Can fracking reindustrialize America?

[Jack Hays]

Maybe so, according to this author. At least it's a start. I think it's a very encouraging development, although the green lobby will be upset because it will become more difficult for renewables to compete.


How fracking is reshaping the U.S. economy

The booming oil and gas industry shows the power of the private sector, one writer argues. Outperforming other nations » eace

 

[Harshaw]

Lots of people give lip service to how they want "industry" and the jobs it provides, but they don't want anything else that goes with it. Thus, it's often shut down.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Maybe so, according to this author. At least it's a start. I think it's a very encouraging development, although the green lobby will be upset because it will become more difficult for renewables to compete.

Our green lobby is quite confused here in the UK; fracking has a bad name and there are protests against it by the green movement which presumably would prefer nuclear power or coal fired power at great expense to the public in comparison to fracking whose benefits that could lower our fuel bills.

 

[clownboy]

Our green lobby is quite confused here in the UK; fracking has a bad name and there are protests against it by the green movement which presumably would prefer nuclear power or coal fired power at great expense to the public in comparison to fracking whose benefits that could lower our fuel bills.

How about none of the above. Fracking is just fine, as long as you don't want to live in the area afterwards. All those for fracking and those doing it and their families should be required live on the water from local wells. If that were so, fracking would end tomorrow.

 

[Jack Hays]

Our green lobby is quite confused here in the UK; fracking has a bad name and there are protests against it by the green movement which presumably would prefer nuclear power or coal fired power at great expense to the public in comparison to fracking whose benefits that could lower our fuel bills.

The spectacle of rising industrial prosperity in America will change people's minds.

 

[Jack Hays]

How about none of the above. Fracking is just fine, as long as you don't want to live in the area afterwards. All those for fracking and those doing it and their families should be required live on the water from local wells. If that were so, fracking would end tomorrow.

There is no evidence of any fracking impact on water supplies. Many people already draw their water from areas with fracking and are not even aware of it. This is a false issue.

 

[longview]

Maybe so, according to this author. At least it's a start. I think it's a very encouraging development, although the green lobby will be upset because it will become more difficult for renewables to compete.
]

I think people would be surprised how much the oil and gas industry has contributed to advancing
technology over the last 100 years.
Some of the first uses of transistors were in seismic systems to look for oil formations.
Geophysical Services Inc. was where Texas Instruments got their start.

 

[head of joaquin]

Fracking need to be regulated, so that its costs are internalized (the companies pay for it, not the water users) and the chemicals the industry uses need to be researched and where appropriate, replaced with less toxic chemicals.

That said, fracking (which was developed by the Carter Administration's investment in energy research) has the potential to make this nation extremely wealthy and energy secure. That will not only lead to more general prosperity, but it will change our foreign policy. We can finally dump the autocrats in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, and follow a more principled support of democracy there. And it will avoid costly oil-inspired military folly like Bush's invasion of Iraq.

 

[clownboy]

There is no evidence of any fracking impact on water supplies. Many people already draw their water from areas with fracking and are not even aware of it. This is a false issue.

Oh yeah, talk to the multitude of folks who can no longer drink from their wells. Or better yet, we ought to bottle that well water and require that folks who support fracking drink it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh yeah, talk to the multitude of folks who can no longer drink from their wells. Or better yet, we ought to bottle that well water and require that folks who support fracking drink it.

There is zero evidence that any fouled well has been caused by fracking.

 

[clownboy]

There is zero evidence that any fouled well has been caused by fracking.

More lies. There is plenty of evidence. We've discussed this before and the evidence has been presented. Acting like it doesn't exist is absurd. Again, take the challenge, I'm sure you can get access to water near a fracking operation. Good ahead, feed that to your family for a bit if you're so convinced.

 

[Jack Hays]

More lies. There is plenty of evidence. We've discussed this before and the evidence has been presented. Acting like it doesn't exist is absurd. Again, take the challenge, I'm sure you can get access to water near a fracking operation. Good ahead, feed that to your family for a bit if you're so convinced.

I've already had the water. Relatives in both Pennsylvania and North Dakota. Not a problem.

How Anti-Fracking Activists Deny Science: Water Contamination

energyindepth.org/.../how-anti-fracking-activists-deny-science-water-con...‎
Aug 13, 2013 - “Fracking – when taken to mean the entire process of developing an oil or gas well – has conclusively been linked to water contamination by ...

An excerpt:

"But when these same critics are asked to prove the claim, the evidence is far more elusive than their statements would suggest. At a major Senate hearing earlier this year, representatives from both the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, when pressed by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), could not name a single confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater.
Experts and regulators, meanwhile, have stated time and again that there is little to no evidence of “fracking” ever contaminating groundwater: . . . "eace

 

[Blue_State]

Fracking has been going on for a while. I don't believe the industry will have huge growth unless there is a major price/technology change.

 

[fmw]

Same problem with global warming. It is a political issue moreso than a scientific one. Politics doesn't need proof. It only needs belief.

 

[clownboy]

I've already had the water. Relatives in both Pennsylvania and North Dakota. Not a problem.

How Anti-Fracking Activists Deny Science: Water Contamination

energyindepth.org/.../how-anti-fracking-activists-deny-science-water-con...‎
Aug 13, 2013 - “Fracking – when taken to mean the entire process of developing an oil or gas well – has conclusively been linked to water contamination by ...

An excerpt:

"But when these same critics are asked to prove the claim, the evidence is far more elusive than their statements would suggest. At a major Senate hearing earlier this year, representatives from both the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, when pressed by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), could not name a single confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater.
Experts and regulators, meanwhile, have stated time and again that there is little to no evidence of “fracking” ever contaminating groundwater: . . . "eace

Heh, try reading it for comprehension. Who said anything about groundwater? I'm talking about well water.

 

[Jack Hays]

unless there is a major price/technology change.

That has already happened.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Heh, try reading it for comprehension. Who said anything about groundwater? I'm talking about well water.

All well water is groundwater although not all groundwater is well water. The statements encompass well water.

 

[clownboy]

All well water is groundwater although not all groundwater is well water. The statements encompass well water.

No, they don't and that's a convenient dodge around the facts.

Feds Link Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time - ProPublica

 

[head of joaquin]

Same problem with global warming. It is a political issue moreso than a scientific one. Politics doesn't need proof. It only needs belief.

Not quite. There is some evidence that fracking pollutes ground water and since the industry is tightlipped about the proprietary chemicals it uses, those need to be disclosed and researched.

Any costs to the public need to be internalized and made part of the cost of business. Private landowners and water users should have to pay for the externalized costs of the industry.

That's said, rational regulations should be able to handle that, and the industry can prosper, as it should. Cheap energy is the basis of most economic booms. We're on the cusp of one.

 

[Wiseone]

Some good articles on Fracking, short and easy to read, and one is even called "Fracking Great" which is an awesome enough pun in itself to justify reading the article it headlines. The last one is an obituary for the man who pioneered the fracking technique.

Shale gas: Fracking great | The Economist

The Economist explains: How safe is fracking? | The Economist

Schumpeter: The father of fracking | The Economist

 

[Jack Hays]

No, they don't and that's a convenient dodge around the facts.

Feds Link Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time - ProPublica

Please note that the study you cite (from 2011) was yet to undergo peer review. That apparently did not go well, since subsequent authoritative statements don't reflect any impact.

• Ernest Moniz, Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Energy: “To my knowledge, I still have not seen any evidence of fracking per se contaminating groundwater.” (Aug. 2013)

• U.S. Geological Survey: “This new study is important in terms of finding no significant effects on groundwater quality from shale gas development within the area of sampling.” (January 2013)

• U.S. Govt. Accountability Office (GAO): “[R]egulatory officials we met with from eight states – Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas – told us that, based on state investigations, the hydraulic fracturing process has not been identified as a cause of groundwater contamination within their states.” (September 2012)

• Lisa Jackson, former EPA Administrator: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” (April 2012)

How Anti-Fracking Activists Deny Science: Water Contaminationeace

 

[clownboy]

Go ahead and google cancer clusters around fracking sites. You'll see plenty of local reports of people who live near fracking sites. But of course they don't count to a government that wants to go head long into fracking.

High Levels of Arsenic Found in Groundwater Near Fracking Sites: Scientific American

At one time it seemed like a great answer to chemical waste to store it all in Love Canal. Only took 30 years for the government to admit that wasn't really a spiffy idea after all.

 

[Visbek]

There's no way that fracking will hire enough people to turn around 60+ years of decline in manufacturing employment.

There's also a glut right now in NG production, prices are already falling. Things look good on the upswing of a bubble...

I do concur that fracking does bring some economic benefits. However, if production continues to increase, the current growth rates will not be sustainable.

In addition, the environmental effects are unclear. NG produces less CO2, which is good. The industry refuses to say exactly what chemicals it's pumping into the ground to get access to the natural gas, which is bad. I believe there is no way to clean up those wells; we'll have chemical waste products sitting in the Marcellus Shale for thousands of years.

Not everyone is thrilled by unaccountable and obscure mining operations polluting their water supplies. Nor can we develop a true comparison of renewable to NG without knowing what chemicals are used.

 

[Jack Hays]

There's no way that fracking will hire enough people to turn around 60+ years of decline in manufacturing employment.

There's also a glut right now in NG production, prices are already falling. Things look good on the upswing of a bubble...

I do concur that fracking does bring some economic benefits. However, if production continues to increase, the current growth rates will not be sustainable.

In addition, the environmental effects are unclear. NG produces less CO2, which is good. The industry refuses to say exactly what chemicals it's pumping into the ground to get access to the natural gas, which is bad. I believe there is no way to clean up those wells; we'll have chemical waste products sitting in the Marcellus Shale for thousands of years.

Not everyone is thrilled by unaccountable and obscure mining operations polluting their water supplies. Nor can we develop a true comparison of renewable to NG without knowing what chemicals are used.

There is zero evidence of water supplies being polluted by fracking. In addition, the point of the OP was not that NG recovery by itself would lead the economy, but rather that falling energy prices (which you acknowledge) will spur the growth of other industries.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Go ahead and google cancer clusters around fracking sites. You'll see plenty of local reports of people who live near fracking sites. But of course they don't count to a government that wants to go head long into fracking.

High Levels of Arsenic Found in Groundwater Near Fracking Sites: Scientific American

At one time it seemed like a great answer to chemical waste to store it all in Love Canal. Only took 30 years for the government to admit that wasn't really a spiffy idea after all.

Zero evidence of a link to fracking.