Market Currents
Complying with tighter fracking regulations on federal lands will cost $253,839 per well, says...
-
Sunday, September 9, 2012, 5:17 AM ETComplying with tighter fracking regulations on federal lands will cost $253,839 per well, says EOG Resources (EOG), Wyoming and Utah, citing a study from John Dunham & Associates. That's well above the $11,833 that the Bureau of Land Management estimates, and would cost natural gas producers a total of $1.5B-$1.62B a year.
Other date
Latest Energy & Materials Articles
This news story has 44 comments:
Such is the thinking of people like you.
http://bit.ly/QycNFz
Now, our top priority is safety and caution. The innovations that came about during the Industrial Revolution would, I believe, be illegal today. A tin box going at crazy speeds with humans inside for transportation purposes????? LAW SUIT!!!! A gas piped into people's homes for heating and cooking that is combustible?? NEVER!!!
The interesting thing Andrew Mann is that you are the one short-sighted. People 300 years ago had no drilling and no pesticides and everything was "natural". They saved a LOT in healthcare costs. Because they all died at age 50. Don't worry, we are not going back to that, but we will basically be stuck where we are for a long time.
New innovations will be made in countries willing to take the risk. China is obviously one that comes to mind.
Your comment is illogical and nonsensical. You have no idea what my views are, or how I think. The added costs aren't added specifically by the regulations, and no where did I say that more money spent by the nat gas industry would lead to more lives or money saved. Tighter restriction on fracking and disposal of the chemicals used does save lives and money, so if that costs a little extra for the nat gas companies, oh well. I wish they could guarantee everything 100% without spending more money, but it is the nature of business to do the least for the most profit. That is why government is there, to protect the common good.
No one knows what the actual costs will be, and it would be prudent to wait and see what the total bill will come out to. More than likely this is just a ploy by the nat gas industry to try and get the regulations removed. To be honest, I wouldn't care if it took $100 million per well to make sure that the fracking was safe for the community in the vicinity of each well. It is bad for everybody when greed outweighs the common good.
You have a complete lack of understanding of economics. If the wells did cost $100 million per well, there would be no wells. There would be no natural gas from the wells. And you would be complaining why natural gas is so expensive and blaming it on the greediness of the gas companies.
Seriously, learn supply & demand. If you block supply, you increase price. It's a very simple concept. Accept it.
Good luck!
I understand supply and demand and economics just fine, but thanks for the very basic and simple lesson.
You completely missed the point of my comment. The point was that if fracking cannot be done in a safe manner for all involved, then it shouldn't be done. That is where the $100 million came from.
Seriously, learn how to comprehend simple english statements and comments from other points of view, instead of twisting the meaning to match your own outlook. It really is very simple. Have a great week!
> You have no idea what my views are, or how I think
You stated your thinking. To wit, that the increased well cost is offset by societal savings later. That's the classic Dem-socialist political position when it comes to the allocation of capital in a free society. In which case my comment about requiring more spending per well is germane. Why not?
Alternatively, how about letting free people decide where resources should be allocated in a society? That works much better than the top down approach you advocate, as evidenced by the astounding prosperity and vibrant middle class this country created when it was free, and which are both disappearing in our decades long experiment with government control.
Requiring companies to conduct business in a way that is safe for all involved is not a government mandated allocation of resources, but a protection of citizens. And my support of these regulations does not in anyway mean that I am a socialist, or that I am advocating government control of the economy. There is a place for government in certain aspects of business, namely to protect the consumer and workforce. The "market is god" ideology that you are in support of, is inherently flawed.
Can you elaborate on your comment "as evidenced by the astounding prosperity and vibrant middle class this country created when it was free"? The vibrant middle class that you reference was created during periods of historically high income tax rates and government regulation.
