Balancing Energy Needs: The Debate on Drilling in the Bakken Shale

[Andre]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=550055&p=2

A short opinion article about 4.3 billion barrels of currently recoverable oil, in The Bakken Shale. However a study shows that the U.S. economy will suffer $2.3 trillion in lost-opportunity costs over the next two decades if a new energy policy would preclude drilling.

So what to do, to drill or not to drill? I am sure there must be some opinions about this.

 

[drankin]

If we have it, drill it.

 

[turbo]

Andre, the problem is not drilling. It's hydraulic fracturing of the bedrock that is a concern. The oil companies don't even want to identify the chemicals used in the fracing fluids, and there have been a number of events in which aquifers near fracing sites have been contaminated. Fracing fluids are typically loaded with silica or ceramics to prop open the fractures that the hydraulics produce. It would be a very simple matter to require the inclusion of taggants in the fracing fluid, like explosives manufacturers are required to use in their products, though I have not seen any such suggestion in the literature.

BTW, the source you linked is extremely right-wing. That will likely be allowed to stand, but it is hardly a balanced source of information in what has become a hot-button issue in many locations in the US. We all need clean drinking water in our homes, farms and businesses, and oil-company profits should never be allowed to trump that.

 

[NobodySpecial]

what about saving it until you need it?
Wouldn't you rather have North Sea oil revenues flowing into the economy now - rather than in the 70s when it was all wasted on flares and glitter balls.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Andre, the problem is not drilling. It's hydraulic fracturing of the bedrock that is a concern. The oil companies don't even want to identify the chemicals used in the fracing fluids, and there have been a number of events in which aquifers near fracing sites have been contaminated. Fracing fluids are typically loaded with silica or ceramics to prop open the fractures that the hydraulics produce. It would be a very simple matter to require the inclusion of taggants in the fracing fluid, like explosives manufacturers are required to use in their products, though I have not seen any such suggestion in the literature.

BTW, the source you linked is extremely right-wing. That will likely be allowed to stand, but it is hardly a balanced source of information in what has become a hot-button issue in many locations in the US. We all need clean drinking water in our homes, farms and businesses, and oil-company profits should never be allowed to trump that.

All true. And when I did a search for fracting and potential intervention to stop it, the references that came up were all state-level issues, so it would seem that resistance to this exists at all levels.

 

[lisab]

what about saving it until you need it?
Wouldn't you rather have North Sea oil revenues flowing into the economy now - rather than in the 70s when it was all wasted on flares and glitter balls.

I've thought about that too. During the last election, it was Drill Baby Drill. Well, from a strictly selfish point of view: since it's a non-renewable resource, why wouldn't you want to burn everyone else's, before you start to use up your own?

 

[Gokul43201]

If we have it, drill it.

Why?

 

[drankin]

Why?

Jobs mainly.

 

[WhoWee]

Andre, the problem is not drilling. It's hydraulic fracturing of the bedrock that is a concern. The oil companies don't even want to identify the chemicals used in the fracing fluids, and there have been a number of events in which aquifers near fracing sites have been contaminated. Fracing fluids are typically loaded with silica or ceramics to prop open the fractures that the hydraulics produce. It would be a very simple matter to require the inclusion of taggants in the fracing fluid, like explosives manufacturers are required to use in their products, though I have not seen any such suggestion in the literature. QUOTE]


It seems reasonable that only "safe" fracing fluids be used.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I favor leaving the oil in the ground. There will come a time when there is great need for oil, much more than today. We can push that day further back by raising energy prices and transitioning away from fossil fuels. We can lessen that day's impact by having extra oil that can be drilled. Both aims are accomplished by leaving the oil where it is.

 

[drankin]

I favor leaving the oil in the ground. There will come a time when there is great need for oil, much more than today. We can push that day further back by raising energy prices and transitioning away from fossil fuels. We can lessen that day's impact by having extra oil that can be drilled. Both aims are accomplished by leaving the oil where it is.

We will never run out of oil. There will just be less and less of it. As this happens it will get more expensive. Eventually to the point that we will have no choice but to use alternatives. We need jobs more than we need to leave work in the ground. IMO.

 

[CRGreathouse]

drankin, are you familiar with the broken-window fallacy?

 

[turbo]

It seems reasonable that only "safe" fracing fluids be used.

That seems reasonable to you and me. Oil companies refuse to disclose the composition of the fracing fluids (trade-secret argument) though, and the regulatory agencies have not been able to gain the traction to get through that stone-wall. Either that, or they have incentives not to force the issue. Either way, if the oil companies were forced to include taggants in their fracing fluids, it would be a simple matter to demonstrate that fracing was responsible for the contamination of nearby aquifers.

I realize that this is the purely reactionary approach, in which we can show that the process caused damage only after the damage is done, which does not help the people who rely on the aquifer for clean water. Given the current impotence of our regulatory agencies, perhaps this is the "best" we can hope for. What a sorry state of affairs!

 

[Borek]

We will never run out of oil. There will just be less and less of it. As this happens it will get more expensive. Eventually to the point that we will have no choice but to use alternatives. We need jobs more than we need to leave work in the ground. IMO.

This seems to be shortsighted. Transition to alternatives will most likely cost the economy and society much more than todays unemployment.

 

[mugaliens]

We will never run out of oil.

I can only presume you've pre-selected places where all of humanity might bury our heads in the sand while blindly adhering to your unorthodox and rather unscientific faith despite the facts which are rapidly growing to counteract your belief...

There will just be less and less of it. As this happens it will get more expensive. Eventually to the point that we will have no choice but to use alternatives.

That is the precise definition of peak oil.

We need jobs more than we need to leave work in the ground. IMO.

"Jobs" are a politician's promise for reelection. They have nothing to do with a solution for humanity's decisive next thirty years, including how we're going to bridge peak oil.

 

[mugaliens]

I favor leaving the oil in the ground.

We already have perfected means of syntheticating our needs aside from all fuel oils. The issue exists where we can leapfrong the crisis by means of technologies yet the sticks in the mud choose not to do so and wind up bankrupting our entire country because they they both REFUSE to adopt more sustainable technologies themselves while remaining in staunch opposition to better, and less costly alternatives themselves.

There will come a time when there is great need for oil, much more than today. We can push that day further back by raising energy prices...

Very much NOT the way things are done, no matter how tried and true your goals might be...

..and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Agreed.

We can lessen that day's impact by having extra oil that can be drilled.

You're advocating a transition away from fossil fuels based on a reliance on fossil fuels.

Please forgive me if I slap my foreheard.

Both aims are accomplished by leaving the oil where it is.

Sorry, but no. The only aim is to move to alternative energy sources.

 

[drankin]

I can only presume you've pre-selected places where all of humanity might bury our heads in the sand while blindly adhering to your unorthodox and rather unscientific faith despite the facts which are rapidly growing to counteract your belief...

Enough with the condescending blather. Can you show any evidence to the contrary? We will have moved on from the internal combustion engine as a means of "common" transportation long before we use up all the oil available. As oil becomes more scarce, the price goes up. Eventually it will not longer be cost effective fuel. It's called supply and demand.

 

[Borek]

Enough with the condescending blather. Can you show any evidence to the contrary? We will have moved on from the internal combustion engine as a means of "common" transportation long before we use up all the oil available. As oil becomes more scarce, the price goes up. Eventually it will not longer be cost effective fuel. It's called supply and demand.

Can you show any evidence that's the way it will work?

Predicting future is a high risk business, you know.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can you show any evidence that's the way it will work?

Predicting future is a high risk business, you know.

Predictions are always risky, especially about the future.

 

[mheslep]

Predicting future is a high risk business, you know.

Jumping in ...
Yes it is, but at the time it is not considered very risky for doomers apparently:

Transition to alternatives will most likely cost the economy and society much more than todays unemployment.

 

[mheslep]

I hope posts using main stream sources with possible bias are allowed to stand over those over posts with no sources what so ever.

 

[Borek]

Yes it is, but at the time it is not considered very risky for doomers apparently:

Transition to alternatives will most likely cost the economy and society much more than todays unemployment.

Good point, a little bit too strong statement on my part, should put "probably" instead of "most likely" or something like that. What I was aiming at is that there are possible transition problems which IMHO have been ignored by Drankin.

 

[mheslep]

Good point, a little bit too strong statement on my part, should put "probably" instead of "most likely" or something like that. What I was aiming at is that there are possible transition problems which IMHO have been ignored by Drankin.

I know, but throughout the industrial age we've had similar concerns about running out of wood, running of whale oil, Jevon's said the UK would probably exhaust its coal supply and collapse, and we've likely had four or five predictions in the past many decades that the world would soon, if not had already, hit peak oil production. Certainly oil production will eventually peak (as did wood for fuel, whale oil, etc), but clearly there is something built-in to the human psyche that wants to believe the-end-is-nigh. Thus it seems to me most of the burden of examining past transitions should be on to the doom sayer side rather than the other way around, at least as long as the modern world has relatively free societies with price signals.

 

[SSmills]

We need to drill more but do it in a responsible manner. We can't have another gulf diasater the toll on the economy and human lives are too great. The most important thing to realize is that oil is not always going to be present so we need a comprehensive energy policy that is proactive instead of reactive to avoid disater in the long run:)