You don't need a detailed historical analysis to see the industry-driven progression from the milled tooth bits of the '50s to the carbide insert drill bits of the '70s to the polycrystalline diamond cutter bits of the '80s to the more modern bits, which are constantly being refined for better performance and durability. There is, after all, a definite profit motive involved, and it doesn't require governmental intervention.
A close look at the development of those technologies reveals private sector entrepreneurs, like Mitchell, who were loudly and clearly asking for help because they knew they had neither the technical knowledge nor the ability to finance such risky innovations on their own.
BS. It isn't a po'boy game, that's certain, but those who financed the developments were folks like Howard Hughes (Hughes Oil Tool), and others, often stockholders.
In fairness, the Government did participate in a study on hydrofracking here in the Bakken, along with eight oil companies, in order to determine how far the frac would propagate in the formation, and how uniformly it would fracture the rock. The obvious concern is one of lease spacing (especially Federal Leases), and whether or not a frac could drain an adjacent lease. I'd say that even though the Federal Landholdings are relatively small in the area compared to private holdings, the government had some skin in the game, a definite economic interest in establishing setbacks from lease lines in order to maintain the integrity of their own production royalties from Federal leases.
Note, too, this happened during the Bush Administration, and attempts to portray that stinking putz in the oval office now as some sort of "energy president' are the most rank sort of prevarication.
His focus has been on energy forms likely to fail, in such a way that billions of dollars have likely been looted from subsidy programs.
I have worked wells where we experimented with different bits (some one-off experimentals), different drilling fluids, and different techniques. It has been one heck of an education, but it wasn't federally funded. The risks are there, but so are the rewards, and like in the wild, the most efficient hunters eat best.
From seismic techniques to other exploration methodologies to the nuts and bolts of drilling and producing a well, private interests stand to profit from innovation, and that is a powerful motive indeed.
Similarly, over the same period, [from the 40s] on the exploration side of the industry, the rate of privately funded, industry driven technological advance has been spectacular. For example, Bolt Technology's invention and ongoing development of an entirely new seismic energy source and many of the ancillary tools for utilizing those systems in the field, have enhanced the precision of offshore and onshore seismic workups to the point that dusters are practically headed for extinction. Trust me, Bolt's pneumatic gun was invented by a private sector genius, not by some government funded, gentlemen's 'pure research', country club at Berkeley or Cambridge. The same holds true for the software used to transmute the raw seismic data into prospects. Finally, google Shellenberger - he is no scientist, he is an environmental activist. His article is full of howlers but I just haven't the time. . . .