Why oil is cheap; what does it mean?

[Sven7]

Originally Posted by darcane

But, fracking wells don't continue to produce... they have to continue fracking in order to get more oil. This is part of why the cost to recover fracking oil is higher, and at the low prices, it won't make sense to continue producing at a loss. Unfortunately, with all the capital sunk into developing the fracking infrastructure, production needs to continue or the frackers risk big losses or bankruptcy.

That's what OPEC is banking on...



P.S. I can't help substituting a similar sounding f word for fracking, which makes this whole conversation rather amusing.

Not to mention the environmental and health costs of leaking oil and/or chemicals into the groundwater.

[Hersbird]

Fracked wells don't have to be refracked but some are. It's more that those were wells in the early days of fracking and just everything else, fracking has come a long way which makes refracking those old well start producing again without redrilling the whole well. So it's more that they left oil behind with old techniques.

[rmay635703]

I am tired of all the news stories that interview some dumbass trading in an economy car for a 4wd suburban.

"Gotta enjoy the low fuel prices while you can, total deuchbag, if you have the cash to commute in an empty suburban I doubt you care about fuel prices anyway."

Those stories should be prefaced with
"Interview with a moron"

[darcane]

Originally Posted by Sven7

Not to mention the environmental and health costs of leaking oil and/or chemicals into the groundwater.

I see a lot of scaremongering regarding fracking, but not many facts.

The biggest complaint seems to be that fracking creates cracks that will allow fracking fluid and methane to seep through the ground into the ground water. Physics dictates otherwise, as there are thousands of feet of impermeable rock in between. Contamination through leaking well casings and storage ponds is possible, but those are fairly rare occurrences.

Burning water makes for good TV, but 1) it's not actually toxic and 2) it's not caused by fracking.
WV MetroNews – Duke research: fracking not to blame for groundwater contamination

[Hersbird]

I was born in Baker Montana, the badlands of Montana right on the boarder with ND. That was 1970 and many locals had the problem of getting good water wells that didn't have so much methane you could light the water from the tap on fire. Fracking wasn't used then. The wells don't contain methane because fracking is nearby, there is fracking nearby because the wells contain methane naturally. The water has always been terrible in Fallon county Montana, why they had to give away double sized homesteads. The only reason there are towns there is the new railroad that came through needed a water stop every 20 miles or so. The railroad also needed passengers and cargo so why not throw up a fake town there as well? Then publish "free land" ads and articles in papers all over Europe. Almost every single one failed but not before filling a small family graveyard on each section. Had they made it to today they would be millionaires instead of the massive cattle ranches that bought them out being billionaires. Now it's no problem getting good drinking water in Fallon county, they never had that before fracking, go figure.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by darcane

Interesting, but I'm not sure how valid the numbers are.

"inflation adjusting" is typically based off the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI leaves off large segments of the economy, so it's a little off anyways, but one of those segments is energy, which includes gasoline.

So, using an Index that ignores gasoline to adjust the price of gasoline is inherently flawed IMO.

That was just the one I happen to have on hand.

I am very happy to bow to another more 'valid' Inflation adjustment .. I welcome that... by all means post your version of the ~60 year inflation adjusted graph .. I'd love to have another , possibly more 'valid' graph.

[freebeard]

I see a lot of scaremongering regarding fracking, but not many facts.

The biggest complaint seems to be that fracking creates cracks that will allow fracking fluid and methane to seep through the ground into the ground water. Physics dictates otherwise, as there are thousands of feet of impermeable rock in between. Contamination through leaking well casings and storage ponds is possible, but those are fairly rare occurrences.

[citation needed] but I've seen it said that there is more life (bacteria) below the Earth's surface, by weight, than on it.

If it's so benign, perhaps the energy companies would be willing to disclose what it is their pumping down there?

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by darcane

Chemical data is supplied to FracFocus.org
Which shows:
https://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/w...icals-are-used

Again,
Exactly VOC and solvents aren't the best for human health that I am aware of.

Originally Posted by freebeard

If it's so benign, perhaps the energy companies would be willing to disclose what it is their pumping down there?

[darcane]

Originally Posted by freebeard

[citation needed] but I've seen it said that there is more life (bacteria) below the Earth's surface, by weight, than on it.

If it's so benign, perhaps the energy companies would be willing to disclose what it is their pumping down there?

I didn't say it was benign... but they have published what chemicals are used. You could have found it too if you bothered to look.
From BP:
Unconventional gas and hydraulic fracturing | Sustainability | BP Global
Chemical data is supplied to FracFocus.org
Which shows:
https://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/w...icals-are-used

[Hersbird]

I also love the term "chemicals". Sounds so terrible. Everything is a chemical. I guess except positive thoughts and rainbows. So if we can't use chemicals maybe we can pump rainbows down the wells.