7 ms·

Seems disingenuous to not mention that most of that US oil (65%!) comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer import

Seems disingenuous to not mention that most of that US oil (65%!) comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer imports. Or, put simply: how much US oil comes from fracking? Not a small number - the aforementioned 65%. Source for this data: the U.S. government. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=847&t=6 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=847&t=6 Remember, these aren't small amounts of water either. I live in California, where we have drought conditions. How much water do you think a typical well uses? "Up to 9.6 million gallons of water (!!!!) per well." For just one well! https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/analysis-fracking-waters-dirty-secret/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/analysis-fracking... That whole sentence is worth quoting in full: Oil and natural gas fracking, on average, uses more than 28 times the water it did 15 years ago, gulping up to 9.6 million gallons of water per well and putting farming and drinking sources at risk in arid states, especially during drought. So, here's the thing. The "cost" of that water in the market is just the cost in dollars. But to Americans, and future generations? It's much higher. You can throw a stone at a US map and hit a state that's experiencing drought conditions right now (and that well water is permanently off limits for drinking). If we can slash the real cost - the externality cost - by just buying it from elsewhere, we should. And we do. And that's the right choice, despite what NASDAQ thinks.

new_stranger 5y ago
This just hints at how toxic the fracking chemicals used are. It's not just the water, it's the pollution that is compounding this issue. Water always has, and always will recirculate - but pumping dangerous contaminants into our water tables is a big problem that effects current generations as well.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Evidence please. (Of contaminants in water tables, not the toxicity of oil)
  - op00to 5y ago
    You’re asking for evidence that oil exploration and extraction leaves contaminants in water tables? The US EPA gives 5 easy to understand situations where fracking destroys drinking water through toxic chemicals making it into groundwater. • Spills during the handling of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water; and • Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination ofgroundwater resource https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/hf_final_assessment_fact_sheet.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/hf...
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Those are all listed possibilities. Not evidence for its occurrence. Contrast this to the evidence for coal contaminating water supplies with mercury. Fracking, despite its reputation and scary name, is safe. Like, flying airplanes safe.
      - dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Here is a very recent paper describing three worst of the worst situations, where a casing was improperly cemented. Even then it is really unclear how bad the contamination was. Keep in mind there are over a million fracked wells in the USA. Hammond, P. A., Wen, T., Brantley, S. L., & Engelder, T. (2020). Gas well integrity and methane migration: evaluation of published evidence during shale-gas development in the USA. Hydrogeology Journal, 28(4), 1481-1502.
        markdown 5y ago
        Can you light your tap water on fire, or do you refuse to live where this "safe" fracking occurs?
landemva 5y ago
I will summarize those paragraphs - as long as USA can afford to export manufacturing pollution to poor countries that allow excess pollution, we should continue to have the pollution dumped over there. I don't agree with that. I support pollution import duties to remove some of the economic advantage of dumping pollution over there.
- namdnay 5y ago
  Most oil isn’t extracted by fracking
- Spooky23 5y ago
  The big oil producers still mostly just pump. The US exhausted fields in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio 100+ years ago and has depleted the big western fields as well - production in the US requires fracking.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Yes, though still lots of oil in the western States. USA can be energy independent, and was just a couple years ago. The tech is cleaner than ever and laterals reduce pad impacts.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      I heard politicians bleating on about that, but my lying' eyes told me a different story. My office during this period was next to an inland port and rail facility. Every day, hundreds of Canadian National Railway cars with explosive tar sands oil lumbered by to be loaded on ships bound for refineries. High commodity prices drive expensive oil production. That includes fracked gas and oil and other "exotic" sources. An extended war in Ukraine will certainly trigger a domestic oil boom.
dgfitz 5y ago
> Seems disingenuous to not mention that most of that US oil (65%!) comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer imports. This reads like the NIMBY stance of oil production. “Make whatever mess you want, keep it where it is! Can’t have that happening in my state/country!” So you’d rather export pollution instead of being energy independent and trying to fix fracking laws?
- Symbiote 5y ago
  Oil produced from other sources (i.e. traditional wells) is presumably less bad for the environment, since it isn't using huge amounts of fresh water.
- brokencode 5y ago