Taxes alone do not tell the story of govt. control. The regulatory burden is magnitudes greater than 100 or even 30 years ago. I'd take the highest corporate taxes in the world we have now with the regulatory climate of even the FDR years over lower taxes and the today's regulatory burden. You simply have to differentiate between taxation of income without discrimination and regulation of activity, which is inherently discriminatory. I'd go further and say that the income tax of old was much better, being straighter, fairer, and less discriminatory (fewer breaks and loopholes).
You cannot look at just one rule. Every one rule seems innocuous and wonderful. But death by a thousand cuts as they say. If you've ever run a business, you know how mind numbingly complex regulations can be. What is the Federal Code now, 200k pages? 20 million words? Add state, county, city, air quality districts, health districts, etc, and you have the creeping economic paralysis we see. In addition, I'd argue the agencies making the rules are not seeking public health. They are seeking control of an industry and energy they oppose. You have fallen into the cult of believing in motives.
Do I really have to elaborate on the nation's history? A country of nothing and no one became the greatest, most productive economic engine the world has ever seen, with the greatest number of people raised from poverty to the middle class. It can be legitimately argued ours was the first country to ever even have a middle class. All with minimal govt. The govt. controls of the 20th century have eroded our manufacturing and business base. They have their place, but have gone much too far.
Contrary to my position being extreme, yours is. Is there _any_ govt control you'd oppose? Even if a reg. did indeed save money for business, why is that sufficient reason? Doesn't freedom mean _anything_ to you? I can cite countless regs I favor, can you cite any you'd oppose? The mere fact that you defended the reg. as saving money in the long term belies your true thinking about free markets, free people, and a free economy.
Eventually, we'll be the cleanest, geenest, eco-sensitive, vegan cave dwellers in the history of the planet.
Definitely looking forward to that.
How about all in and let the market decide ? The choice of fracking or foreign oil is a no bnrainer.
the requirement and spread out the cost
that is what happens when you get a blurb without the material facts.
The industry reverts to a standard talking point of "the process doesn't inject anything at the level of the actual reservoirs, we case the holes and inject far deeper". And that's true. And there are *usually* no problems (yet, anyway).
The main problem is when the casing is not done properly and if there would be actual leakage into the reservoirs.
to equate fracking with catalytic converters is at the least, unintelligent.
Converters remove contaminants from our air so maybe you won't get lung cancer, whereas fracking adds unknown quantities of harmful chemicals to the ground water, which is the source of your drinking water. Are you also anti NO smoking rules, etc. Get a life.
That statement has been "coming up" from the ground in old toxic buried drums and/or factories contaminated run-off water from as far back as I can remember at age 50. Someone will always try too "improperly dispose" to save $$. That's what "Big Fat Fines" are about.
Now in steps "Economic Alchemy"... for the same reason gas lines disappeared so can/are/have Fracking Water issues. We did not suddenly find a huge oil well!... gas lines disappeared because a car got 20-25 mpg instead of 10-15mpg from Technological introduction of computer's, fuel injection, etc. This in effect nearly doubled the same oil reserves due to TECHNOLOGY! And the same with Directional Boring and as also same with Fracking. And the initial R&D of stuff is more expensive at the very start...the rest is history
In this county everyone's drinking water comes from underground aquifers. So, between the brine, chemicals, petroleum, natural gas and assorted industrial products used on drilling sites, we do have reason for concern. If our water becomes contaminated, the entire county will have little value.
I would question the part of the regulation regarding the process for oking the cement. How will the Federal Government do that in a timely manner? And I'll bet that those larger companies that make big campaign contributions will get inspectors on sight all the time - while the little guy will get the "we'll try to make it by Friday".
If they want to have regulations regarding the cementing process and results - fine - make them and publish them and then do physical spot inspections and make fines and penalties real to discourage anyone that tries to skirt the rules for additional profit.
I'm not in favor of many regulations, but the government should be the party ensuring that our water supply and land isn't being contaminated by drilling. But lets do it in a common sense way that provides actual results instead of just more stacks of paper.