Bernie and Warren want to ban fracking. You know who else hates US shale?

[Derec]

I don't actually live in an area where fracking happens, but I do live in an area where sand mining, necessary for fracking occurs.

Cool. Approximately where is that?

I'm going to go with: fracking is bad and so are the processes that support it.

Bad compared to what? Ideal case of no environmental disruption whatsoever for sure. But that is not reality. Compared to realistic alternatives fracking is actually pretty good.
Even when we are able to eliminate oil and gas completely, in a few decades perhaps, we will need to mine for copper (EVs use 3x more copper than ICE cars), lithium, cobalt, and for some technologies rare earths.

It may be a necessary evil but we are foolish and ignorant if we ignore the fact that it is indeed evil and that we need to replace fossil fuels with safer, cleaner energy sources.

True. But that transition will take decades. In the meantime we need technologies like fracking. And even after we will need extractive industries to mine for minerals needed for electric cars, solar cells, and the like. Hopefully nuclear power too, as that would speed up decarbonization tremendously.

 

[Derec]

I've lived in a lot of places where this shit is going on, and given that my family was in the business, grew up with more knowledge about drilling than you likely possess now.

Having relatives in the business hardly makes you an expert. Is there even fracking going on in the so-called "Chochenyo Territory" (southeast of San Francisco, right?)

As others have pointed out above, fracking does not occur in a vacuum, but as an integral point a large, destructive industry with many tentacles.

Nobody claims that it occurs in a vacuum. And the beast with many tentacles is just the global economy. You ban fracking, and other non-conventional oil, and you reduce the supply of crude below what the global economy needs to function. One of the reasons for the 2008 Great Recession was, in addition to all the toxic assets, the fact that oil price spiked above $140/bbl. The only reason oil price is currently in the $50s is fracking. Remove it, and we will go back above $100/bbl fairly soon.

Similar thing would happen with natural gas, which is used for electricity generation, heating as well as feedstock for industry. What do you think would happen if President Warren succeeds in reducing US production by two thirds?

But even just fracking itself is transparently destructive, and increases the likelihood of catastrophic events, from water and air pollution, severe waste control issues, the collapse of competing industries, to blowouts, to silicosis, to oil spills, to fricking fracking earthquakes.

These things are way overblown and most exist in any kind of oil extraction. Earthquakes are fracking-specific but most of those induced tremors are tiny.

I'm sure you've heard all this before and dismissed it, so I won't belabor the point, but I will oppose the opening of new areas to oil and gas exploration whenever the question re-occurs.

I am not dismissing it. I am putting it in perspective and saying that the benefits hugely outweigh the negatives.

Though I would argue that we are more to blame for failing to encourage alternative energy strategies, simply because we have entrepreneurial power in a way that Russia does not.

US does a lot to encourage "alternative energy strategies". Tesla is an American company for example. But what people don't realize is that to decarbonize the world economy will take decades. In the meantime we need oil and gas. Plentiful gas (due in large part to fracking) in particular has done a lot to displace coal - a very dirty, carbon-intensive fuel that powered over half of US electricity generation not so long ago but now only accounts for about a third. That alone should tell you how useful fracking is.


Of course, the irrational aversion to nuclear harms decarbonization as well, but that's an issue for another thread.

 

[starwater]

But you get all that with conventional drilling, including water use, which is used in conventional extraction to maintain reservoir pressure.

Not with every reservoir and not nearly as much.

 

[Derec]

Not with every reservoir and not nearly as much.

Not exactly correct, according to this. Fracking uses more while the well is drilled, but less during the actual production.

The way detractors talk about fracking, you'd think it was qualitatively different and than regular oil/gas and singular in environmental impact. That is far from true. Those people ignore that say the Khurais field in Saudi Arabia gets almost2 bbl of water pumped into the field for every barrel of oil produced. Or that any for example heavy metals present in the reservoir will be brought up with oil whether it's a fracked well or not.

 

[Politesse]

Not with every reservoir and not nearly as much.

Not exactly correct, according to this. Fracking uses more while the well is drilled, but less during the actual production.

The way detractors talk about fracking, you'd think it was qualitatively different and than regular oil/gas and singular in environmental impact. That is far from true. Those people ignore that say the Khurais field in Saudi Arabia gets almost2 bbl of water pumped into the field for every barrel of oil produced. Or that any for example heavy metals present in the reservoir will be brought up with oil whether it's a fracked well or not.

I've no idea why you think people who dislike fracking necessarily love other forms of mineral extraction, unless this is another one of your dualisms.

 

[Derec]

I've no idea why you think people who dislike fracking necessarily love other forms of mineral extraction, unless this is another one of your dualisms.

Are you one of those extremists who wants to end all mineral extraction? In post #21 I explained how decarbonizing the economy will increase demand for other resources such as copper and lithium.

As far as "loving" other forms of mineral extraction, I never used the word "love". But Bernie and Warren want to ban fracking specifically.

By the way, you have yet to back up your assertions that areas where fracking is done will never be used for anything else.

 

[starwater]

Not with every reservoir and not nearly as much.

Not exactly correct, according to this. Fracking uses more while the well is drilled, but less during the actual production.

The way detractors talk about fracking, you'd think it was qualitatively different and than regular oil/gas and singular in environmental impact. That is far from true. Those people ignore that say the Khurais field in Saudi Arabia gets almost2 bbl of water pumped into the field for every barrel of oil produced. Or that any for example heavy metals present in the reservoir will be brought up with oil whether it's a fracked well or not.

Since I have direct knowledge of this, since I actually find water for fracking for the oil companies and help with the disposal of the recovered water from drilling. This is wrong. And I am talking about the United States not Saudi Arabia

 

[Derec]

Since I have direct knowledge of this, since I actually find water for fracking for the oil companies and help with the disposal of the recovered water from drilling. This is wrong.

Nobody is disputing that fracking uses a lot of oil. So your experience does not contradict my source.

And I am talking about the United States not Saudi Arabia

Laws of fluid dynamics do not change at the water's edge.
And even if it were only a Saudi issue, banning fracking would mean importing more from overseas, including KSA. And KSA would consequently need to pump more to meet global demand, including pumping more water into the injection wells.

 

[starwater]

Since I have direct knowledge of this, since I actually find water for fracking for the oil companies and help with the disposal of the recovered water from drilling. This is wrong.

Nobody is disputing that fracking uses a lot of oil. So your experience does not contradict my source.

And I am talking about the United States not Saudi Arabia

Laws of fluid dynamics do not change at the water's edge.
And even if it were only a Saudi issue, banning fracking would mean importing more from overseas, including KSA. And KSA would consequently need to pump more to meet global demand, including pumping more water into the injection wells.

Fracking does use a lot of energy - but it also uses a lot of water.

I never said to ban fracking.

 

[Derec]

Fracking does use a lot of energy - but it also uses a lot of water.

Of course. Where wood is chopped, splinters must fall.

I never said to ban fracking.

Good. Then we are in agreement.

 

[Gun Nut]

This guy!

Putin Calls U.S. Shale “Barbaric”

I suppose Derec likes breathing. you know who else liked breathing? THIS guy:

Show

 

[ZiprHead]

This guy!

Putin Calls U.S. Shale “Barbaric”

I suppose Derec likes breathing. you know who else liked breathing? THIS guy:

Show

View attachment 25117

Until he didn't.

 

[laughing dog]

Fracking does use a lot of energy - but it also uses a lot of water.

Of course. Where wood is chopped, splinters must fall.

Splinters are not necessary for life while water is.

 

[Derec]

I suppose Derec likes breathing. you know who else liked breathing? THIS guy:

Not the same thing at all. "THIS Guy" didn't like certain people breathing. Putin likes Mother Russia producing >10 Mbbl/d just fine; he just doesn't want US doing the same and is therefore supporting opponents of US fracking.

 

[Derec]

Splinters are not necessary for life while water is.

Pretty much every industry in existence uses water. Do you want to get back to preindustrial modes of production because of silly platitudes?
In any case, oil and gas extraction makes up only a tiny fraction of total oil use.