the oil/gas industry people realize that the potential damage from earthquakes is not worth it.

So now the question is how much liability the oil/gas companies face.  For years they denied that fracking was responsible for any of this, but the evidence is now clear.  Their experts should have known long ago.  They are looking at billions in potential liability.  Even if they stop fracking right now there is no evidence that the earthquakes will stop.  The damage has been done and it may be irreversible.  

This will also have a big impact on the United States oil/gas production which had been booming for the last few years.

Thoughts?

I think that ending fracking would be a bad idea. I'm a pretty pro-fracking guy, but I think that it does need to be well regulated. A lot of the bad effects of fracking (like the increase of earthquakes) actually isn't from fracking, but it's from the wastewater when they're done fracking and putting it back into the ground. The EPA, and the UKs version of the EPA both cleared fracking of having widespread and systematic pollution of drinking water. There are examples of this happening, but it can be avoided by being well regulated.

Personally I think that the pros more than make up for the cons of fracking. Fracking provides us with MUCH cheaper energy / fuel, and it reduces our carbon footprint by half when natural gas replaces coal power plants. Plus close to every problem with it can be avoided if it's well regulated.

[Brownshoe]

I would love to see solar and wind energy to be our primary source of energy, but that's way too far away. Both of those sources can't keep up with the daily spikes in power usages, and it's hard to transport electric far away. The longer the distance from the source of the power the more energy you are wasting, and that's a big problem with both of those sources. Plus there isn't a very effective way to store extra energy for when we do have spikes or the sun isn't shining / wind isn't blowing as much. If there were solutions to these problems even in the making then companies would be throwing their money at that research, but as of right now people don't know how to deal with those problems to make those renewable sources viable.

[GMDino]

(04-11-2016, 08:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I can't help but think that your statement is total BS.  The water can be cleaned and purified, and thus put back into the ecosystem.  I really wish Stewey, from the old board, were around.  He could set the record straight on this topic.

They won't even tell us what is IN the fracking water...trade secrets donchaknow. 

(04-11-2016, 11:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We keep talking about companies investing in alternative energies, and they do, but let's be realistic.  Investing money with little forseeable return isn't healthy for a company. You can't go all out or your stock plummets.  Hell for once let China figure it out and steal it from them.

(04-12-2016, 12:47 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: The problem with pure capitalism in a nutshell. Not worth investing unless there's an immediate return. Who cares about the future and long term health of the company?

Exactly!  Profit over people.  As long as I have a few more bucks until I die why care about what happens to the rest of the world.

(04-12-2016, 01:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know about you, but Im not investing my 401k or IRA in something that isn't paying off for a few decades.  

What is your time frame on long term?

And there you go.

Rather than focusing on making the world better for everyone we worry about how much WE will have.  We're a horribly selfish race of people.

An yes, I have investments too. I *have* to play the game because there are more of them than there are of me.  But I hate it.

[GMDino]

(04-12-2016, 03:35 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I think that ending fracking would be a bad idea. I'm a pretty pro-fracking guy, but I think that it does need to be well regulated. A lot of the bad effects of fracking (like the increase of earthquakes) actually isn't from fracking, but it's from the wastewater when they're done fracking and putting it back into the ground. The EPA, and the UKs version of the EPA both cleared fracking of having widespread and systematic pollution of drinking water. There are examples of this happening, but it can be avoided by being well regulated.

They couldn't even TAX the frackers in PA thanks to the lobbyists and GOP bribe campaign donation takers. No way they will regulate them.

IN PA there were 1000's of more complainants than the EPA looked at. But then this is the same group of genius officials that convinced the electorate that these jobs would be here for decades...not the 4-5 years they were here.

Same folks who think building a giant pipeline will create all those jobs and they will never end.

(04-12-2016, 03:35 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Personally I think that the pros more than make up for the cons of fracking. Fracking provides us with MUCH cheaper energy / fuel, and it reduces our carbon footprint by half when natural gas replaces coal power plants. Plus close to every problem with it can be avoided if it's well regulated.

If regulated...yes!

But remember that the next time someone yells incoherently that Obama is killing coal!!!!

[*michaelsean*]

(04-12-2016, 07:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: They won't even tell us what is IN the fracking water...trade secrets donchaknow. 



Exactly!  Profit over people.  As long as I have a few more bucks until I die why care about what happens to the rest of the world.


And there you go.

Rather than focusing on making the world better for everyone we worry about how much WE will have.  We're a horribly selfish race of people.

An yes, I have investments too. I *have* to play the game because there are more of them than there are of me.  But I hate it.

It's not playing the game. You invest for a reason. If you are investing for say retirement, then you are not being selfish, and you would be rather stupid to invest in something with little or no return be it this or something else.

[Brownshoe]

(04-12-2016, 07:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: They won't even tell us what is IN the fracking water...trade secrets donchaknow. 

(04-12-2016, 07:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: They couldn't even TAX the frackers in PA thanks to the lobbyists and GOP bribe campaign donation takers.  No way they will regulate them.

IN PA there were 1000's of more complainants than the EPA looked at.  But then this is the same group of genius officials that convinced the electorate that these jobs would be here for decades...not the 4-5 years they were here.

Same folks who think building a giant pipeline will create all those jobs and they will never end.


If regulated...yes!

But remember that the next time someone yells incoherently that Obama is killing coal!!!!

If it's so hard to regulate them, then how are we ever going to end fracking? Wouldn't you think it would be easier to get regulation than to ban it all together?

