Someone break this down for me. Should trump get credit?
https://www.westernjournal.com/dick...13&utm_campaign=can&__twitter_impression=true
https://www.westernjournal.com/dick...13&utm_campaign=can&__twitter_impression=true
Trump versus the left: global warming
- Thread starter HighStickHarry
- Start date
Are you kidding? The MSM isn't going to report anything positive for Trump. In fact they would spin this story as Trump colluding with the Russians to drive up natural gas prices that allow Russia to take over the EU.
I’m wanting to know if the outcome can be tied to trump. This is an opinion piece from a political activist and I want to know if there is a counter argument.
I would think the mere fact that Trump supports OG and fracking, while the left opposes it would be more than enough evidence.
That took off under Obama, did he make steps to stifle it? I remember them grumbling about it, but not sure if they did anything concrete.
I have noticed no more earth quakes after @long-duc-dong stopped injecting the disposal wells too deep.
It's a two edged sword. I like paying less for gas but my royalty checks are also going down.
Trump had absolutely nothing to do with increased US natural gas production from the shale boom which lowered NG prices. Like wise he had nothing to do with increased US oil production. His support for coal is just political talk, but his new support for uranium is good IMO.
Edited to include that renewables are driven by economics, not Trump.
Edited to include that renewables are driven by economics, not Trump.
Last edited:
The leftists want to ban fracking. How would a fracking ban affect natural gas production and prices?
Not much fracking (fracing for us old-timers) is going on right now due to prices. A long term ban would definitely reduce future drilling and eliminate fracking of many existing wells awaiting completion. Production would go down and prices up...simple economics absent a major event.
Don't think Dems can get a fracking ban implemented though. Not all of us purported libs are against oil and gas.
We increased volume and injection pressure. Now what are they going to blame it on?
Ever hear of New York, Vermont, Washington, or Maryland?
Will be close to or above $2.00 per gallon by November except in those states that don't play nice with the industry generally. CNG even moreso
Bronze that
Bronze that
Not much fracking? That is completely false. A ban will send oil to $150+, not to mention send us into war.
Yep. Not atypical for a state (or country for that matter) with very little production. Good for you catching the other states. Georgia and Florida have tried but not got a ban through.
Do you really think that matters? Once any of these "progressives" get your vote, your policy stances won't matter. "Progressives" are pushing policies based on their leftist ideology of grievance politics exactly like the religious right has done with their religious ideology. Common sense isn't going to get in their way. Follow the money.
New York had very little production? Little potential too? I wonder what the Marcellus Shale has to say about that. Maybe we should ask Pennsylvania?
Do you honestly think the amount of production had anything to do with those bans? If you do, I'd politely request that you pull your head out of your butt and quit lying to yourself.
That's a tough nut in oil country.
I too like paying 1.97, however a static price of 2.50, 2.75 would be alright if it'd keep the industry fat and flourishing.
Should I have said not as much fracking? Why do you think fracking companies are going out of business and the big service companies are continuing to lay off people? You of all people should know the decreased rig count and number of wells that been drilled and are waiting on pricing to be completed and fracked. $150 oil is a long way away and going to war for oil is not going to happen. Perhaps you should support a ban since you think it will drive prices up so rapidly that some struggling producers would have enough revenue to service their debt. Being a bit factious but let it be clear I am 100% against a ban on fracking.
I don’t think you understand the business or I am not following. Nearly every well drilled in the US today is a frack job. If you ban fracking, in 2-3 years production of oil will be less than half what it is today and gas less than a third.
Companies are going out of business for a number of reasons, but primarily the lack of access to capital during this prolonged period of low prices. See, unconventional E&P companies can’t just shut in wells and stop drilling until prices improve. Well production is only 2-3 years. If they stop drilling and producing, they die.
Forgot to look today when out, but yesterday my "no ethanol" was down to $2.41 at QT. I know,
I'm a bad person, but a 34 yr. old car gets better mileage.
No you're right. Arbuckle formation is the culprit, but they made us cut back volumes into that formation.
Putting words in your mouth? You said Dems wouldn't get fracking banned. I pointed out that they already have. You then said that the states that had banned fracking had little production. I pointed out the Marcellus Shale and ASKED you if you honestly thought the fracking bans were related to production.
As to the other part, you stated that not all "libs" are oppsed to O&G. I agree with you but also pointed out that it won't matter to any of these "progressive" candidates.
Care to point out what words I put in your mouth, sir?
Gosh 007, his head will explode.
Have mercy.
New York has some good rock. Hell, these days we can squeezed hydrocarbons out of kidney stones.
squeak, I have been in the business probably as long ago as when you were in diapers. Member of AAPL, AAPG and SPE. Our company was the first to complete a sintered bauxite frac on a deep gas well in Oklahoma in the late 70's.
Now that that is out of the way I just do not agree with you alarmism and projections. Try sliding a decline curve and tell me a well's life is only 2-3 years. Yes, the new well's decline rates rapid.
Wholeheartedly agree with you that a ban on fracking will ultimately end the US's oil independence. No new wells, no completion of existing wells and no re-completion of depleted wells. Gas will be here for a while but in the long term but in the end it would experience the same fate.
It’s not alarmism when nearly all new production comes from fracking. Half our current production of oil is from fracking and 2/3rds gas. Millions of lost jobs and the cost of everything will go up. That’s reality.
I've known from previous posts that you've made that you were in O&G at some point. And that's what surprises me about you thinking that "progressives" won't seek and possibly create a federal ban on fracking. They have made their intentions quite clear.
Cannot disagree with that. Oil companies are resilient though and if the price gets high enough wells will be drilled and completed conventionally.
I did not say nor do I think they will not try. Just said I do not think they will get it done.
Let me know when Pennsylvania or any other large producing state bans fracking.
The "progressives" as you call them are not going to win this battle IMO.
"Progressive" is what they call themselves. I didn't make that term up. I put it in quotes because their policy proposals are anything but progressive on every single issue.
You're either naive or just thinking wishfully. Even if "progressives" can't get it done by presidential decree, they can regulate fracking into oblivion. Obama actually started the process.
If wells could be drilled and completed conventionally in enough numbers, fracking wouldn't be the mainstream way of drilling now. How long has it been since you've been in O&G? This isn't the 1980s.
Similar threads
