Accepting a negative externally so that we can do something that is already a net negative seems quite different from all the others that are net positives.
Sure. The argument is that fracking is an economic net benefit. People who make that argument are wrong.
We should be leaving as much carbon in the ground as possible. We will need to extract some over the next thirty years. We should do that at the lowest cost and lowest environmental impact (including methane)
Fracking is not that
Which version of the US transitions to renewables faster?
One where independence on ME oil can only be done via renewables?
Or one with a growing fracking and domestic oil industry putting pressure on a notoriously week political structure.
Sure at 10,000 feet that sounds nice but the argument falls apart when you simply ask for the next step.
We have banned fracking and now the US is back to being a net importer of oil. Gas and fuel costs are much higher now, especially for the poorest people, and the US is back to engaging in global hydrocarbon geopolitics to feed domestic supply needs.
Now what?
This stuff is super complicated which is why itâs so annoying when someone says âbut some guy in Pennsylvania can light his tap on fireâ as if that should end the entire debate.
I fully agree we need to rapidly move to a decarbonization global economy. I spend most of my professional time now trying to help do that. I just donât see any evidence a fracking ban would do anything to accomplish this goal. Not to mention it is never ever happening politically. Harris knew she was never banning fracking just like she knows she is never signing a bill to make abortion legal nationally because no such bill could ever get out of congress.
They run in poetry and govern in prose.
Incidentally, this is why the Inflation Reduction Act is the single most important environmental legislation passed in our lifetime and I bet itâs Bidenâs legacy 100 years from now.
Are you familiar with Bird and Fortune? Identical thing but British:
Why would banning fracking increase the cost of oil? Which producer is setting the price, and why does that change in the absence of fracking?
Oil is a strategic market with a cartel. Itâs not obvious that local supply = lower prices.
I donât think we should ban fracking. I think we should significantly increase the regulations and default on behalf of neighbours and water supplies.
At the same time we need an energy policy thatâs consistent with 2 degrees. Anything else is beside the point. Any fracking that sits within that and passes the higher hurdles. Fine.
The price is set on the global market. If the US has to import oil itâs more expensive for the simple transportation costs. Thatâs partly why there are different prices for oil in different regions. For example, oil from Canada is worth less due to the transportation costs.
That says nothing of the simple supply and demand aspects of a massive decrease in production in the US would certainly lead to higher global prices.
Another wrinkle is the environmental damage of a molecule of oil extracted in Saudi Arabia is far worse than the same molecule being extracted in the US because of regulation in the US so offloading production to those nations has a doubling effect on the environment.
Sure thatâs a totally fair point. I would argue if we have only so much political capital there are far far more important environmental goals to spend it on. Fracking has just got a sexy brand mostly to because of a couple good documentaries on the subject. Itâs why we all know about setting water on fire. Not because that is a common outcome but because it was a great provocative image widely spread.
If your net goal is improvement to the environment then fracking should be a pretty low priority.
I probably missed it clovis, is your occupation within the oil and gas sector?
As you say, itâs complicated. From my (moderate) energy background. I think you are being overconfident in few of your assertions.
Transportation costs are an âall things being equalâ addition. But all things are not equal.
Supply and demand really doesnât apply in the cartel environment (in the same way).
Instead the price is set by the marginal supplier, after OPEC and Russia agree their outputs (knowing who the marginal supplier is).
The marginal supplier is often an American or Canadian operation. So removing expensive suppliers from the global market may make it harder for the OPEC to maintain a high price.
Regarding whether Saudi or US fracking is better for the environment, again, itâs more complicated than âUS regulations are betterâ they are completely different technologies. Saudia basically pokes a stick in the ground and oil comes out, that could be better for the environment that all the expense and effort of fracking.
Iâm open to being wrong, but Iâd be looking for some citations and data.
No. Iâve run an environmental consulting company for a couple decades. My staff are biologists, agrologists, archaeologists, emissions specialists, acoustical engineers, chemical engineers and regulatory specialists. We work for developers building homes, commercial developments, roads, subways, and oil and gas. Really all kinds of development.
I spend almost all my time on green energy projects like renewable natural gas, hydrogen, carbon capture and other biofuels.
Our job is two-fold. We asses an area before development and ensure the required regulatory mitigations are applied to the project to reduce the environmental impact and we help projects navigate the regulatory path to approval.
Which regulations do you think are making fracking safe? Enticing Iâve read indicates that the oil and gas companies have been extremely effective at limiting oversight. As pointed out before - there is the âHalliburton exceptionâ that prevents the FDA from regulating in any way the chemicals used.
Perhaps youâre right that banning fracking shouldnât be done since most of it is deep enough itâs unlikely to effect the drinking water, but as far as I can tell even when itâs in close proximity to drinking water or in the same formation, we still allow it and just trust the oil and gas company to take sufficient precautions.
I think the global oil market is better thought of as a dominant firm with a competitive fringe than a monopoly (as long as weâre sticking to simple models).
In that case, the price depends on the elasticity of supply of the fringe. It doesnât seem crazy to think that banning fracking would tend to make supply of U.S. producers less elastic, raising prices. So what Clovis is saying on that front doesnât run contrary to economic sense, even after accounting for cartel activity.
Now that we are in the area of macroeconomics Iâm no longer an expert so take anything I say with a grain of salt. You make some good points but it still seems hard to see how a massive reduction in local production wouldnât lead to higher prices.
As for the difference in environmental impact of molecules extracted in North American vs the Middle East that one is clear. From an emissions perceptive alone the same molecule extracted there has far more environmental impact. They donât install things like SCR or CEMs to mitigate or monitor emissions at all.
Oil and gas companies have a massive oversized influence on regulations and regulatory capture is a huge problem. Thatâs said, the most common myth in my field is they get to do whatever they want. They simply donât. My entire industry is built on the fact that they donât.
Some examples for fracking are
Setbacks from residences
Requirements to case wells (add sleeves ect to prevent leaking)
Requirements to model geology and hydrology prior to approval
Testing of water quality before and during drilling
Weekly, monthly and annual reporting
Iâll add the current SCOTUS and especially the decision this year to end Chevron Deference is the single biggest blow to this regulatory oversight in 100 years. It has the real possibility of creating a world where oil and gas companies do in fact get to do whatever they want in the US.
What the frack is going on in this thread?
A mostly respectful discussion of a topic relevant to the current election with most parties sharing actual data and good faith arguments.
It causes the price of fossil fuels to go up, which drives the market more towards alternatives. And it does medium/long term damage to the fossil fuel extraction industry as it makes investment on infrastructure less attractive. If you donât build it, they wonât come.