Sarah Palin was right, Obama was wrong - Natural Gas

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Readers of pre-millennial vintage may recall the 2008 presidential campaign when Republicans and especially Sarah Palin picked up the chant “drill, baby, drill” as a response to soaring oil prices. The theme was much derided, not least by Barack Obama, who as late as 2012 called it “a slogan, a gimmick, and a bumper sticker” but “not a strategy.” Ten years later, who was right?

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported Thursday that U.S. crude oil production exceeded 10 million barrels a day for the first time since 1970. That’s double the five million barrels produced in 2008, thanks to the boom in, well, drilling, baby. 

The EIA summary puts it this way: “U.S. crude oil production has increased significantly over the past 10 years, driven mainly by production from tighter rock formations including shale and other fine-grained rock using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to improve efficiency.” This is the “fracking” boom our readers know well that has been driven by innovation in the private oil and gas industry.

The magnitude of the boom is remarkable. The gusher has pushed the U.S. close to overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. In 2006 the U.S. imported 12.9 million barrels a day of crude and petroleum products. By last October that was down to 2.5 million a day. Some gimmick.

This translates into greater energy security as the U.S. is less dependent on foreign oil sources. Donald Trump calls it “energy dominance,” which implies that the U.S. wants to husband its supplies like gold at Fort Knox. The reality is we want to produce and sell what the market will bear, including exports to willing buyers around the world. 

 

Thanks to Congress’s deal with Mr. Obama in 2015 when Republicans extended wind and solar subsidies in return for lifting the oil export ban, the U.S. exported some 1.5 million barrels of oil a day in November. Some readers may recall that Heritage Action instructed Congress to vote no, and Breitbart called the bill “a total and complete sell-out of the American people.” Perhaps even they can now see that trading temporary subsidies for a permanent change in export law was shrewd and good for the country. 

Also striking is how quickly the oil and gas industry has recovered from the oil price plunge of 2015-2016. Previous price declines led to multiple bankruptcies and bank failures. This time drillers adapted quickly, took the rig count down fast, and cut costs. America’s flexible private capital markets helped the companies ride out the price trough, and now producers, investors and lenders are reaping the benefits of the oil price rebound to $69 a barrel. 

And don’t forget the fracking boom in natural gas. EIA says U.S. gas production increased by some 50% from January 2010 to November 2017, reducing carbon emissions and heating prices. Thanks to new export terminals, the U.S. is now selling liquefied natural gas around the world. This has the potential to compete with Russian gas so Western Europe doesn’t have to succumb to Vladimir Putin’s periodic energy blackmail. Unleashing U.S. energy is Donald Trump’s best Russia containment strategy.

It’s worth stressing some of the policy lessons in all this. The first is that the best response to energy shocks is to let the market adjust to the price signals. As oil prices soared in the latter half of the last decade, politicians panicked and rushed to ban certain light bulbs, and subsidize and mandate cellulosic ethanol and other energy fads. The media fed the panic and cheered the politicians on. We were back at “peak oil” and the end of fossil fuels.

Yet American ingenuity was already discovering the solution for high prices in the shale plays of North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas and elsewhere. These drillers could move fast because they had the support of private capital and could lease private land. The frackers were also largely regulated by the states, which meant even the Obama Administration couldn’t stop them. 

This is a familiar American story of invention and wealth creation that benefits everyone, but it never would have happened if central planners in Washington had to approve it. That’s the most important lesson.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/drilled-baby-drilled-1517531831

[homersapien 11,452]

The problem with petroleum fuel sources is not - and never will be - finding enough to extract.  The problem with petroleum fuel is the CO2 it adds to the atmosphere.

We already know we cannot burn all of the reserves that are known exist for that reason alone.  

In 50 years - if not much sooner - we will look back (well, I won't, but your kids will) and see "drill baby drill" as the absolute pinnacle of folly.

