Let’s Frack Our Way to a Freer World

Fracking is to Putin what Uber is to cab driversCredit: World Economic Forum / Foter / CC BY-NC-SABeyond the cultural and border history between Ukraine and Russia, let’s not forget the trade issues that actually brought about this current conflict. Certainly natural gas producers haven’t, and they’re using this conflict to encourage the United States to loosen up on our energy export laws so America can ship more overseas and take a bit of wind out of Vladimir Putin’s sails without resorting to violence or military responses.

Bloomberg notes today:

Russia, the world’s second-largest producer of natural gas after the U.S., has twice since 2006 cut supplies of the fuel to Ukraine, a conduit for energy to Europe. Greater access to U.S. supplies would blunt the ability of Russia to use energy as a weapon, according to supporters of lifting export curbs.

“This is a geopolitical fulcrum that we could be utilizing if we didn’t have this protectionist constraint on U.S. energy,” Christopher Guith, vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, said in a phone interview.

Russia is canceling the price discount on natural gas for Ukraine because of its debt owed to Russian gas giant OAO Gazprom (OGZD), President Vladimir Putin said today during a news conference. At the same time, the U.S. is preparing a financial-assistance package for Ukraine that would include $1 billion in loan guarantees to help the nation offset reduced energy subsidies, according to a White House statement today.

The United States is typically awful, bureaucratic, and slow about permitting fuel sales overseas to countries with whom we do not have free trade agreements. Bloomberg notes that the Department of Energy is weighing 24 applications to export liquefied natural gas. They’ve approved six applications since 2010. Unfortunately, though, the process is so involved that even if the Energy Department approved them all today, it would be years before our natural gas would be heading overseas.

Over at the Daily Beast, Christopher Dickey noted, while this conflict was starting to truly unspool last week, that Putin likes to use environmental arguments to make a big deal about the alleged horrors of fracking, as he and Russia benefit financially by keeping the rest of the world from accessing that shale gas:

Vladimir Putin just hates fracking—at least, he hates it when other countries do it. As the Russian president told an economic conference last year, in places where companies are fracking to extract natural gas, they turn on the faucet and “black stuff comes out of the tap.” Consider the environment, he begged his audience.

 While you’re at it, consider the many European countries that depend on Russia for their natural gas or might compete with it as suppliers. Think of Bulgaria, Romania, Poland; and think, especially, of Ukraine. …

If the natural gas reserves in Ukraine are anything like as large as analysts believe—and that is a big “if,” but far from an impossibility—then the geopolitical and economic position of the former Soviet republic could be transformed; its independence from Moscow assured; its value to the West unquestioned.

Even the ousted President Viktor Yanukovych understood that. (He was never so reliable a Putin ally as his opponents painted him.) Last November, Yanukovych’s government signed a $10 billion deal for shale gas exploration and exploitation with the American-based multinational Chevron, following on another massive deal with Royal Dutch Shell.  Together, Yanukovych claimed, those agreements would enable Ukraine “to have full sufficiency in gas by 2020 and, under an optimistic scenario, even enable us to export energy.”

Read more, including how Bulgaria passed a sudden moratorium on drilling to be rewarded later with a 20 percent cut in the price of fuel from Russia, here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • waffles||

    The nuclear industry has a vested interest to oppose cheap natural gas. It is the scapegoat for much of the lack of "push" in new nuclear. However, I think excellent storage and exportation of domestic gas would stabilize the price enough to allow a nuclear slice of the energy pie. In fact, there a few social/political/economic problems that aren't alleviated by more abundant and cheap energy.

  • waffles||

    a few should just be few.

    I think more energy makes for a happier more peaceful world. It's like the opposite of the green religion, it's the religion of progress. And history is on my side. Hopefully the future too.

  • John||

    This point cannot be made enough. The Greens who object to fracking or advancing the agenda and interests of the Saudis, Iranians and Russians. The day the US becomes a net oil and gas exporter is the day we can tell those people to fuck off.

    If we are a net exporter of oil, oil shocks no longer hurt the overall economy, since for every dollar we pay in higher oil prices we make back and then some selling our oil to other people. The price of oil only shocks the overall economy, versus the consumer sector, when we have to import it and thus it costs us money when the price goes up.

  • Tony||

    People oppose fracing because it is extremely bad for the environment.

  • John||

    No. They oppose it because they hate prosperity and by extension cheap energy. There is no evidence that it is bad for the environment. They just pretend it is to get stupid people like you to think so.

    There is one piece of science that says it is bad for the environment. But people like you don't believe in science when it contradicts your superstitions.

  • Tony||

    Yes, they hate prosperity. You understand things so well. Fucking prosperity. I won't be happy until everyone's eating shoe leather!

    Burning hydrocarbons is the central problem. Burning methane isn't the worst of all possible options but it's not the endgame, I'm sure we can agree.

    I'll just ignore the fact that your entire energy worldview seems to consist of the equation of burning hydrocarbons with prosperity, the end.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Haitians love hiking into the mountains to search for firewood.

  • John||

    Tony, when I was doing environmental law in the 1990s and early 00s, the thinking was natural gas was a pretty limited commodity. Back then, the Greens loved natural gas and viewed it as clean energy.

    Once fracking came along and natural gas got very cheap and plentiful, the Greens turned on it. They only liked it in the first place because they didn't think there was enough of it for it to ever create prosperity. Once that wasn't true, they hated it.

    And yes, Greens hate prosperity. Green theorists have been railing against economic growth and consumerism for decades. See, unlike you, I actually read this stuff and know something about the subject. You in contrast know nothing other than "the Greens are on my team and thus are infallible".

    It goes back to the point I constantly make Tony, every single thing you say on here is a lie in one form or another. So of course you claim that the Greens do not hate prosperity. To admit they do, would require telling the truth.

  • Tony||

    You're not being careful enough in your language, preferring to be inflammatory and stupid. First off, if you don't care about sustaining the natural habitat of human beings, then you should be classified as a genocidal psychopath. Second, it's not "prosperity" anyone is against, but unsustainable growth. If the billions of people in the developing world all achieved American-level "prosperity," it wouldn't last very long because the natural habitat of the human species would simply die. Pretending there's not a problem doesn't help anyone.

  • WTF||

    Nice list of unsupported assertions, moron.

  • Malkavian||

    Natural habitat? Like, living in caves? I prefer people living in houses, nothing natural about that. Don't even start me on cities.

  • John||

    Except that nothing to the Greens short of poverty is "sustainable". The Greens only support a form of energy as long as it is too expensive or impractical to ever produce growth.

    The moment someone figures out a way to make solar actually work, the Greens will hate it just like they do natural gas.

  • Tony||

    Your caricatures and hyperbole are convenient excuses for not giving a shit about the planet or its habitability for human beings. Not good ones, but convenient.

  • KDN||

    it's not "prosperity" anyone is against

    If the billions of people in the developing world all achieved American-level "prosperity" ... the human species would simply die.

    She is a thing of beauty.

  • ||

    Second, it's not "prosperity" anyone is against, but unsustainable growth. If the billions of people in the developing world all achieved American-level "prosperity," it wouldn't last very long because the natural habitat of the human species would simply die. Pretending there's not a problem doesn't help anyone.

    What if it's not "unsustainable" Tony?
    What then?
    Maybe you're simply WRONG that the billions of people in the developing world couldn't acheive American-level prosperity without destroying the natural habitat of the species.

  • Overt||

    "If the billions of people in the developing world all achieved American-level "prosperity," it wouldn't last very long because the natural habitat of the human species would simply die. "

    I can't believe everyone gave Tony a pass on this.

    The only logical conclusion from Tony is that those people continue to live in abject poverty.

    If Greens got the controls on energy that they want TODAY, it would mean millions upon millions of people dieing as the price of their basic staples went up. And the quoted statement above is the closest you will ever get to them acknowledging it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Burning hydrocarbons is the central problem.

    Since that's not a problem at all, there is no problem.

  • ||

    Not to mention that fracking isn't in any way, shape, or form new.
    At all. My FRD-hating, illegal beer-brewing great-grandpa was fracking gas wells in the 50s, for fuck's sake.

  • ||

    FDR-hating. Though I imagine he hated someone initaled FRD too.

  • John||

    Exactly. All the "fracking revolution" is is industry figuring out how to do it cheaply and efficiently enough to make it usable in a lot more places. That is it.

    And when I first went into environmental law, the thought was that the supply of natural gas was pretty limited. So the Greens loved it then. Once it became apparent that natural gas was both cheap and plentiful, they turned on it.