So, you don't trust what the EPA is saying when they say they cleared fracking of polluting drinking water? Even when you have a totally different governments environmental agency saying the same thing? If you can't trust them, then who can you trust? I know you should be skeptical of things especially when it comes to money, but do you think that when inspecting something the EPA wouldn't be thorough? I would think so considering that's their only job.

The fact that your main problem with fracking is because lobbyists, and presidential candidates (both sides of the political spectrum) are making it hard to put regulations in place then you shouldn't really be upset with fracking. You should be upset with an inept government. You shouldn't blame something that would help with the environment overall (taking away coal power), and helping our economy at the same time, because big business wants to make an extra buck off of it, and the government is allowing that to happen.

[GMDino]

(04-12-2016, 07:55 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: If it's so hard to regulate them, then how are we ever going to end fracking? Wouldn't you think it would be easier to get regulation than to ban it all together?

So, you don't trust what the EPA is saying when they say they cleared fracking of polluting drinking water? Even when you have a totally different governments environmental agency saying the same thing? If you can't trust them, then who can you trust? I know you should be skeptical of things especially when it comes to money, but do you think that when inspecting something the EPA wouldn't be thorough? I would think so considering that's their only job.

The fact that your main problem with fracking is because lobbyists, and presidential candidates (both sides of the political spectrum) are making it hard to put regulations in place then you shouldn't really be upset with fracking. You should be upset with an inept government. You shouldn't blame something that would help with the environment overall (taking away coal power), and helping our economy at the same time, because big business wants to make an extra buck off of it, and the government is allowing that to happen.

The only thing that will end fracking is when they stop making money at it.  they don't care about enviromental issues or eathquakes or anything other than if it turns a profit.

And I *AM* upset with inept government...that doesn't make the folks who take advantage of it at the expense of everyone else any better.

And I know coal is (mostly) bad.  The industry I work in has suffered a great deal due to the coal industry getting hammered.  I'm just tired of eharing that it is because of the big bad government and EPA.

[Benton]

(04-11-2016, 11:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We keep talking about companies investing in alternative energies, and they do, but let's be realistic.  Investing money with little forseeable return isn't healthy for a company. You can't go all out or your stock plummets.  Hell for once let China figure it out and steal it from them.

I don't blame businesses. If there's not a foreseeable profit, don't do it. But I do think that's where the government should be investing. Put a billion dollar bounty on rights to a renewable source, or give subsidies to research companies (which is done to an extent). If we have money to subsidize oil and coal for cheap energy, we have money to subsidize finding a replacement for them.

(04-12-2016, 03:35 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I think that ending fracking would be a bad idea. I'm a pretty pro-fracking guy, but I think that it does need to be well regulated. A lot of the bad effects of fracking (like the increase of earthquakes) actually isn't from fracking, but it's from the wastewater when they're done fracking and putting it back into the ground. The EPA, and the UKs version of the EPA both cleared fracking of having widespread and systematic pollution of drinking water. There are examples of this happening, but it can be avoided by being well regulated.

Personally I think that the pros more than make up for the cons of fracking. Fracking provides us with MUCH cheaper energy / fuel, and it reduces our carbon footprint by half when natural gas replaces coal power plants. Plus close to every problem with it can be avoided if it's well regulated.

I was at a forum this weekend for our first congressional district race. One of the candidates made the statement 'we've done a good job of defunding the EPA so that they can't enforce their socialist agenda, but we need to do more.' Then he went on to say it was an organization of corporate lawyers and how the only way to handle the EPA is to do away with their funding so that laws passed are irrelevant.

The same thing happened with immigration funding in the 80s and 90s... that worked out extremely well.

I think the thing that really irked me was the statement was made about a week after the CEO who covered up and was responsible for the Big Branch mine deaths received a whopping $250,000 fine. That's about $8,500 for every life ended by his reduction of safety procedures, lying to safety officials and violating safety laws. He was sentenced to a year in jail, but most likely won't serve it.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 01:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know about you, but Im not investing my 401k or IRA in something that isn't paying off for a few decades.  

The claim that it will not pay off for decades is based on current technology with ZERO improvement.

That is the entire point of R&D.  It is possible that with improvement from new technology solar or some other form of alternative energy could pay off immediately.

Right now no pharmaceutical company knows how long it will take to develop a new wonder drug, but they keep investing in R&D anyway.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 01:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: And I don't know what you mean about the trouble with pure capitalism.  There is nothing about capitalism that excludes long term planning.

Actually there is.  There used to be a theory that businesses would regulate themselves becaue they would never sacrifice short term gain over long term viability, but that myth went up in smoke with the lending crisis.  Since CEOs just move on to another job when a company goes under they value short term gain over the long term survival of a company.  But more importantly so do stock holders.  They will take the short term gain and move their money to another investment when the first one starts to fail.

[fredtoast]

(04-12-2016, 03:44 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I would love to see solar and wind energy to be our primary source of energy, but that's way too far away. Both of those sources can't keep up with the daily spikes in power usages, and it's hard to transport electric far away. The longer the distance from the source of the power the more energy you are wasting, and that's a big problem with both of those sources. Plus there isn't a very effective way to store extra energy for when we do have spikes or the sun isn't shining / wind isn't blowing as much. If there were solutions to these problems even in the making then companies would be throwing their money at that research, but as of right now people don't know how to deal with those problems to make those renewable sources viable.

The only way to solve these problems is with R&D investment.

I could point out problems with no solutions facing the field of robotics and cancer cures, but comanies are still throwing a lot of R&D money at those problems.