  The point is that we need to use fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other oil fields. It’s not NIMBY if it truly is worse when it happens in your backyard.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    I'm not sure that was the original point. If extracting oil results in $x of long term damage to the local environment, but that cost isn't passed along, it makes economic sense to buy oil from somewhere else so you don't end up footing that bill. Sure it would be better overall if that other place could extract oil without that cost but that doesn't make the decision less rational even if that environmental cost is as much or more than it would be to extract it locally.
    - techNoob123 5y ago
      i think what’s missing is that fracking is used in the U.S. non-fracking methods are used outside the U.S. fracking is worse for the environment than non-fracking methods. i hold my personal opinions on each point but i think this is what OP was trying to convey
  - 5y ago
jensensbutton 5y ago
So the solution is the import from countries where the practices are more destructive and there's less regulation to reign them in? > If we can slash the real cost - the externality cost - by just buying it from elsewhere, we should. I wonder what you think "externality" means?
- t0mas88 5y ago
  I think a lot of oil import comes from countries which don't need these practices? Saudi Arabia being an example of a place where the oil almost comes out of the ground on its own, no need for fracking.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    And propping up Saudi Arabia’s “government” doesn’t come with its own externalities?
dchichkov 5y ago
Putting a price of $6.5 for a gallon of gas (this is how much gas in Europe normally costs €1.58/liter = $6.5/gallon) is a right thing to do. Hopefully this would diminish consumption, reduce carbon footprint and wouldn't require purchasing extra crude. May cause a revolt though, if advertised to the main street improperly.
- landemva 5y ago
  I will support $10 gallon gasoline if we first pass constitutional amendment to repeal the personal income tax.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    Nice try. Other than the government mandating this price which is just another tax the operators have no reasons to suddenly charge this much. Besides you either have loads of money and do not give a hoot or you just live close to work.
    - landemva 5y ago
      Yes, add on to the tax which is already around 55 cents per gallon. Would you support $6 gallon fuel tax while relieving everyone from fear of IRS audits? (It's for the children!) And add $10 to aviation fuel.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    Why would you support a regressive tax scheme that impacts the poor and middle class far more than the wealthy? To be clear, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just don't understand this viewpoint at all.
    - landemva 5y ago
      They already suffer, and the benefit is to free the poor and middle class from personal income tax. The rich already escaped as generally their money is not personal income for purpose of income tax. When the king takes a portion of my labor 'because he can', then I am a slave. The rich generally understand how to escape the income tax slavery. Let's free the poor.
president 5y ago
Your rationale makes sense in a paradise world where there are no wars and no countries vying for hegemony. There is an immense national security aspect and domestic economic situation you are ignoring which could not be anymore relevant today.
opwieurposiu 5y ago
Most of the frac water used these days is "produced water", ie. dirty/salty water that comes up with the oil from other wells.
yyyk 5y ago
>comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer imports. I'm sure Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi, etc. really care about the environment and their reports about environment sustainability* are totally true. The average oil producer is a dictatorship, and I suspect the impact of lack of transparency is more important than the drilling method - they have every motivation to cut corners, while American oil is openly regulated. So from the global perspective I doubt American production is more polluting. * If they even have any.
- xmprt 5y ago
  Other countries might be less sustainable however that lack of sustainability doesn't impact the US as much. The real cost of oil drilled within the US is higher than the real cost of oil drilled outside the US.
  - yyyk 5y ago
    We're just seeing a real live demonstration that the real cost of oil produced by the typical non-US oil producer has its own externalities and they're not pretty. With the money saved by preventing these issues one should be able to solve the water problem (waste recycling? desalinization? other liquids?).
- coolso 5y ago
  > comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer imports. This globalist-centric way of thinking is why we’re currently paying $5/gallon, the highest amount ever. Such a “hidden” tax on the working class is why we should shun imports and be self sufficient both with oil as well as manufacturing - or at least as much as humanly possible.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
muyuu 5y ago
it seems also disingenuous that the environmental impact at origin of the imported oil is completely ignored, and the same applies for other imports including consumer goods or even "green energy" related devices and materials (batteries, solar panels, etc) also the US has a variety of conditions for prospection, CA being one of the worst places for new prospection projects - so this also needs to be taken into account PS: at 3$/gallon I suspect the majority of consumers were already not taking gas consumption lightly, so while it's true that energy savings are a crucial part of the picture, they were already very heavily incentivised for a while in the US and certainly here in Europe as well