  • ||

    I remember SimCity 2000 20 years ago incentivizing you to build natural gas power plants. Gas must have still been green back then.

  • John||

    It was. It was thought to be the clean version of coal. The greens were okay with it because they figured there wasn't enough of it to replace coal.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I haven't though about that game in a long time. My brother and I used to enter the cheat code, cause earthquakes, and then try to get people to move in next to the nuclear disaster sites. And try to cause riots.

  • ||

    Yeah, destroying your city was the best part of the game. I especially loved destroying those stupid arcologies. I don't think there was an animation of them being on fire, was there? A huge oversight by Maxis.

  • John||

    I always loved having a coastal city and hitting it with a really big hurricane. Flood everything out and watch the sims run for their lives.

  • Raston Bot||

    Right, it's when they starting drilling horizontally, got the slurry mix right, and found the plays that things got interesting.

    I would've expected the price to drop a little more however.

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3A.htm

  • ||

    It's not that they 'hate propsperity' per se, it that they think that society needs to be FORCED to change to some low-energy-utilizing economic system, which naturally would have to be tightly centrally controlled, which conveniently they want to do anyway, because it enables them to pursue their econpomic policies.

    In other words, they oppose natural gas, because natural gas would allow our current capitalist economy to continue functioning without the need for massive state intervention to stop us from producing carbon emissions.

    What they are after isn't an end to prosperity, it's an excuse for government control of the economy. Cheap, plentiful, energy would through a huge wrench in that. They want us to be forced to ration energy so they can control the economy.

  • JeremyR||

    No, they hate prosperity.

    They have a medieval mindset. Everyone but them should live like serfs.

  • Malkavian||

    Its dangers are pretty similar to conventional gas drilling. If containment for water is built well, it's not bad at all.

  • waffles||

    Check your privilege Tony. You have to be fabulously wealthy to oppose more energy and prosperity. You have to be evil or stupid to understand that more abundant resources means less war and less human suffering. Opposing progress means killing people.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Little boy blue
    Come blow your horn
    The sheep's in the meadow
    The cow's in the corn

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    He's blowing something, that's for sure.

  • Cytotoxic||

    People oppose fracing because it is extremely bad for the environment.

    Just like some people oppose vaccines because they believe it gives them autism (and both believe because they're morons).

  • ||

    People oppose fracing because it is extremely bad for the environment.

    They oppose it because they THINK it is bad for the environment. Not because it actually is.

  • ||

    The United States is typically awful, bureaucratic, and slow about permitting fuel sales overseas to countries with whom we do not have free trade agreements. Bloomberg notes that the Department of Energy is weighing 24 applications to export liquefied natural gas. They’ve approved six applications since 2010. Unfortunately, though, the process is so involved that even if the Energy Department approved them all today, it would be years before our natural gas would be heading overseas.

    And some people think that regulation doesn't hurt the economy.

    I mean, seriously, why does anyone have to ask permission to sell fuel to a foreign country in the first place?
    WHY?

    We should be questioning the very foundation of this policy, the idea that the government has any business telling natural gas producers who they can sell fuel to. And if the process is so involved it takes years, that ought to remind people just how much regulation biases the market in favor of large corporations. Who else has the money to wait years for approval?

  • ||

    To be fair, the Constitution does give the fedgov the power to put its nose in commerce between us and other nations.

  • Floridian||

    It is a bad law, I just repealed it.

    /judge Roy Bean

  • ||

    So? That doesn't make it good policy.

    Why would we want to stop domestic producers from exporting fuel?

    Much less make it a cumbersome, expensive, multi-year process?

  • ||

    It definitely doesn't make it GOOD policy to make people ask for permission, but I was answering why they make us do so.

  • Tony||

    Thermonuclear fusion, it's the only way. Let's invest a few trillion on finishing the R&D and building plants over the next few decades, and everyone can be happy (except budget scolds who don't understand short-term vs. long-term).

  • John||

    You spent $900 billion dollars on a stimulus a few years ago. Too bad the Democrats who wrote it were only interested in giving it to their supporters.

    If we had invested it in fusion research and hardening the existing grid, we would have at least gotten something to show for it.

  • Floridian||

    Fusion is just 20 years away! Just like 20 years ago.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I still remember the film they showed us in 5th grade science class. Any day now.

  • John||

    It always is. But who is to say it will never happen?

    I am not saying the stimulus was a good idea. It wasn't. But if we had to have one, it would have been nice if it had been used in a way that gave the country something to show for having done rather than just propping up various state and local public employee union contracts.

  • Floridian||

    Building fission reactors would have made sense since we know it works. Smilin' Joe said the problem with fusion is it irradiates the containment walls vs fission which leaves radioactive fuel than can be stored. But we can both agree stimulus was a massive waste of resources.

  • Tony||

    Christ man, get your insipid partisan bullshit out of my personal space. It's easy for people with no ideas (you) to sit back and blow spitballs when emergency measures fail to generate utopia, but an honest person (not you) would compare the real outcome with the likely outcome with no stimulus. You say things like it all went to greedy teachers and firefighters as if you actually believe the vapid fascist nonsense that you read at Breitbart.

    If we had invested the money in anything and the president was named Barack Obama, you'd have been against it.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Invested, eh? What's the rate of return on that?

  • VicRattlehead||

    -4000%

  • ||

    I read we pay $250 billion a year now on interest on the debt.

  • John||

    In the real world Tony, those city governments cannot afford to pay for those contracts and their existence is making government totally unsustainable. If you were actual liberal and not insane, you would be the first person to want those contracts killed.

    You are amazing case study. There isn't a single issue about which you don't think the sky is grey and the sun rises in the west. It always encourages me to read your rants though. You and people like you is where progressivism goes to die. You can't use the government to manage society if the government is bankrupt. And you can't keep the government solvent if your solution to every problem is to just spend more money. Your entire ideology is disintegrating before our eyes in a pool of insanity is fiscal insolvency.

  • Tony||

    Only a person who never reads anything but right-wing bullshit could possibly write what you just wrote. Take a look at how deficits are doing. Take a look at how Republicans aren't even talking about it anymore (much to their frustration--doesn't it suck when the very thing you claimed you want happens?).

  • John||

    Any person who lives in reality and can do math can write that. I don't create the math of public pensions, I just understand what it means.

    There isn't a blue state in America who isn't facing long term insolvency over its public pension obligations.

    And even if they were not, you can't expect government to solve problems if it is impossible to hold government employees to any standard of behavior. In New York City, hundreds of teachers sit and do nothing all day because they are considered too dangerous to allow near children but the union contract makes it impossible for to fire them.

    That is just one example of hundreds where the progressive insanity manifests itself.

  • Cytotoxic||

    B-b-but Republicans aren't saying stuff!

  • ||

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    Suck on that dillweed.

  • VicRattlehead||

    take a look at history and know its just a step away from catastrophe.
    Pray tell thee...
    How is a 222 trillion dollar (toxic assets included) debt solvable?
    how has deficit spending reduced in any way shape or form?
    How do we keep printing ourselves out of fiscal holes with money that has no real value?
    eventually all the book shuffling in the world wont be able to cover up this mess and then what dipshit?

  • WTF||

    compare the real outcome with the likely outcome with no stimulus.

    Based on the Obama administrations own terms, we are worse off with the stimulus than we would have been without it.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    It's easy for people with no ideas (you) to sit back and blow spitballs when emergency measures wars fail to generate utopia, but an honest person (not you) would compare the real outcome with the likely outcome with no stimulus invasion of Iraq
  • Tony||

    I don't know what Iraq would look like with no US occupation but I do know that there was no emergency in the first place that might have called for occupying it.

  • VicRattlehead||

    there is no emergency with any country other than our own. thus our military needn't be globally deployed
    didnt BO promise this to you wonderful pacifists who couldnt wait to vote for him before he became the single most murderous, imperialist president since Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You say things like it all went to greedy teachers and firefighters

    No, a lot of it was pissed away by corrupt construction firms repaving roads and building bridges and drainage ditches in the middle of nowhere.

    Just like the Japanese did 10 years earlier, to no effect.

  • VicRattlehead||

    I always counteract the "but the roadzzzzz" arguement with this
    If it were legal for communities to maintain their own roads with minimal government help, they would be done better cheaper and faster than anything the government can come up with
    Because when people spend their own money on things they suddenly look at the outcomes and use the free market to decide their best option

  • Cytotoxic||

    but an honest person (not you) would compare the real outcome with the likely outcome with no stimulus.

    We could have had 8% unemployment! 8%!

    BTW, fusion is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy for the time being. Throwing more money at it creates diminishing returns, like AIDS or cancer research where tons of money has been spent with poor return on the dollar.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Can you imagine how awful it would be if the current unemployment rate (and without a lower participation rate) was at the 5 percent projected it would be right now (with and without stimulus were the same by 2014), and for only saving hundreds of billions of dollars of debt?

  • ||

    It's easy for people with no ideas (you) to sit back and blow spitballs when emergency measures fail to generate utopia

    The emergency measures produced worse results then what the proponents predicted doing would produce.

    Every recession since the great depression (another recession that government intervened in with devastating results) has had a quick recovery many of them were deeper recessions the our last one...and yet little or no government intervention was used.

    It is you who has no idea.

  • ||

    The emergency measures produced worse results then what the proponents predicted doing nothing would produce.

  • Malkavian||

    So you would oppose a drilling rig in your backyard, but you'd be fine with a small star?

  • VicRattlehead||

    A small star is quieter... plus the added bonus of i would never know if anything bad happened because i would be quickly disintegrated in nuclear fire and gamma radiation

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    And this is the asshole who tells us we know nothing of science.

    That's all that's required. We just haven't thrown enough money at it. While we are at it, let's throw a few trillion at that alchemy machine too.

  • Tony||

    ITER's possibly less than a decade from being turned on.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    ITER's possibly less than a decade from being turned on.

    Herpity derpity.

    Yuz guyz just doan't no teh sciensez.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    possibly less than

    a limb jumper!

  • WTF||

    Of course if fusion ever does become cost efficient, the idiot Tonys of the world will immediately turn against it, just like they did with natural gas, as John pointed out.

  • Tony||

    Similarly, you guys will only support it once you can drill it out of the ground and burn it.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Do you ever type anything that isn't a flagrant lie?

    You are an immoral fucking pig.

  • VicRattlehead||

    correct me if im wrong but
    Uranium 235 has to be refined from uranium 238 that comes out of the ground, ie. Drilled out of the ground
    and to produce energy you must create a thermonuclear reaction, or in laymens terms "burn" it
    so you only support drilling and burning of substances with high radioactivity and possibly lethal side effects? please space man explain me the virtues of your sciencing

  • Juice||

    You're confusing fission and fusion. Fusion would use tritium and deuterium.

  • VicRattlehead||

    my confusion, but it still comes out of the ground and burns up in nuclear fire so my point remains valid yes?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Comes out of the ocean. Yes, it burns in a nuclear fire but doesn't leave long-lived transuranics. THERMOnuclear fusion that Tony loves so much -not that he understands what it truly means- will give you some neutron activation of the reactor walls which will have to be disposed of properly. Aneutronic fusion like IEC can burn hydrogen and boron and produce no neutrons and only 3 alphas (helium ions). IEC is only a parlor trick so far, though.

  • WTF||

    Why not just spend a few trillion to develop a perpetual motion machine, and have limitless free energy forever?

  • VicRattlehead||

    we just need room temperature semi-conductors after all

  • Juice||

    *super

  • VicRattlehead||

    Im batting a thousand today thanks for fixing that

  • MJGreen||

    In this country, we respect the laws of thermodynamics!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Fracking is just good fun.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    People oppose fracing because it is extremely bad for the environment.

    The environment of Fear, Uncertainty and Dread, that is.

  • Brett L||

    Unlike renewables like whale oil and charcoal.

  • Warren's Strapon||

    Oh fuck me, it's learned the correct spelling.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Russia warns could 'reduce to zero' economic dependency on US"

    "We would find a way not just to reduce our dependency on the United States to zero but to emerge from those sanctions with great benefits for ourselves," said Kremlin economic aide Sergei Glazyev.

    He told the RIA Novosti news agency Russia could stop using dollars for international transactions and create its own payment system using its "wonderful trade and economic relations with our partners in the East and South."

    Russian firms and banks would also not return loans from American financial institutions, he said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/russia-w.....UA4C3QtDMD

  • WTF||

    Let's see how many nations are willing to take their payment in rubles.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Thermonuclear fusion, it's the only way. Let's invest a few trillion on finishing the R&D and building plants over the next few decades, and everyone can be happy (except budget scolds who don't understand short-term vs. long-term).

