Report: Frickin’ Fracking Could Ruin Everything for Leftist Activists

Townhall.com ^ | February 15, 2013 | John Ransom

[thackney]

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.

[thackney]

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.

[wastoute]

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

[FatherofFive]

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.

[Kaslin]

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.

[kitkat]

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

[Empire_of_Liberty]

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?

[T-Bird45]

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.

[Hardastarboard]

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).

[Wonder Warthog]

"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.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

These wells are neither cheap, nor long lasting.

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

[thackney]

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

[thackney]

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.

[jsanders2001]

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.

[C. Edmund Wright]

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.

[thackney]

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.

[C. Edmund Wright]

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.

[thackney]

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.

[C. Edmund Wright]

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.”