new_stranger 5y ago

This just hints at how toxic the fracking chemicals used are. It's not just the water, it's the pollution that is compounding this issue. Water always has, and always will recirculate - but pumping dangerous contaminants into our water tables is a big problem that effects current generations as well.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
Evidence please. (Of contaminants in water tables, not the toxicity of oil)
- op00to 5y ago
  You’re asking for evidence that oil exploration and extraction leaves contaminants in water tables? The US EPA gives 5 easy to understand situations where fracking destroys drinking water through toxic chemicals making it into groundwater. • Spills during the handling of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources; • Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources; • Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water; and • Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination ofgroundwater resource https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/hf_final_assessment_fact_sheet.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/hf...
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Those are all listed possibilities. Not evidence for its occurrence. Contrast this to the evidence for coal contaminating water supplies with mercury. Fracking, despite its reputation and scary name, is safe. Like, flying airplanes safe.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Here is a very recent paper describing three worst of the worst situations, where a casing was improperly cemented. Even then it is really unclear how bad the contamination was. Keep in mind there are over a million fracked wells in the USA. Hammond, P. A., Wen, T., Brantley, S. L., & Engelder, T. (2020). Gas well integrity and methane migration: evaluation of published evidence during shale-gas development in the USA. Hydrogeology Journal, 28(4), 1481-1502.
      - markdown 5y ago
        Can you light your tap water on fire, or do you refuse to live where this "safe" fracking occurs?

landemva 5y ago

I will summarize those paragraphs - as long as USA can afford to export manufacturing pollution to poor countries that allow excess pollution, we should continue to have the pollution dumped over there. I don't agree with that. I support pollution import duties to remove some of the economic advantage of dumping pollution over there.

namdnay 5y ago
Most oil isn’t extracted by fracking
Spooky23 5y ago
The big oil producers still mostly just pump. The US exhausted fields in Pennsylvania, New York and Ohio 100+ years ago and has depleted the big western fields as well - production in the US requires fracking.
- landemva 5y ago
  Yes, though still lots of oil in the western States. USA can be energy independent, and was just a couple years ago. The tech is cleaner than ever and laterals reduce pad impacts.
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    I heard politicians bleating on about that, but my lying' eyes told me a different story. My office during this period was next to an inland port and rail facility. Every day, hundreds of Canadian National Railway cars with explosive tar sands oil lumbered by to be loaded on ships bound for refineries. High commodity prices drive expensive oil production. That includes fracked gas and oil and other "exotic" sources. An extended war in Ukraine will certainly trigger a domestic oil boom.

dgfitz 5y ago

> Seems disingenuous to not mention that most of that US oil (65%!) comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer imports. This reads like the NIMBY stance of oil production. “Make whatever mess you want, keep it where it is! Can’t have that happening in my state/country!” So you’d rather export pollution instead of being energy independent and trying to fix fracking laws?

Symbiote 5y ago
Oil produced from other sources (i.e. traditional wells) is presumably less bad for the environment, since it isn't using huge amounts of fresh water.
brokencode 5y ago
The point is that we need to use fracking to extract much of the oil in the United States, as opposed to less destructive techniques that can be used in other oil fields. It’s not NIMBY if it truly is worse when it happens in your backyard.
- fredophile 5y ago
  I'm not sure that was the original point. If extracting oil results in $x of long term damage to the local environment, but that cost isn't passed along, it makes economic sense to buy oil from somewhere else so you don't end up footing that bill. Sure it would be better overall if that other place could extract oil without that cost but that doesn't make the decision less rational even if that environmental cost is as much or more than it would be to extract it locally.
  - techNoob123 5y ago
    i think what’s missing is that fracking is used in the U.S. non-fracking methods are used outside the U.S. fracking is worse for the environment than non-fracking methods. i hold my personal opinions on each point but i think this is what OP was trying to convey
- 5y ago

jensensbutton 5y ago

So the solution is the import from countries where the practices are more destructive and there's less regulation to reign them in? > If we can slash the real cost - the externality cost - by just buying it from elsewhere, we should. I wonder what you think "externality" means?

t0mas88 5y ago
I think a lot of oil import comes from countries which don't need these practices? Saudi Arabia being an example of a place where the oil almost comes out of the ground on its own, no need for fracking.
- FredPret 5y ago
  And propping up Saudi Arabia’s “government” doesn’t come with its own externalities?

dchichkov 5y ago

Putting a price of $6.5 for a gallon of gas (this is how much gas in Europe normally costs €1.58/liter = $6.5/gallon) is a right thing to do. Hopefully this would diminish consumption, reduce carbon footprint and wouldn't require purchasing extra crude. May cause a revolt though, if advertised to the main street improperly.

landemva 5y ago
I will support $10 gallon gasoline if we first pass constitutional amendment to repeal the personal income tax.
- FpUser 5y ago
  Nice try. Other than the government mandating this price which is just another tax the operators have no reasons to suddenly charge this much. Besides you either have loads of money and do not give a hoot or you just live close to work.
  - landemva 5y ago
    Yes, add on to the tax which is already around 55 cents per gallon. Would you support $6 gallon fuel tax while relieving everyone from fear of IRS audits? (It's for the children!) And add $10 to aviation fuel.
- fredophile 5y ago
  Why would you support a regressive tax scheme that impacts the poor and middle class far more than the wealthy? To be clear, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just don't understand this viewpoint at all.
  - landemva 5y ago
    They already suffer, and the benefit is to free the poor and middle class from personal income tax. The rich already escaped as generally their money is not personal income for purpose of income tax. When the king takes a portion of my labor 'because he can', then I am a slave. The rich generally understand how to escape the income tax slavery. Let's free the poor.

president 5y ago

Your rationale makes sense in a paradise world where there are no wars and no countries vying for hegemony. There is an immense national security aspect and domestic economic situation you are ignoring which could not be anymore relevant today.

opwieurposiu 5y ago

Most of the frac water used these days is "produced water", ie. dirty/salty water that comes up with the oil from other wells.

yyyk 5y ago

>comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer imports. I'm sure Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi, etc. really care about the environment and their reports about environment sustainability* are totally true. The average oil producer is a dictatorship, and I suspect the impact of lack of transparency is more important than the drilling method - they have every motivation to cut corners, while American oil is openly regulated. So from the global perspective I doubt American production is more polluting. * If they even have any.

xmprt 5y ago
Other countries might be less sustainable however that lack of sustainability doesn't impact the US as much. The real cost of oil drilled within the US is higher than the real cost of oil drilled outside the US.
- yyyk 5y ago
  We're just seeing a real live demonstration that the real cost of oil produced by the typical non-US oil producer has its own externalities and they're not pretty. With the money saved by preventing these issues one should be able to solve the water problem (waste recycling? desalinization? other liquids?).
coolso 5y ago
> comes from environmentally destructive practices, which is a damn good reason to prefer imports. This globalist-centric way of thinking is why we’re currently paying $5/gallon, the highest amount ever. Such a “hidden” tax on the working class is why we should shun imports and be self sufficient both with oil as well as manufacturing - or at least as much as humanly possible.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

muyuu 5y ago

it seems also disingenuous that the environmental impact at origin of the imported oil is completely ignored, and the same applies for other imports including consumer goods or even "green energy" related devices and materials (batteries, solar panels, etc) also the US has a variety of conditions for prospection, CA being one of the worst places for new prospection projects - so this also needs to be taken into account PS: at 3$/gallon I suspect the majority of consumers were already not taking gas consumption lightly, so while it's true that energy savings are a crucial part of the picture, they were already very heavily incentivised for a while in the US and certainly here in Europe as well