Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: US fracking revolution in oil and gas debunked in study a layman can understand

  1. #1
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    13,693
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default US fracking revolution in oil and gas debunked in study a layman can understand

    See US May Hold Large Reserves of Shale Oil, but is it Economically Out of Reach?

    The problem with fracked wells is that production drops off extremely fast, at an average of about 80% in the first year in gas wells according to exhaustive studies by Schlumberger and University of Oxford, and somewhat less than 80% in shale oil wells. The declines are gradual in later years.Initial drilling costs are very high and to maintain production,wells have to be refracked.

    Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member Lara2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    7,361
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.

    That's a nice a way to put it. I personally think that fracking is akin to raping the land.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Limerick
    Posts
    4,530
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    So, it`s no FRACKING good then is it!

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member Thac0man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Kildare/Dublin
    Posts
    6,475
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tawdy View Post
    So, it`s no FRACKING good then is it!
    Not sure. If there was no money it, why would energy companies be plowing so much investment into it? As it is its anti-fracking arguments that hinge on some shakey ground, not fracking itself. And Fracking does not have a long term future anyway, it is usually described as a 'bridging energy'. That bridge being between the fuels we use now, and the ones Green say we should be using now, but are not viable or affordable. So no fracking in 20 years? Who cares?

    There are strong arguments against Fracking being made, but they are environmental, not economic. As we go on it is argued that regulation can control or reduce fracking polution, but thats yet to be seen. But fracking in the UK has not had the same results as some selective sites in the US. And even worst case US examples are a few notches below the armageddon inducing danger some envrionmenatalists are claiming will be unleashed. What we have seen are bad examples of Fracking practice, but they seem not to be on a scale that reflects the amount the fracking being done. So I will not be taking up a placard just yet.

    The environmental lobby has no 'killer' argument, because we have have heard it all before. After a few years of their screaming and gurning, they got unprecidented power and influence in Europe, and only managed to puff out some pipe dreams, increase taxes on poor people and shut down some nuclear power. Anyone in the middle ground between the moral and practical, is stuck with the dilema the entwines human rights and western energy dependency. A decade of fracking seems like small potatoes when compared to reliance on Putin or Saudi Arabia, while we wait around of a windy day.

    Now some argument is presented to us, that fracking is not profitable. If thats true, the companies involved with pack up their bags and be gone tomorrow, and polution, real or imagined, will be gone with it. In the past the same groups making these arguments have campaigned for the closure of steel plants, that make the material wind turbines are made of.
    Last edited by Thac0man; 1st December 2012 at 01:22 PM.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member Lara2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    7,361
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I don't know, i'd just be very wary of it. I wouldn't take the chance for the sake of a few dollars to turn our rich agricultural and scenic land into an indefinitely inoperable barren wasteland.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    13,693
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thac0man View Post
    Not sure. If there was no money it, why would energy companies be plowing so much investment into it? As it is its anti-fracking arguments that hinge on some shakey ground, not fracking itself. And Fracking does not have a long term future anyway, it is usually described as a 'bridging energy'. That bridge being between the fuels we use now, and the ones Green say we should be using now, but are not viable or affordable. So no fracking in 20 years? Who cares?

    There are strong arguments against Fracking being made, but they are environmental, not economic. As we go on it is argued that regulation can control or reduce fracking polution, but thats yet to be seen. But fracking in the UK has not had the same results as some selective sites in the US. And even worst case US examples are a few notches below the armageddon inducing danger some envrionmenatalists are claiming will be unleashed. What we have seen are bad examples of Fracking practice, but they seem not to be on a scale that reflects the amount the fracking being done. So I will not be taking up a placard just yet.

    The environmental lobby has no 'killer' argument, because we have have heard it all before. After a few years of their screaming and gurning, they got unprecidented power and influence in Europe, and only managed to puff out some pipe dreams, increase taxes on poor people and shut down some nuclear power. Anyone in the middle ground between the moral and practical, is stuck with the dilema the entwines human rights and western energy dependency. A decade of fracking seems like small potatoes when compared to reliance on Putin or Saudi Arabia, while we wait around of a windy day.

    Now some argument is presented to us, that fracking is not profitable. If thats true, the companies involved with pack up their bags and be gone tomorrow, and polution, real or imagined, will be gone with it. In the past the same groups making these arguments have campaigned for the closure of steel plants, that make the material wind turbines are made of.
    Investment boomed in fracking when natural gas prices rose to historically high prices. Some of the most productive wells offer good returns but most don't,even if prices recover. Drilling rigs have been moved out of fracking shale gas into other drilling activities.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,996
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt View Post
    See US May Hold Large Reserves of Shale Oil, but is it Economically Out of Reach?

    The problem with fracked wells is that production drops off extremely fast, at an average of about 80% in the first year in gas wells according to exhaustive studies by Schlumberger and University of Oxford, and somewhat less than 80% in shale oil wells. The declines are gradual in later years.Initial drilling costs are very high and to maintain production,wells have to be refracked.

    Fracking is akin to a person running hard on a fast treadmill just to stay in the same spot! The US should not bet its energy future on it.
    I hope this post and the like I gave it goes to show my objectivity: I hate the fact that you're a (by definition) parasitical landlord who constantly attacks hard-working public sector employees as if they were worse leeches than you, but you've brought to light a little-known fact about the fracking scam, and you deserve the kudos for that.

    So there you go.
    When you see the words "Mises" or "Hayek" in someone's post, just ask yourself: do I really want to ban paper money and go back to gold?

    You have to pity the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories. I find the following to be the saddest words on the internet: "Re: connection between Bilderberg puppet lady gaga and viral outbreak in ukraine "

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    13,693
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by feargach View Post
    I hope this post and the like I gave it goes to show my objectivity: I hate the fact that you're a (by definition) parasitical landlord who constantly attacks hard-working public sector employees as if they were worse leeches than you, but you've brought to light a little-known fact about the fracking scam, and you deserve the kudos for that.

    So there you go.
    So pay about 50% higher than the privates sector average and fantastic pensions tied to salary increases in the job held at retirement is not leeching but no more than the public sector is entitled to? And landlords who provide housing for people are leeches? Marxism/Leninism died with the break up of the Soviet Union and the only place you can find it these days is in the museums,as Ayotollah Khomeni predicted in the 1970s.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,996
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by patslatt View Post
    higher than the privates sector
    What, the porn industry?

    Gotta love when careless spelling gives us a gem like the above. Apart from that, I'll do no more to derail your thread, and I'll reply to your idiotic off-topic pro-landlord blather over on the other thread.

    Anybody got any idea why the facts about rapid depletion of fracking sites doesn't make it into the mainstream news?

    You'd imagine, if nothing else, that people whose business is shorting energy futures and stocks would be out there banging the drum about the downsides of investing in fracking?
    When you see the words "Mises" or "Hayek" in someone's post, just ask yourself: do I really want to ban paper money and go back to gold?

    You have to pity the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories. I find the following to be the saddest words on the internet: "Re: connection between Bilderberg puppet lady gaga and viral outbreak in ukraine "

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,996
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thac0man View Post
    Now some argument is presented to us, that fracking is not profitable. If thats true, the companies involved with pack up their bags and be gone tomorrow, and polution, real or imagined, will be gone with it.
    Clearly, you know nothing about business. There are plenty of occasions where even an unprofitable fracking well will not be dismantled and packed up overnight.

    Assume an entrepreneur has spent $100,000 with the expectation of extracting $300,000 of natural gas. Assume that for either market or geological reasons he can only hope to extract $80,000 worth of natural gas. It's not true that he'll automatically shut down operations. He may very well decide to pump the $80K, in order to reduce his losses.
    When you see the words "Mises" or "Hayek" in someone's post, just ask yourself: do I really want to ban paper money and go back to gold?

    You have to pity the kind of people who buy into conspiracy theories. I find the following to be the saddest words on the internet: "Re: connection between Bilderberg puppet lady gaga and viral outbreak in ukraine "

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •