Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#21

Post by toomuchtodo »

Spooky23 wrote: post #16
Gibbon1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humanity lucked out Humanity didn't luck out. The Chinese communists invested heavily in solar while the US was wasting money on fracking.

That’s just a clueless statement. How are people going to heat their homes? Solar is amazing, but isn’t the be all end all.

Heat pumps and weatherizing. Likely some homes in very cold climates will still need natural gas service (propane tanks, more likely) for emergency heat when the polar vortex hits, but a tight envelope and an efficient heat pump do most of the heavy lifting.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#22

Post by adventured »

ipsum2 wrote: post #14
burger_moon wrote: post #12

Interesting I have friends and family who work at sand mines that supply the sand for fracking. The companies they work for are still expanding and they have more overtime available than they can take. I'm not sure on the long term future of fracking but in the short 5-10 year span it doesn't appear to be going away based on how much infrastructure these companies are adding right now and how much land they're buying…

Prediction: this piece is just fearmongering, in 1-2 years we will see fracking increase, not decrease.

It's something akin to talking about the problems independent burger stands are having while McDonald's is taking over.

US oil output is projected to rise to 16-18 million barrels per day over the next decade approximately, from 12.x million expected in 2019. At 16m barrels per day, the US will be producing 50% more oil than Saudi Arabia. To do that WTI oil merely needs to remain above roughly $50. At $70+ sustained oil, US production will add a million barrels per day per year.

On the flip side, sustained $30-$35 oil would be a catastrophe for OPEC and Russia. They'll cut and or restrain production expansion as necessary to keep oil over a minimum price. Saudi needs $65-$70+ oil to avoid epic budget shortfalls going forward. Russia needs it for spending to placate domestic popularity re Putin. They don't like giving up demand growth to the US, however for now they're not really net suffering a loss of output so much as ceding global growth to US shale. They'll keep doing that for quite a while yet, while hoping US output plateaus in the coming years.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#23

Post by Gibbon1 »

adventured wrote: post #17
Gibbon1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humanity lucked out Humanity didn't luck out. The Chinese communists invested heavily in solar while the US was wasting money on fracking.

Your history is incorrect. The US and several other leading industrial nations invented nearly everything of consequence in the solar industry's modern history. NASA was busy innovating on solar all the way back in the 1960s. Look at the history of solar inventions from 1950 to 2010, you won't find much Chinese invention in there. China lowered the cost of manufacturing of tech invented by other nations.

You're talking about development of solar prior to 2000. I'm talking about after 2000. The big investment in solar production was at the behest of the Chinese government. They are the ones that spent the hundreds of billions needed to commercialize solar, not the US.

At the same time the US spent a $1T on fracking. And a couple of $T on pointless wars.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#24

Post by Gibbon1 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #16
Gibbon1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humanity lucked out Humanity didn't luck out. The Chinese communists invested heavily in solar while the US was wasting money on fracking.

That’s just a clueless statement. How are people going to heat their homes? Solar is amazing, but isn’t the be all end all.

> How are people going to heat their homes?

Considering global warming, not natural gas or fuel oil.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#25

Post by bjelkeman-again »

Spooky23 wrote: post #16
Gibbon1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humanity lucked out Humanity didn't luck out. The Chinese communists invested heavily in solar while the US was wasting money on fracking.

That’s just a clueless statement. How are people going to heat their homes? Solar is amazing, but isn’t the be all end all.

In Sweden homes are heated with heatpumps and district heating. [1] The electricity is producerar with hydro, nuclear, wind and some biofuel (remains from the wood industry). The fossil fuel part has nearly been relegated to history. [2] Now it is mainly transport and the mining industry left to fix.

Mind you, some of these graphs are four years old. So we are really doing a lot better.

[1] https://bjelkeman.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/sustainable-energ...

[2] https://bjelkeman.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/sustainable-energ...

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#26

Post by NeedMoreTea »

Spooky23 wrote: post #16
Gibbon1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humanity lucked out Humanity didn't luck out. The Chinese communists invested heavily in solar while the US was wasting money on fracking.

That’s just a clueless statement. How are people going to heat their homes? Solar is amazing, but isn’t the be all end all.

There was a UK govt report, only a few days ago, that suggested new homes not be connected to gas after 2025, and to use heat pumps or other low carbon heating.

They also called for a plan to retrofit existing housing.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2194603-ban-gas-boilers...

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#27

Post by scottlocklin »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21
Spooky23 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just a clueless statement. How are people going to heat their homes? Solar is amazing, but isn’t the be all end all.

Heat pumps and weatherizing. Likely some homes in very cold climates will still need natural gas service (propane tanks, more likely) for emergency heat when the polar vortex hits, but a tight envelope and an efficient heat pump do most of the heavy lifting.

You live in the Bay Area, don't you?

No, heat pumps (which take energy; duh) and "weatherizing" are not going to heat houses in Canada or Maine.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#28

Post by toomuchtodo »

scottlocklin wrote: post #27
toomuchtodo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heat pumps and weatherizing. Likely some homes in very cold climates will still need natural gas service (propane tanks, more likely) for emergency heat when the polar vortex hits, but a tight envelope and an efficient heat pump do most of the heavy lifting.

You live in the Bay Area, don't you? No, heat pumps (which take energy; duh) and "weatherizing" are not going to heat houses in Canada or Maine.

One of my properties is in northern Illinois, no problems running off a heat pump almost year round. Natural gas bill is about $150/year for monthly service connections and rare use.

I’ve never lived in California.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#29

Post by rhizome »

adventured wrote: post #5

Wall Street financing is no longer necessary for the fracking boom, the majors have heavily consolidated the fracking industry over the last five or six years. That consolidation continues apace. The largest land owners in the Permian are now: Occidental, Exxon and Chevron. Ten years ago it was a very diverse ownership group of independent operators and speculators. The majors will keep buying until there are few sma…

This is exactly what I was wondering. "Couldn't this just mean that they're self-sufficient now?"

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#30

Post by roenxi »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #28
scottlocklin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You live in the Bay Area, don't you? No, heat pumps (which take energy; duh) and "weatherizing" are not going to heat houses in Canada or Maine.

One of my properties is in northern Illinois, no problems running off a heat pump almost year round. Natural gas bill is about $150/year for monthly service connections and rare use. I’ve never lived in California.

Your comment omits an important but interesting detail here - how common is "rare use" and what is it being used for?
Post reply on HN