    Pssst. I only need a few trillion to get my prototype Perpetual Motion Machine up and running. Can you help me out, maybe?

  • VicRattlehead||

    Andre Rossi has a cold fusion machine for sale to someone just like you....

  • The Late P Brooks||

    (except budget scolds who don't understand short-term vs. long-term).

    What about people unable to grasp the distinction between "investment" and "expense"?

  • ||

    Why are you people playing with Tulpa?

  • KDN||

    We all need a break from agreeing with each other. I'm frankly glad that he offers a perspective that isn't much on display here.

  • John||

    And Tony and shreek keep us from forgetting just how stupid and vile actual progressives are. Sometimes you think "hey they can't be that bad". Tony and Shreek remind us that yes they really are that bad.

  • WTF||

    From what I've seen from typical leftys, 'Tony' and shreek actually aren't so bad by comparison.

  • John||

    You are right. Read the comment boards at a place were large numbers of leftists hang out like Salon or Slate or the NYT. In a pack, they are much worse than even Tony and Shreek. They are just insane.

  • VicRattlehead||

    Speaking of which, if we were to invade these forums instead would that not go further in challenging the proggies to defend their ideals on their own turf instead of habitually slaying the 3 or 4 that come here.
    The time is nigh, we must lead the charge to educate these fools, no longer can the libertarian society sit inside its own borders! I say its high time to bring the fight to their "home turf" and see if they can defend their ideology against real criticism.

  • WTF||

    Proggie forums tend to censor and ban those who disagree with the groupthink.

  • VicRattlehead||

    so?

  • ||

    That would preclude our invasions using logic and reason as they would just censor those who tried.

  • Mainer2||

    Smart people still get baited by the master baiters.

  • ||

    Are you saying that Tony is actually Tulpa?

  • tarran||

    It *would* make a great deal of sense.

  • VicRattlehead||

    No Tulpa is Big Authoritah motivated
    he is most likely a pig or an ex-pig with a cushy desk job that allows him to BS on reason from time to time during work hours
    Tony is a Big Government lover, most likely too young to have moved out of his parents or just in his sophomore year of community college and hasn't reached the point in life where he had to get a real job or starve because min wage isn't meant to be a living wage

  • Raston Bot||

    Looks like we pipe billions of cubic feet to Canada and Mexico, and ship billions to Japan. Clearly we're capable of shipping LNG to eastern Europe.

  • ||

    I am confused as to how the US can control where it is shipped to once it leaves port.

    "Yeah yeah we are shipping to japan. Here is the ledger from the Japanese owned holding company."

    "What do you mean that holding company has an office in Turkey?"

    Actually thinking about it...it is just plain physically hard to get US natural gas into eastern Europe. Where the fuck are you going to port?

  • VicRattlehead||

    Crimea...lol

  • ||

    I think a ship filled with US natural gas leaving the gulf would have an easier time making port in Poland or Latvia in the dead of winter then making port in the Black Sea.

  • ||

    Nevermind. I thought the black sea was land locked.

    Didn't realize there was a channel.

  • Reverend Draco||

    Yes. . . let's waste water on fracking when many places are experiencing severe droughts (California, for example). . . no water for irrigating food crops, but plenty for Big Oil.

  • Ortzinator||

    Are you suggesting some kind of transcontinental water pipeline?

  • VangelV||

    In an unhampered market resources get allocated to their best use so there would be no need to worry about this issue. My problem is that shale is not economic except in a few small areas. With the Bakken ready to roll over in the next year and no positive cash flows generated so far the bubble is ready to burst.

  • VangelV||

    Funny how shale gas will be a great boon to Ukraine or Bulgaria even though it has been a capital destroyer in the United States. I have been unable to find a single primary shale producer that has been able to make an economic profit from selling shale gas. There is no evidence that outside of a few small core areas it will be different anywhere else.

    From what I have seen shale has been a huge profit centre for Wall Street promoters and a huge windfall for insiders who have little trouble finding new loans or issuing new shares to close the funding gaps. The problem is that there is no way to make a profit in shale because the energy return is negative. What this means is that we will continue to see assets being written down eventually until the balance sheets are beyond repair and the producers will either have to declare bankruptcy or sell themselves off to majors looking for a simple and cheap way to hide their reserve problems.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement