the frack thread

[emordnilap]

More fracking earthquakes, this time in Oklahoma.

"The observation that a human-induced earthquake can trigger a cascade of earthquakes, including a larger one, has important implications for reducing the seismic risk from wastewater injection," Elizabeth Cochran, USGS seismologist and coauthor of a study on the earthquakes

In August, five Arkansas residents who sued oil companies Chesapeake Energy Corpand BHP Billiton Ltd , claiming wastewater disposal wells from fracking caused earthquakes that damaged their homes, settled with the companies for an undisclosed sum.

An gagging 'agreements', no doubt.

[raspberry-blower]

DECC consultation on fracking: A Cut 'N' Paste response guide

Consultation ends tomorrow - get your views heard

[Ralph]

On the other hand, Paul Mobbs says: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... order.html

And Paul's expertise in the geosciences as they relate to estimating the presence or economic viability of resource quantities is…..??

Philosophical objections to…well…anything….can be interesting to the right audience, I suppose as an attempt to change human behavior? But economics does a pretty good job of describing human behavior as well, and it basically comes down to, if someone wants it badly enough (expressed through price), the philosophical objection is moot.

[Little John]

On the other hand, Paul Mobbs says: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... order.html

And Paul's expertise in the geosciences as they relate to estimating the presence or economic viability of resource quantities is…..??

Philosophical objections to…well…anything….can be interesting to the right audience, I suppose as an attempt to change human behavior? But economics does a pretty good job of describing human behavior as well, and it basically comes down to, if someone wants it badly enough (expressed through price), the philosophical objection is moot.

Economic theory, particularly neo-liberal capitalist economic theory, does a crap job of explaining human behaviour. Or have you you been on f***ing Mars for the last few years.

[emordnilap]

Oil and gas majors now cutting back in U.S. shale gas fields

[vtsnowedin]

These new directions by the oil and gas majors are acknowledgements their energy returns on energy investments are becoming increasingly difficult and hampering their profits despite the initial high expectations for U.S. shale formations over the last several years.

Ah, they get EROEI. Imagine that!
Time to stock up the bunker.

[RenewableCandy]

On the other hand, Paul Mobbs says: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_a ... order.html

And Paul's expertise in the geosciences as they relate to estimating the presence or economic viability of resource quantities is…..??

Philosophical objections to…well…anything….can be interesting to the right audience, I suppose as an attempt to change human behavior? But economics does a pretty good job of describing human behavior as well, and it basically comes down to, if someone wants it badly enough (expressed through price), the philosophical objection is moot.

Economic theory, particularly neo-liberal capitalist economic theory, does a crap job of explaining human behaviour. Or have you you been on ******* Mars for the last few years.

Ralph has got a better excuse than that: not being (or not writing as) a human

[Ralph]

Economic theory, particularly neo-liberal capitalist economic theory, does a crap job of explaining human behaviour. Or have you you been on ******* Mars for the last few years.

Nope. Been hanging with economists. But they haven't explained to me yet the difference between basic economic concepts, cost/supply curves, demand curves, price, and neo-liberal capitalist economic theory. Is that some sub specialty within a subgroup of economic theory, sort of like peak oil is a subgroup of resource scarcity in general?

Do these neo-liberals do any better at what they do then the peak oilers did what they did?

[Ralph]

These new directions by the oil and gas majors are acknowledgements their energy returns on energy investments are becoming increasingly difficult and hampering their profits despite the initial high expectations for U.S. shale formations over the last several years.

Ah, they get EROEI. Imagine that!
Time to stock up the bunker.

That statement appeared to be a conclusion by the author, because certainly the article doesn't talk about how poorly the BTU return ion BTU investment has been going. They keep using the $ sign when discussing such things. Darn them!

Perhaps the author has read one too many peak oil websites, or doesn't understand that oil companies don't spend BTUs to get more BTUs? They spend $, collect BTUs, sell the BTUs for $, and hope that one set of $ is larger than the $, regardless of the BTUs involved.

[another_exlurker]

...or doesn't understand that oil companies don't spend BTUs to get more BTUs? They spend $, collect BTUs, sell the BTUs for $, and hope that one set of $ is larger than the $, regardless of the BTUs involved.

So oil companies just arrive at a place, analyse the local geology and find a source of energy, build and transport extraction equipment to the site, then extract said energy and finally transport that energy to market and do so without using (spending) any energy at all?

Pull the other one Gandalf, there's a hobbit in my pocket.

[odaeio]

...or doesn't understand that oil companies don't spend BTUs to get more BTUs? They spend $, collect BTUs, sell the BTUs for $, and hope that one set of $ is larger than the $, regardless of the BTUs involved.

So oil companies just arrive at a place, analyse the local geology and find a source of energy, build and transport extraction equipment to the site, then extract said energy and finally transport that energy to market and do so without using (spending) any energy at all?

Pull the other one Gandalf, there's a hobbit in my pocket.

No wait, Ralph didn't say that - he simply said they don't care. Who cares a damn about energy used/extracted whatever, all they care about is that it can be sold for more than it cost to extract in money terms. All that matters is profit..........it's economics see? No need for daft things like reality, just figures in a bank statement, all economics needs is money. Things like energy, resources, labour etc can simply be ignored, don't cha know? All those things WILL be available as long as someone wants to buy them, since ALL "buyers" have unlimited amounts of "money", so they will simply pay whatever price to have what they want. Brilliant concept, can't possibly fail.

[Ralph]

So oil companies just arrive at a place, analyse the local geology and find a source of energy, build and transport extraction equipment to the site, then extract said energy and finally transport that energy to market and do so without using (spending) any energy at all?

Pull the other one Gandalf, there's a hobbit in my pocket.

Are you KIDDING!! Oil companies bleed BTU's all OVER the place!!

They just don't determine success…or failure…based on the BTU's they expend versus the BTU's they produce. One of those tricky things related to the value of particular BTUs…for example…some BTUs are worth so little that..well….they just don't even care!!

Look at this waste of BTUs!!

[Ralph]

No wait, Ralph didn't say that - he simply said they don't care. Who cares a damn about energy used/extracted whatever, all they care about is that it can be sold for more than it cost to extract in money terms. All that matters is profit..........it's economics see?

Close!! Economics describes human behavior under various stimuli. One of those stimuli is chasing the almighty $$$!!!

But otherwise, you have described what I said well. Not that I like a system designed around chasing the almighty dollar any better than anyone else, but before any of us can start to lay out our path in the world, we must understand the basics of how it works, that we not be surprised. And then plan accordingly.

Things like energy, resources, labour etc can simply be ignored, don't cha know?

All you KIDDING? All of those things must be incorporated in any calculation of how we make that almighty $$. What is the saying? It costs money to make money? To make money the costs of energy, conversion of resources into production to make power, pay for labor, parts, pieces, environmental compliance, ALL of these things must be taken into account.

All those things WILL be available as long as someone wants to buy them, since ALL "buyers" have unlimited amounts of "money", so they will simply pay whatever price to have what they want. Brilliant concept, can't possibly fail.

Fortunately, economic theory understands scarcity, it understands substitution and conservation, and it allows for such things with shifts in cost/supply/demand curves. Basic examples of how this works can be found here:



See how these things are non-linear? That's where the FUN part happens! Less resources for more effort, sort of like decreasing EROEI except in the right accounting system….certainly energy doesn't work because such a system is too inflexible between the value of a BTU.

[Little John]

.....Fortunately, economic theory understands scarcity, it understands substitution and conservation, and it allows for such things with shifts in cost/supply/demand curves. Basic examples of how this works can be found here:

Drivel.

"Free market" economic theory doesn't "understand" anything. It's merely a disingenuous description of a blind process. It's not some mythical, sentient force in the world and it certainly doesn't "understand" stuff like conservation. Indeed, the very blindness of free markets may pretty much ensure that certain resources will not be conserved.

One example: Rhino horns are valued by certain Asian cultures for their supposed, but entirely fictitious, aphrodisiac and other medicinal properties. Consequently, there is a market for rhino horn. This market is growing due to increasing wealth in the Asiatic countries plus a rising population of Asian consumers due to population increases more generally. As the rhinos are being pushed towards extinction, the price of rhino horn rises to meet the tightening of supply relative to demand. This, in turn, further incentives the suppliers of rhino horn to hunt down the last rhinos with ever greater voracity until, eventually, the very last rhino horn will no doubt fetch a price worthy of an emperor’s ransom. In other words, the end of the rhino horn trade will not occur due to demand destruction. It will occur due to supply destruction. Also, as I write this, it occurs to me that the person who felled the very last stand of trees on Easter island was no doubt able to command a fabulous price for his wood.

Your devotion to the myth that the "free market" will solve all human economic problems and the problem of resource conservation in particular on a planet of finite resources is nothing more than a dumb-ass, pseudo-religious dogma. Free market economic theory is just the latest bullshit excuse used by humans for not having to think about the next guy or about tomorrow. Sometimes that excuse has taken the form of "The Word of God" or the "Divinity of Kings" and, latterly, has taken the form of a variety of more secular "isms". "Free market capitalism" being merely the latest lyric to a very old and shabby tune.

[Ralph]

.....Fortunately, economic theory understands scarcity, it understands substitution and conservation, and it allows for such things with shifts in cost/supply/demand curves. Basic examples of how this works can be found here:

Drivel.

"Free market" economic theory doesn't "understand" anything.

I didn't say free market understands something, I said economic theory understands scarcity. Once those cost of supply curves go vertical and all…boy…we are TOAST!!

It will occur due to supply destruction. Also, as I write this, it occurs to me that the person who felled the very last stand of trees on Easter island was no doubt able to command a fabulous price for his wood.

Could be. But then we can't assume that the folks on Easter Island had anything like a free market, can we? Or even the basics of one, they could have been pretty hunter/gathered/grower/fisherman types couldn't they?

Much like certain forms of mathematics related to physics, quantum mechanics and such, things tend to break down at the extremes of almost any system. Economics isn't really any different, it is designed for mostly use in the modern world I imagine, and does a pretty reasonable job as long as you don't get too close to the extremes. Fortunately, oil isn't yet at one of those extremes.

Your devotion to the myth that the "free market" will solve all human economic problems and the problem of resource conservation in particular on a planet of finite resources is nothing more than a dumb-ass, pseudo-religious dogma.

I don't recall saying anything at all about the free market. My comments have been focused on how basic economic theory tends to explain quite a few things quite well, and therefore we can also discuss other changes (such as substitution and conservation) and how that then effects the economic conditions of our world.

"Free market capitalism" being merely the latest lyric to a very old and shabby tune.

Then I recommend dialing back your fascination of it. Certainly I have none.