[HVAU 673]

The article itself seems to briefly allude to what really accounts for the spike US production.  It wasn't "drill baby, drill", but "innovate then drill".  But, if foisting a Nostradamus-like genius onto Palin, that's your bag.

It's also noted that Obama and the Republican Congress were instrumental in these developments as they compromised the achieve goals of each participant.  An art that both sides seem to be lacking at the moment.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The problem with petroleum fuel sources is not - and never will be - finding enough to extract.  The problem with petroleum fuel is the CO2 it adds to the atmosphere.

We already know we cannot burn all of the reserves that are known exist for that reason alone.  

In 50 years - if not much sooner - we will look back (well, I won't, but your kids will) and see "drill baby drill" as the absolute pinnacle of folly.

Fracking is the number one reason that CO2 emissions have declined significantly over the past years. Because natural gas is so much cheaper than coal, coal fired plants have decreased. As you know, coal is the grandaddy of CO2 emission. So in that sense, we should be happy about natural gas drilling.

Your 50 year proposal is indeed highly debatable among the most reliable of sources on both sides.

i dont deny climate change, but its unfortunate, and idiotic (not you in particular), that so many environmentalists oppose fracking despite its contribution to the suppression of coal fired plants.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, HVAU said:

The article itself seems to briefly allude to what really accounts for the spike US production.  It wasn't "drill baby, drill", but "innovate then drill".  But, if foisting a Nostradamus-like genius onto Palin, that's your bag.

It's also noted that Obama and the Republican Congress were instrumental in these developments as they compromised the achieve goals of each participant.  An art that both sides seem to be lacking at the moment.

Not sure about the innovation, as much so as deregulation after the obama era. Nonetheless, 10 million barrels per day now...

Also, beats doing business with people who want our heads cut off!

[homersapien 11,452]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Fracking is the number one reason that CO2 emissions have declined significantly over the past years. Because natural gas is so much cheaper than coal, coal fired plants have decreased. As you know, coal is the grandaddy of CO2 emission. So in that sense, we should be happy about natural gas drilling.

Your 50 year proposal is indeed highly debatable among the most reliable of sources on both sides.

i dont deny climate change, but its unfortunate, and idiotic, that so many environmentalists oppose fracking despite its contribution to the suppression of coal fired plants.

That's true, natural gas is (fortunately) less polluting that coal and that's a good thing. 

It's also incidental to the topic, which is the policy of increasing the recovery of hydrocarbons for fuel, which is what environmentalists generally oppose.  That's not "idiotic", that's simple common sense.

The 50 years guess was a personal estimate for when the danger of AGW will become obvious to everyone in the body politic, whether is seems to be affecting them personally or not.  When that happens, you will see a desparate - and possibly futile - effort to reverse the energy policies that rely on hydrocarbons   I based that guess on the apparent rate of change over the last few decades, but it could be quicker - say 20 to 30 years. 

Regardless, there are no rational arguments that an increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius will not have a dramatic change on our climate which will include disasterous regional changes along with associated economic/social consequences globally.  And that 2 degree increase is pretty much a done deal even if the body politic came to it's senses today.  It can only get worse.

[homersapien 11,452]

Of course fracking also involves injecting thousands of tons of (unrevealed) toxic chemicals into the earth where our water table also resides.

But hey, what could possibly go wrong? 

[homersapien 11,452]

Not to fear.  We have a very "stable genius" on the job:

Trump to slash clean-energy funding 72 percent, lauds "beautiful clean coal"

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1115090_trump-to-slash-clean-energy-funding-72-percent-lauds-beautiful-clean-coal

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's true, natural gas is (fortunately) less polluting that coal and that's a good thing. 

It's also incidental to the topic, which is the policy of increasing the recovery of hydrocarbons for fuel, which is what environmentalists generally oppose.  That's not "idiotic", that's simple common sense.

