3 ms·

I think you're mistaken about the government involvement in fracking. Sure, the basic technique may have been developed by private companies, but government sup

I think you're mistaken about the government involvement in fracking. Sure, the basic technique may have been developed by private companies, but government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/us-government-role-in-shale-gas-fracking-history-a-response-to-our-critics https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/us-government-role...

credit_guy 5y ago
> government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications. The Government gets involved in a lot of things, but it doesn't mean its contribution is essential. For a recent example, the NIH is claiming the Moderna vaccine is due to their contribution, and sure, you'll be able to find one or a few grants here or there of a few hundred thousand dollars, but the massive investments of tens of millions of dollars were done by Moderna itself. As for fracking, the father of fracking is considered to be George P. Mitchell [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Mitchell
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- brutusborn 5y ago
  You're right, but I think it was essential in this case: " His comment that “the DOE started it” refers to the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a research effort in the Appalachia Basin from 1979 that proved shale rock was rich in natural gas. The DOE-supported project tested the use of nitrogen foam to fracture shale formations, and its analysis led to a deeper understanding of natural shale fractures. George Mitchell’s team studied those results while developing the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth, the first modern fracking play. The company relied on research from the Sandia National Laboratory to use micro-seismic technology to map the shale fractures in wells, and Mitchell also benefited from federal tax credits for unconventional drilling, which helped underwrite the cost of developing hydraulic fracturing. " https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/10/31/how-much-did-the-feds-really-help-with-fracking/?sh=4b43ef853edf https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/10/31/how-much...
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    From your link: “The government’s role in fracking’s development was important, but not so important that it eclipses the effort and investment of private industry”
    - brutusborn 5y ago
      I interpreted that as meaning "don't forget private industry had an important role". This doesn't mean that the private sector could have done it alone (my interpretation of government investment being essential). But at that stage it's semantics really. Maybe we could ask the question: "would private industry have funded all the basic research to get to the same starting point?" I doubt it since it would not have been shown returns for many decades and had a high risk of showing no returns. But maybe they would have, who knows? A parallel question: "would private industry have developed semiconductor transistors without WW2 research into radar systems?

credit_guy 5y ago

> government supported research expanded it to oil and gas applications. The Government gets involved in a lot of things, but it doesn't mean its contribution is essential. For a recent example, the NIH is claiming the Moderna vaccine is due to their contribution, and sure, you'll be able to find one or a few grants here or there of a few hundred thousand dollars, but the massive investments of tens of millions of dollars were done by Moderna itself. As for fracking, the father of fracking is considered to be George P. Mitchell [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Mitchell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Mitchell

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
brutusborn 5y ago
You're right, but I think it was essential in this case: " His comment that “the DOE started it” refers to the Eastern Gas Shales Project, a research effort in the Appalachia Basin from 1979 that proved shale rock was rich in natural gas. The DOE-supported project tested the use of nitrogen foam to fracture shale formations, and its analysis led to a deeper understanding of natural shale fractures. George Mitchell’s team studied those results while developing the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth, the first modern fracking play. The company relied on research from the Sandia National Laboratory to use micro-seismic technology to map the shale fractures in wells, and Mitchell also benefited from federal tax credits for unconventional drilling, which helped underwrite the cost of developing hydraulic fracturing. " https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/10/31/how-much-did-the-feds-really-help-with-fracking/?sh=4b43ef853edf https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2013/10/31/how-much...
- credit_guy 5y ago
  From your link: “The government’s role in fracking’s development was important, but not so important that it eclipses the effort and investment of private industry”
  - brutusborn 5y ago
    I interpreted that as meaning "don't forget private industry had an important role". This doesn't mean that the private sector could have done it alone (my interpretation of government investment being essential). But at that stage it's semantics really. Maybe we could ask the question: "would private industry have funded all the basic research to get to the same starting point?" I doubt it since it would not have been shown returns for many decades and had a high risk of showing no returns. But maybe they would have, who knows? A parallel question: "would private industry have developed semiconductor transistors without WW2 research into radar systems?