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

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#51

Post by xref »

mirimir wrote: post #41
panarky wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil prices aren't particularly low by historical standards. https://imgur.com/a/twnV7GZ So I'd guess that the "decade of losing money" is due to poor economics of individual wells, where production dramatically falls over time. That requires more and more capital for new wells just to maintain constant volumes. If you only look at aggregates it can appear there's a boom, when in reality it's a bit of a shell game tha…

> Oil prices aren't particularly low by historical standards. True. But I think that fracking only became financially viable (or at least, plausibly so) when oil prices were at historic highs. Similarly for tar sands. But there have also been subsidies, to help ensure adequate domestic production. For the oil and natural gas industries overall. And this will be the go-to technology as traditional oil and gas reserves…

Shale became economically viable due to fracking, whereas previously shale had to be steam heated to release the oil which is extremely energy intensive and thus expensive, which is why Shell tried it in the 70s but abandoned the tech.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#52

Post by toomuchtodo »

roenxi wrote: post #30
toomuchtodo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Looking at the grafana chart of the data scrapped from my smart thermostat, less than 10 days this winter season. The use is for "emergency heat" when it's too cold for the heat pump alone to effectively heat the premises.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#53

Post by imglorp »

athollywood wrote: post #15

Speaking as an employee at one of the largest independent E&P’s, we haven’t relied on debt and equity financing in the last few years because we have had enough free cash flow. The only thing slowing us down really is things like pipeline takeaway and labor shortage.

This might be an unpopular idea among the fossil money and investment people, but as a victim and witness to pipeline activity by an unscrupulous corporation, I would suggest that there are a mountain of unstated risks and hidden costs. This example [1] pipeline has state and local criminal and civil legal issues, spills, runoff, poisoned wells, sinkholes, inestimable property value loss, loss of use, an explosion, and all other kinds of malfeasance. This line passes literally within feet of homes and schools, and I don't think we've begun to see the true danger: the stated blast zone is 1000 feet and the "self" evacuation zone is 3 miles [2]. Someone is going to get hurt.

Perhaps the biggest hidden cost has no price tag, which is the damage to democracy in the form of bad precedent that occurs when a big corporation steamrolls local governments, gets itself declared as a public utility, and begins to eminent domain and wreck everything in sight, literally bulldozing through suburbs. These are homes and businesses a dozen feet from the line: [3,4,5,6]. This is not CNG, it's other more explosive fractions. It's a travesty of injustice.

1. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2018/12/24/spills-s...

2. http://marinereast2.com/index.html

3. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0571635,-75.6675604,3a,75y,1...

4. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9789588,-75.5377762,3a,75y,2...

5. https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0390132,-75.6366127,3a,75y,1...

6. https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9874756,-75.5431866,3a,75y,3...

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#54

Post by zeristor »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #26
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.

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...

Thanks for the reminder, here's the actual report:

https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/uk-housing-fit-for-the...

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#55

Post by [deleted] »

objektif wrote: post #48
markdown wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only thing slowing us down really is things like pipeline takeaway and labor shortage. I am under the impression that this field has pretty well paid jobs. How is there a labor shortage in a mature industry with high pay?

The pay is good but working conditions?

[deleted]

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#56

Post by lotsofpulp »

objektif wrote: post #48
markdown wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only thing slowing us down really is things like pipeline takeaway and labor shortage. I am under the impression that this field has pretty well paid jobs. How is there a labor shortage in a mature industry with high pay?

The pay is good but working conditions?

Then the pay is not good enough.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#57

Post by hermitdev »

mirimir wrote: post #41
panarky wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil prices aren't particularly low by historical standards. https://imgur.com/a/twnV7GZ So I'd guess that the "decade of losing money" is due to poor economics of individual wells, where production dramatically falls over time. That requires more and more capital for new wells just to maintain constant volumes. If you only look at aggregates it can appear there's a boom, when in reality it's a bit of a shell game tha…

> Oil prices aren't particularly low by historical standards. True. But I think that fracking only became financially viable (or at least, plausibly so) when oil prices were at historic highs. Similarly for tar sands. But there have also been subsidies, to help ensure adequate domestic production. For the oil and natural gas industries overall. And this will be the go-to technology as traditional oil and gas reserves…

Fracking is a more expensive means of extraction than traditional drilling. IIRC, the oil is also of lower quality. I dont recall the precise price, but fracking is only profitable if crude is over ~$80/barrel.

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#58

Post by hermitdev »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #23
adventured wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> US spent a $1T on fracking

Citation? I suspect this a grossly over stated figure.

Edit: formatting

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#59

Post by selimthegrim »

imglorp wrote: post #53
athollywood wrote: post #15

Speaking as an employee at one of the largest independent E&P’s, we haven’t relied on debt and equity financing in the last few years because we have had enough free cash flow. The only thing slowing us down really is things like pipeline takeaway and labor shortage.

This might be an unpopular idea among the fossil money and investment people, but as a victim and witness to pipeline activity by an unscrupulous corporation, I would suggest that there are a mountain of unstated risks and hidden costs. This example [1] pipeline has state and local criminal and civil legal issues, spills, runoff, poisoned wells, sinkholes, inestimable property value loss, loss of use, an explosion, a…

Relevant disgraced congressman quote: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/vance-mcallis...

Re: Frackers Face Harsh Reality as Wall Street Backs Away

#60

Post by CuriouslyC »

hermitdev wrote: post #57
mirimir wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oil prices aren't particularly low by historical standards. True. But I think that fracking only became financially viable (or at least, plausibly so) when oil prices were at historic highs. Similarly for tar sands. But there have also been subsidies, to help ensure adequate domestic production. For the oil and natural gas industries overall. And this will be the go-to technology as traditional oil and gas reserves…

Fracking is a more expensive means of extraction than traditional drilling. IIRC, the oil is also of lower quality. I dont recall the precise price, but fracking is only profitable if crude is over ~$80/barrel.

The number for at least one major petrochemical company is closer to $30/barrel
Post reply on HN