Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Report: Frickiní Fracking Could Ruin Everything for Leftist Activists
Townhall.com ^ | February 15, 2013 | John Ransom

Posted on 02/15/2013 3:34:20 AM PST by Kaslin

A new report from the UK research team at Price Waterhouse and Cooper confirms what we knew all along: We’re right and they’re wrong.

Really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong if grading on the scale the rest of us are subject to.

Grading on the liberal scale, however, it’s just normal, everyday, run of the mill errors in judgment, math, worldview, physics and fluid mechanics that liberals deal with all the time in an effort to “wish” the world to Utopia while their leaders are busy creating Dystopia for all but a select few.

This latest discovery that we are right and they are wrong, shouldn’t shock us.

It joins a long list of things liberals have been pantsed on.   

For example: We were right about Obamacare all along. It won’t decrease costs, it won’t cover all Americans and it won’t preserve the private insurance market. And with due respect to Justice John Roberts and the Supremes- do-whop, do-whop- its not even constitutional.

Oh, and that’s not all we were right about.

We were right about the stimulus, we were right about jobs, we were right about Obama being a socialist of the Euro variety; we were right about Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Benghazi. 

We were right about Libya being a pretty bad idea; we were right about Dodd-Frank’s suckyness and the mortgage mess being caused by bad liberal policy; we were right about Obama wanting to raise taxes on everyone, taking guns from everyone and having contempt for the constitution.

But on this latest error, I say again: We are really right, and they are really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong.

The London branch of Price Waterhouse Cooper has released a report on shale oil and gas that has the Left afraid.

Here’s the frightening truth: “Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,” writes PWC in its February, 2013 report Shale oil: the next energy revolution. “There is potential for shale oil production to spread globally over the next couple of decades. If it does, it would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy security at lower cost for many countries.”

And of course the Left can not afford that kind of nonsense.  Jobs and economic growth? Where does it all end?

Oh, but it gets worse for the envro-whackos.

PWC estimates that if shale oil is fully developed, US Gross Domestic Product could grow an additional 2-5 percent per year, greatly reduce the influence of OPEC, lower global energy prices, and with NatGas thrown in, add at least a million jobs to manufacturing that are now just going to energy costs.

That means- I’m saying this, not PWC- that we could significantly reduce the deficit, without drastically cutting benefits for a generation of Americans who have planned to count on it. It means- I’m saying this, not PWC- we don’t have to raise taxes. Actually it means we could go to some sort of a simplified tax code, like the fair or flat tax.

Here’s what I wrote a year ago about US shale oil development in The GOP Can Add 10 Million Jobs and $15 Trillion to US Economy without Spending a Dime–kind of a prescient title if one considers the president’s SOTU message:

And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.

PWC estimates the GDP increase to be between 2-5 percent in the US. Using today’s GDP figures that’s between $300 billion and $750 billion, with my estimate being a nice midway point in the PWC estimate.

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone pipeline issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the “green” economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse.

It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

From the UK’s left-wing Guardian:

"Digging up and burning new reserves of fossil fuels can only exacerbate the huge negative impact on the global economy of climate change," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace, in an emailed statement.

"Any short term price gains for consumers will ultimately be dwarfed by the impact of rising temperatures on every aspect of economic life."

Tony Bosworth, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, similarly warned of the environmental problems increasing fracking could cause, adding that governments should instead focus investment on green technologies.

"We've already got more than enough fossil fuels - more than we can afford to burn if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change," he toldBusinessGreen. "The UK has a huge renewable resource and if we want [to meet climate targets] we should be investing in those."

Because, yeah, that’s really working out well. 

The website Green Corruption lists 23 bankruptcies and 29 troubled companies that took advantage of Obama’s green energy financing schemes…and counting

None of those messy jobs, or economic growth there.

Just the way liberals like it.

Yep, we can ruin that scheme.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial
KEYWORDS: climatechange; energy; fracking; globalwarming; oil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 02/15/2013 3:34:27 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Mostly correct but these two words stand out as false to me.

“Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,

These wells are neither cheap, nor long lasting. It requires more expensive wells and the wells don't last long a high flow rates. Which means you need more of them; we have to keep drilling just to hold a steady flow rate.

2 posted on 02/15/2013 3:45:12 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Mostly correct but these two words stand out as false to me.

“Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,

These wells are neither cheap, nor long lasting. It requires more expensive wells and the wells don't last long a high flow rates. Which means you need more of them; we have to keep drilling just to hold a steady flow rate.

3 posted on 02/15/2013 3:45:34 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Exactly! Plentiful, cheap energy ruins their plans. Who says there is no God!


4 posted on 02/15/2013 3:46:40 AM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

And yet the price of gas keeps rising, so the libe are happy about something.

5 posted on 02/15/2013 3:50:36 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Regular Gas was $3.29.9 a gal earlier yesterday morning at Murphy Gas (Wal Mart) it went up to $3.39.9 a couple of hours later and then a couple of hours later it went up another 10 cents. That is 20 cents in just 4 hours.


6 posted on 02/15/2013 4:09:07 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Look at me, I’m SMILING! A great way to start an otherwise gloomy Friday morning.


7 posted on 02/15/2013 4:09:53 AM PST by kitkat (STORM THE HEAVENS WITH PRAYERS FOR OUR COUNTRY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We are right. But we still keep giving the bully our lunch-money, so we’re maybe not so clever as we’d like to think.

I’m too lazy to look up the numbers, but I suspect that the massive amount of new (and productive!) jobs created by this fracking boom is the only reason we can’t see that we are deep in a recession. The pitiful job numbers that dear-leader takes credit for would be horrific without this oil-boom, but he blathers-on selling his Global-Warming snake-oil and castigating fossil fuels.

So called (I hate the term) “Obamcare” won’t work, except as a massive and expensive rip-off of the tax-payer. It would be nice if we couldn’t afford it. Fortunately for the dummy-in-chief, we are willing and able to role up our sleaves and do all the work while he sells his schtick about Evil-Oil to the masses. That way, we can pay to lose our freedom over our own healthcare and feed and clothe even more bureaucrats to rule over us.

So how smart are we really?


8 posted on 02/15/2013 4:21:04 AM PST by Empire_of_Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; thackney

Another Ransom Note where he uses a lot of words to say: “Neener, Neener!” And, as thackney commented above, the technical accuracy is a bit lacking, too.


9 posted on 02/15/2013 4:23:31 AM PST by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
we could significantly reduce the deficit, without drastically cutting benefits for a generation of Americans who have planned to count on it.

This is what kills me about liberals. They could have most of their GD stinking welfare state if they'd just STOP putting a drag on the economy. But they've got an ideology that isn't just about helping the poor, it's about hurting the rich, and by doing so they hurt everyone. God I hate these religious fools (Marxism is a religion as much as an economic theory).

10 posted on 02/15/2013 4:27:17 AM PST by Hardastarboard (The Liberal ruling class hates me. The feeling is mutual.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thackney
"These wells are neither cheap, nor long lasting. It requires more expensive wells and the wells don't last long a high flow rates. Which means you need more of them; we have to keep drilling just to hold a steady flow rate."

Well, I think economics would dictate that as demand continues, the cost of such wells would drop, and we would have a lot more wells producing even at the lower rates.

What "is" the typical production curve for one of these guys.

11 posted on 02/15/2013 4:28:41 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thackney
These wells are neither cheap, nor long lasting.

This is completely different from fracking, isn't it?

12 posted on 02/15/2013 4:38:32 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Source for Graph:
North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/presentations/WBPC2011Activity.pdf

13 posted on 02/15/2013 4:49:02 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

The article is talking about oil shale deposits and other tight formations. These tight formations are not economically to produce without hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic Fracturing and production from these wells are directly tied.


14 posted on 02/15/2013 4:57:45 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wastoute

It will only be cheap as long as the government doesn’t step in and sabotage this new development by regulating the crap out of it.


15 posted on 02/15/2013 5:18:40 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thackney
you forgot to include the meaning of the word "relatively" in your analysis - and compared to deep water, compared to windmills, etc, this IS relatively low cost.
16 posted on 02/15/2013 5:39:17 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
meaning of the word "relatively" in your analysis - and compared to deep water

Measured on a "per barrel of oil produced", I don't think deep water is expensive compared to other oil facilities. The cost a bunch of money, but they produce a bunch of oil.

Solar, Wind, yeah those are more expensive. But to call it "relatively low cost" when it cost as much or more than 80~90% of all other the energy produced, is fraud.

17 posted on 02/15/2013 5:50:42 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Deep Water is great, AFTER you’ve paid the zillion dollars to get it up and going. And oh, then AFTER a hurricane shuts you down. And oh, then after that same hurricane does a half zillion dollars worth of damage to the rig. And oh, then AFTER Obama runs you out of business. Yeah, deep water is practically a give away.


18 posted on 02/15/2013 6:10:31 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Are you claiming $/barrel it is not in line with shale production?

It has significant risk, but the big boys don’t spend those billions because they lose money compared to the Eagle Ford or Permian Basin.


19 posted on 02/15/2013 6:15:36 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: thackney

I”m claiming you are using a static analysis for an industry that is dynamic and not static. You are also using historical data for a business that is forward looking. Looking forward, with reasonable assumptions about technologies and restrictions and so on, not to mention deposits, and increased efficiencies of scale, it is not a fraud to call this technology “relatively low cost.”


20 posted on 02/15/2013 6:20:32 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson