Bless the frackers! American shale oil producers keeping OPEC in check

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by DUCKofD3ATH, Jan 18, 2017.

  1. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #1
    If you see a fracker, be sure to thank him:

    IEA Sees Significant Gains in U.S. Shale Oil as Prices Rise
    Oil-price gains will trigger a “significant” increase in U.S. shale output as OPEC and other producers rein in supply, according to the head of the International Energy Agency.
    ...
    The oil industry is becoming more cost-efficient and a “big chunk” of global output is now profitable at $50 to $55 a barrel, Birol said in a later interview, citing Brazil, Mexico and China as countries that will also boost production. There’ll be “lots more” supply in late 2017 or early 2018, he said.

    “This will make it more difficult for OPEC to achieve its goal of restoring the balance on the oil market by means of production cuts,” said analysts at Commerzbank AG led by Eugen Weinberg in Frankfurt.

    In the first week of January, U.S. crude production rose to 8.95 million barrels a day, the highest level since April. Oil-rig use expanded to 529 in the prior week, a 67 percent increase from the 2016 low of 316.
    . ​
     
  2. blackfox, Jan 18, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2017

    blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #2
    Yay! I really do enjoy contaminated aquifers, sinkholes and earthquakes, in return for a marginally lower energy bill.

    *EDIT* Thanks to CE3 for the helpful illustrations
     
  3. CE3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #3
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Oklahoma Earthquakes in one year:

    [​IMG]

    Rivers catching on fire:



    Thank you frackers!!!!
     
  4. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #4
    Yeah, that strategy can only last so long. After all the oil is fracked, then what?
     
  5. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #5
    So energy independence isn't a priority for you? Wanna keep on giving our cash to oil-rich countries that foster terrorism instead, huh?
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Why don't we use renewables and win both?
     
  7. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #7
    Well, since two of the top three importers to the US are our neighbors (Canada and Mexico) - your point is slightly more nuanced than you let on...oh, and renewable energy - those also make jobs - we like jobs, right?
     
  8. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #8
    Your examples aren't very compelling:

    Does fracking cause flaming water faucets?
    No. This is a well-traveled mythology, so let’s take a closer look. First, naturally occurring methane has been well documented all across the country – and for many years prior to drilling.

    In Michigan, naturally occurring methane was documented in the 1960s, and in Pennsylvania in the 1980s – decades before hydraulic fracturing and shale development came to those states. Two U.S. Geological Survey studies found lots of methane in Pennsylvania and New York water wells prior to any drilling. Another peer-reviewed study examining 1,700 Pennsylvania water wells in both natural gas-producing and non-gas producing areas determined that “methane is ubiquitous in groundwater” in the region.

    There have been efforts to debunk the fracking/flaming faucet myth. The documentary “Truthland” highlights an upstate New York resident setting his water on fire – while pointing out that the state had a fracking moratorium for years. Another documentary, “FrackNation,” features three U.S. towns called “Burning Springs,” because residents can ignite their water on fire. All got their names long before “fracking” ever became a household word....​
     
  9. CE3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #9
    My examples are more compelling than getting answers to questions about the safety of fracking from an oil and gas funded website.
     
  10. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #10
    12% of our oil comes from the Middle East. Japan gets 83% of its oil from the Middle East. After China, Japan and the US are the biggest importers of oil. What a difference if we could export to Japan, eh? Now that we can export our oil, we'll be cutting in on those terror-supporting thugs in OPEC's business, along with speeding our own energy independence.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---
    My gas and oil funded website is as credible as your alarmism-to-get-members green website.
     
  11. CE3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #11
    The greed behind your source is the only credible thing about it.

    Making a quick buck through highly wasteful and unsustainable practices is clearly more important than the health and safety of others.
     
  12. DUCKofD3ATH, Jan 18, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2017

    DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #12
    Well, it's obvious that you can't answer arguments in favor of energy independence, so you prefer to lapse into ad hominem arguments. I find the radical environmentalist website (Greenpeace damaged a UN World Heritage site! the hypocrites) you sourced to be equally offensive.

    You'd rather help fund terrorism than support a solution that starves them of money.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---
    Renewables can't compete with fossil fuels at this time except in isolated circumstances. The tech isn't there.
     
  13. juanm, Jan 18, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2017

    juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #13
    Wrong! Sad! Actually it is for most applications. What's not there is the political will.
     
  14. CE3, Jan 18, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2017

    CE3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #14
    I'm all for energy independence, and, more importantly, greater independence from Oil.

    We have the technology and tools in place to move us towards more sustainable and renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, these old money oil companies aren't going to be happy until they've bled this planet dry of every last drop of oil and made every last cent they possibly can.

    I'm supporting terrorism because I care about the future of this planet and the environment?
     
  15. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #15
    I don't understand why Japan doesn't resort to electric more. They certainly have the technical ability.
     
  16. Dmunjal macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
  17. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #17
    Yeah, we gotta watch out for them vicious Canuck terr'ists!

    "What-is-fracking.com" - oh, my sainted mother....
     
  18. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #18
    If it turns out that the net health costs and mitigation costs caused by the negative side-effects of fracking are higher than the net savings in having lower oil prices, would you still support fracking?

    Nothing is free. We're paying for these lower oil prices in other ways. Loss of land value, loss of farmland, costs of water decontamination, cost of healthcare, cost displaced families, etc. I'm not convinced the lower cost of oil is enough to offset all these long-term costs. At this rate, we'll still be paying for the negative consequences of fracking long after we no longer burn oil at all.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---
    Not true at all. If we end oil, coal, and NG subsidies, renewables can not only compete but they would decimate the fossil fuel industry.
     
  19. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #19
    Don't be sad! Post some examples to support your argument--and you'll feel right as rain!
    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---
    Good for you! It'll be interesting finding out how you figure we'll do both.

    Moving "towards more sustainable and renewable energy sources" is as wishy-washy as those wide-eyed users of patent nostrums on late-night TV claiming "It really works"!

    Can we replace fossil fuels right now with renewables or not? If you think we can, please supply facts to back it up.

    How's the shoe feel now that it's on the other foot?

    Your accusation was that to me "making a quick buck through highly wasteful and unsustainable practices" was "clearly more important than the health and safety of others."
    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---
    Greenpeace.org?! Those vandals? You gotta be kidding' me!
    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---
    The net savings is not what's important. Achieving energy independence and helping starve terrorists of money from oil profits is the goal.

    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---


    YEAH! I know, why don't we give Solyndra a half billion dollars in loan guarantees? Renewables can't lose!
     
  20. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #20
    At what cost? At some point, starving terrorists of money isn't worth it.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---
    How about we give no energy companies any subsidies, and let renewables kick fossil fuel's ass on a level playing field?
     
  21. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #21
    If you stop fracking that means the terrorists have won? Do you want to go there?

    --- Post Merged, Jan 18, 2017 ---

    If renewables couldn't manage to do that during Obama's term with all the support they got, it's too soon for them and they should go sit back down on the bench.
     
  22. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #22
    Fake news.
     
  23. CE3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #23
    It's amazing what "can't be managed" and what's "not realistic" when big money controls both sides of the isle. Obama and Clinton have both taken cash from fossil fuel companies and supported the international expansion of fracking.
     
  24. DUCKofD3ATH thread starter Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #24
    What's amazing is that people who hate fracking, and fossil fuels in general, think there's a magic force that's keeping renewables from succeeding. If renewables were practical alternatives as of now, big money would buy up the renewable tech and make money from that.
     
  25. CE3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #25
    Greener than coal isn't setting the bar very high. And carbon emissions can't be the only standard we use to measure the environmental impact of fracking.

    We already know the devastating impact fracking can have on our rivers and water supplies. People have been forced to move out of their homes and communities because it's no longer safe to drink and bathe there. Oklahoma had 623 earthquakes last year alone, and all the scientific evidence is pointing to the wastewater injection wells being the culprit.
     

Share This Page