The 50 years guess was a personal estimate for when the danger of AGW will become obvious to everyone in the body politic, whether is seems to be affecting them personally or not.  When that happens, you will see a desparate - and possibly futile - effort to reverse the energy policies that rely on hydrocarbons   I based that guess on the apparent rate of change over the last few decades, but it could be quicker - say 20 to 30 years. 

Regardless, there are no rational arguments that an increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius will not have a dramatic change on our climate which will include disasterous regional changes along with associated economic/social consequences globally.  And that 2 degree increase is pretty much a done deal even if the body politic came to it's senses today.  It can only get worse.

Tensions arise due largely in part to the vast number of differing opinions about the future effects of fossil fuel production, competing opinions (as you know) that are both credible. Also at play, is the collateral of extreme regulation of natural gas production. As we know, natural gas is one of the primary driving forces of our economy - we are talking billions in infrastructure investment alone per year - which doesn't even include wellhead production and downstream economic benefits either, also, while it's also arguably more economically feasible than say, renewable energy. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course fracking also involves injecting thousands of tons of (unrevealed) toxic chemicals into the earth where our water table also resides.

But hey, what could possibly go wrong? 

Fracking fluid is 99% sand and water. Claims of fracking fluid are unsubstantiated, as the most recent EPA report shows. The very chemicals that apparently "could" end up in the water table are naturally occurring. Theoretically, one could drill a water well in the wrong spot and the unwanted chemicals could be there. Before fracking was even practiced in certain areas, water was  contaminated with the very ingredients.  

[homersapien 11,452]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Fracking fluid is 99% sand and water. Claims of fracking fluid are unsubstantiated, as the most recent EPA report shows. The very chemicals that apparently "could" end up in the water table are naturally occurring. Theoretically, one could drill a water well in the wrong spot and the unwanted chemicals could be there. Before fracking was even practiced in certain areas, water was  contaminated with the very ingredients.  

And CO2 is only 400 ppm (0.04%) of the atmosphere and it also occurs naturally.   So the "99% sand and water" defense is an obfusation.   

https://www.popsci.com/what-is-in-fracking-fluid

What the frack is in fracking fluid?

Most of the ingredients are unknown

 

Like I said, what could go wrong?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course fracking also involves injecting thousands of tons of (unrevealed) toxic chemicals into the earth where our water table also resides.

But hey, what could possibly go wrong? 

From the most recent EPA report:

EPA found scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances. The report identifies certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe. 

Circumstances which impose liability.

For this exact reason, the EPA doesn't regulate underground injections (fracking fluid) unless the fluid contains diesel. Fracking companies are imposed a standard of care which imposes liability in the failure to exercise legal standards of care. Risk is inherent, but not unreasonably inherent or certain to occur. A common standard applied in other practices.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, homersapien said:

And CO2 is only 400 ppm (0.04%) of the atmosphere, so the "99% sand and water" is an obfusation.   And it also occurs naturally.

Like I said, what could go wrong?

Yes and the remaining ingredients are proprietary. The Obama administration required, IMO, too much disclosure - in which the EPA looked into and still declined oversight of underground injections other than those that contain diesel fuel. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Of course fracking also involves injecting thousands of tons of (unrevealed) toxic chemicals into the earth where our water table also resides.

But hey, what could possibly go wrong? 

What is your take on the collateral (economic)? Say we slashed extraction by 50% for environmental concerns - why wouldn't our economy suffer catastrophically? 

[homersapien 11,452]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes and the remaining ingredients are proprietary. The Obama administration required, IMO, too much disclosure - in which the EPA looked into and still declined oversight of underground injections other than those that contain diesel fuel. 

Seriously?  That's your defense for such a practice?

[homersapien 11,452]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What is your take on the collateral (economic)? Say we slashed extraction by 50% for environmental concerns - why wouldn't our economy suffer catastrophically? 

If done responsibly, slashing our extraction of petrochemicals by 50% could provide a new basis of technological and economic growth.  It's already stimulating research and development in all areas of sustainable energy production.

Unfortunately, it will become increasingly more difficult to make such a transition the longer we wait.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Seriously?  That's your defense for such a practice?

That's not a defense. The EPA has looked extensively into the practice. And I am talking about Obama's EPA. Part of the issues many had with Obama's EPA was the proprietary disclosure that it required...

So is your issue fracking or the disposal which takes place afterwards? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

If done responsibly, slashing our extraction of petrochemicals by 50% could provide a new basis of technological and economic growth.  It's already stimulating research and development in all areas of sustainable energy production.

Unfortunately, it will become increasingly more difficult to make such a transition the longer we wait.

I respectfully disagree with speculation that we could supplant the economic benefits of natural gas production. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And CO2 is only 400 ppm (0.04%) of the atmosphere and it also occurs naturally.   So the "99% sand and water" defense is an obfusation.   

https://www.popsci.com/what-is-in-fracking-fluid

What the frack is in fracking fluid?

Most of the ingredients are unknown

 

Like I said, what could go wrong?

I don't think the issue is the fluid though, it's the negligence of those in charge - Which the law imposes liability upon. Proper practices of hydro-fracking, like farming, are beneficial. Negligence, on the other hand, has undesired effects - thus, the law places standards and imposes liability for deviations from established standards, i.e., spills. Take BP for example. 

[homersapien 11,452]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That's not a defense. The EPA has looked extensively into the practice. And I am talking about Obama's EPA. Part of the issues many had with Obama's EPA was the proprietary disclosure that it required...

So is your issue fracking or the disposal which takes place afterwards? 

Fracking itself.  I don't see why we should create new environmental risks to propogate an energy system that has it's own significant, known risks.  (Perhaps the fact my own water comes from a 700 ft well makes me more senstive to such potential fracking risks.)

There is no disposal of the chemicals that remain in the earth.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Fracking itself.  I don't see why we should create new environmental risks to propogate an energy system that has it's own significant known risks.  (Perhaps the fact my own water comes from a 700 ft well makes me more senstive to such potential risks.)

There is no disposal of the chemicals that remain in the earth.

Not that in really bares on the focus of our conversation but..

After stimulation, about 20% to 40% of the fluid flows back to the surface and disposed by any one of a number of options. The four most common disposaloptions are: recycling for additional fracking, treatment and discharge to surface waters, underground injection, and storage in open air pits

[homersapien 11,452]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I respectfully disagree with speculation that we could supplant the economic benefits of natural gas production. 

Sooner or later we will have to replace hydrocarbons as a source of energy.  Like I said, we cannot afford to use all of what we know is there.

Such wholesale conversions from one source of energy to another -or from one economic basis to another - have occurred in man's history.  It's not like the obvious alternative doesn't already exist:

http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf

[homersapien 11,452]

4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Not that in really bares on the focus of our conversation but..

After stimulation, about 20% to 40% of the fluid flows back to the surface and disposed by any one of a number of options. The four most common disposaloptions are: recycling for additional fracking, treatment and discharge to surface waters, underground injection, and storage in open air pits

Not sure how this contributes to an argument that fracking is a good long term solution to our energy problems.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Sooner or later we will have to replace hydrocarbons as a source of energy.  Like I said, we cannot afford to use all of what we know is there.

Such wholesale conversions from one source of energy to another -or from one economic basis to another - have occurred in man's history.  

I don't think we will. There's plenty of untapped hydrocarbon areas to last in excess of what we can predict. As of now, offshore drilling in America accounts for an area of only 4%. In other words, 96% of offshore drilling tracts are untouched. 

Yes, like when the discovery and successful well used by Colonel Drake switched us from Whale Oil to Petroleum. Thanks to us drilling proponents, the whales were saved

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Not sure how this contributes to an argument that fracking is a good long term solution to our energy problems.

Because you said it isn't "disposed." Just a technical correction of your statement.