https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/20/biden-administration-yes-we-are-following-through-with-a-fracking-ban-n2583476

Jack and DP said:

---

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/20/biden-administration-yes-we-are-following-through-with-a-fracking-ban-n2583476

---

"Federal Land"...That accounts for about 25% of oil produced stateside..Don't believe there will be anything significant done on other producing areas. .. Just my opinion. We'll see.

Not good. There are tons of federal leases in states like Wyoming.

Now future operations are compromised.

Fracking shouldn't even be the topic. It's salt water disposal wells that might be an issue.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Not good. There are tons of federal leases in states like Wyoming.

Now future operations are compromised.

Fracking shouldn't even be the topic. It's salt water disposal wells that might be an issue.

---

Majority of new drilling in the US utilizes fracking process..100% of my Permian wells are horizontal wells that are fracked. Greatly increases production and makes the economics feasible...Yes, these deep salt water disposal wells can be an issue..

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Not good. There are tons of federal leases in states like Wyoming.

Now future operations are compromised.

Fracking shouldn't even be the topic. It's salt water disposal wells that might be an issue.

---

Majority of new drilling in the US utilizes fracking process..100% of my Permian wells are horizontal wells that are fracked. Greatly increases production and makes the economics feasible...Yes, these deep salt water disposal wells can be an issue..

---

Yes, correct. I'm fracking 4 in the Permian as we speak! Permian production won't be impacted, IMO.

Washington Post has lost all credibility at this point. They still have a lot of good writers, and clearly report on a lot of news people need to know about, but there are better options that are less biased. I read NYT sometimes, and while it's biased, it still tries to be fair. WaPo doesn't even try.

Fracking is an interesting issue, but no matter your opinion, you have to know it can cause environmental damage. Whether it's an acceptable level of damage or not is the question. As noted, it won't impact most of US oil, this ban. And I doubt you'll see Congress actually passing a fracking ban. This is as bad as it will get from Biden, he can't do any more. Certainly some people will lose money from this.

Mothra said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/20/biden-administration-yes-we-are-following-through-with-a-fracking-ban-n2583476

---

"Federal Land"...That accounts for about 25% of oil produced stateside..Don't believe there will be anything significant done on other producing areas. .. Just my opinion. We'll see.

---

That will still result in the loss of about 36,000 jobs, despite no competent evidence that fracking is actually bad for the environment.

---

A loss of jobs in any sector is painful. I won't attempt to discuss " competent evidence" , as I know of none and believe fracking to be a boon to the industry .. I know of no hard opposition in the area of my West Texas assets, although I've read about folks in other areas claiming " earthquakes" in their communities that they "believe" to be a result of a fracking process. If evidence exists, I hope it comes forward and is analyzed thoroughly.

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/20/biden-administration-yes-we-are-following-through-with-a-fracking-ban-n2583476

---

"Federal Land"...That accounts for about 25% of oil produced stateside..Don't believe there will be anything significant done on other producing areas. .. Just my opinion. We'll see.

---

That will still result in the loss of about 36,000 jobs, despite no competent evidence that fracking is actually bad for the environment.

---

A loss of jobs in any sector is painful. I won't attempt to discuss " competent evidence" , as I know of none and believe fracking to be a boon to the industry .. I know of no hard opposition in the area of my West Texas assets, although I've read about folks in other areas claiming " earthquakes" in their communities that they "believe" to be a result of a fracking process. If evidence exists, I hope it comes forward and is analyzed thoroughly.

---

It already has. Companies fracking have already paid money out. Basically fracking has been studied, and causes environmental damage. In West Texas it probably doesn't matter as much as it does closer to towns.

Here is 1 study on its effect on drinking water.

https://blog.epa.gov/2016/12/13/epa-releases-final-report-of-the-potential-impacts-of-hydraulic-fracturing-on-drinking-water-resources/

Porteroso said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/20/biden-administration-yes-we-are-following-through-with-a-fracking-ban-n2583476

---

"Federal Land"...That accounts for about 25% of oil produced stateside..Don't believe there will be anything significant done on other producing areas. .. Just my opinion. We'll see.

---

That will still result in the loss of about 36,000 jobs, despite no competent evidence that fracking is actually bad for the environment.

---

A loss of jobs in any sector is painful. I won't attempt to discuss " competent evidence" , as I know of none and believe fracking to be a boon to the industry .. I know of no hard opposition in the area of my West Texas assets, although I've read about folks in other areas claiming " earthquakes" in their communities that they "believe" to be a result of a fracking process. If evidence exists, I hope it comes forward and is analyzed thoroughly.

---

It already has. Companies fracking have already paid money out. Basically fracking has been studied, and causes environmental damage. In West Texas it probably doesn't matter as much as it does closer to towns.

Here is 1 study on its effect on drinking water.

https://blog.epa.gov/2016/12/13/epa-releases-final-report-of-the-potential-impacts-of-hydraulic-fracturing-on-drinking-water-resources/

---

When I click on the highlighted link to final assessment on the effects, it tells me page no longer exists. I'm not doubting your research on this topic, but I believe fracking , like most exploration and drilling activities, should be done with great care as to location and method used. Some of the articles on the bottom of your linked page talk about effects of pesticide/chemical/waste runoffs into tributaries and streams.We have experienced that here in Waco for many years from upstream dairy farms. Nothing done in drilling is risk free to the environment..there's always some degree of harm..The key is oversight and regulation of "methods" that can make a real difference in risk outcome. It's a "cost vs need" equation...one we face everyday in many sectors of industry.

kenjon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Washington Post has lost all credibility at this point. They still have a lot of good writers, and clearly report on a lot of news people need to know about, but there are better options that are less biased. I read NYT sometimes, and while it's biased, it still tries to be fair. WaPo doesn't even try.

Fracking is an interesting issue, but no matter your opinion, you have to know it can cause environmental damage. Whether it's an acceptable level of damage or not is the question. As noted, it won't impact most of US oil, this ban. And I doubt you'll see Congress actually passing a fracking ban. This is as bad as it will get from Biden, he can't do any more. Certainly some people will lose money from this.

---

Huh? I'm just curious what you know about it.

---

I do have a personal interest in horizontal drilling. I benefit from it.

It is known by almost everyone not benefitting from it, that blowing up stuff underground, can have negative effects upon the environment.

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/20/biden-administration-yes-we-are-following-through-with-a-fracking-ban-n2583476

---

"Federal Land"...That accounts for about 25% of oil produced stateside..Don't believe there will be anything significant done on other producing areas. .. Just my opinion. We'll see.

---

That will still result in the loss of about 36,000 jobs, despite no competent evidence that fracking is actually bad for the environment.

---

A loss of jobs in any sector is painful. I won't attempt to discuss " competent evidence" , as I know of none and believe fracking to be a boon to the industry .. I know of no hard opposition in the area of my West Texas assets, although I've read about folks in other areas claiming " earthquakes" in their communities that they "believe" to be a result of a fracking process. If evidence exists, I hope it comes forward and is analyzed thoroughly.

---

It already has. Companies fracking have already paid money out. Basically fracking has been studied, and causes environmental damage. In West Texas it probably doesn't matter as much as it does closer to towns.

Here is 1 study on its effect on drinking water.

https://blog.epa.gov/2016/12/13/epa-releases-final-report-of-the-potential-impacts-of-hydraulic-fracturing-on-drinking-water-resources/

---

When I click on the highlighted link to final assessment on the effects, it tells me page no longer exists. I'm not doubting your research on this topic, but I believe fracking , like most exploration and drilling activities, should be done with great care as to location and method used. Some of the articles on the bottom of your linked page talk about effects of pesticide/chemical/waste runoffs into tributaries and streams.We have experienced that here in Waco for many years from upstream dairy farms. Nothing done in drilling is risk free to the environment..there's always some degree of harm..The key is oversight and regulation of "methods" that can make a real difference in risk outcome. It's a "cost vs need" equation...one we face everyday in many sectors of industry.

---

I agree, and as I said, if you frack all of West Texas, it's less of a concern to humanity, than if you frack right beside a town. There are a myriad of concerns.

One thing your post did not address is the effect upon the environment. Disturbing the water table, extensively, is actually a rather new experiment.

Porteroso said:

---

kenjon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Washington Post has lost all credibility at this point. They still have a lot of good writers, and clearly report on a lot of news people need to know about, but there are better options that are less biased. I read NYT sometimes, and while it's biased, it still tries to be fair. WaPo doesn't even try.

Fracking is an interesting issue, but no matter your opinion, you have to know it can cause environmental damage. Whether it's an acceptable level of damage or not is the question. As noted, it won't impact most of US oil, this ban. And I doubt you'll see Congress actually passing a fracking ban. This is as bad as it will get from Biden, he can't do any more. Certainly some people will lose money from this.

---

Huh? I'm just curious what you know about it.

---

I do have a personal interest in horizontal drilling. I benefit from it.

It is known by almost everyone not benefitting from it, that blowing up stuff underground, can have negative effects upon the environment.

---

Prove your assumptions. Just because you have ownership in a well doesn't provide you with any credence as to the science.

Porteroso said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Bexar Pitts said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/01/20/biden-administration-yes-we-are-following-through-with-a-fracking-ban-n2583476

---

"Federal Land"...That accounts for about 25% of oil produced stateside..Don't believe there will be anything significant done on other producing areas. .. Just my opinion. We'll see.

---

That will still result in the loss of about 36,000 jobs, despite no competent evidence that fracking is actually bad for the environment.

---

A loss of jobs in any sector is painful. I won't attempt to discuss " competent evidence" , as I know of none and believe fracking to be a boon to the industry .. I know of no hard opposition in the area of my West Texas assets, although I've read about folks in other areas claiming " earthquakes" in their communities that they "believe" to be a result of a fracking process. If evidence exists, I hope it comes forward and is analyzed thoroughly.

---

It already has. Companies fracking have already paid money out. Basically fracking has been studied, and causes environmental damage. In West Texas it probably doesn't matter as much as it does closer to towns.

Here is 1 study on its effect on drinking water.

https://blog.epa.gov/2016/12/13/epa-releases-final-report-of-the-potential-impacts-of-hydraulic-fracturing-on-drinking-water-resources/

---

When I click on the highlighted link to final assessment on the effects, it tells me page no longer exists. I'm not doubting your research on this topic, but I believe fracking , like most exploration and drilling activities, should be done with great care as to location and method used. Some of the articles on the bottom of your linked page talk about effects of pesticide/chemical/waste runoffs into tributaries and streams.We have experienced that here in Waco for many years from upstream dairy farms. Nothing done in drilling is risk free to the environment..there's always some degree of harm..The key is oversight and regulation of "methods" that can make a real difference in risk outcome. It's a "cost vs need" equation...one we face everyday in many sectors of industry.

---

I agree, and as I said, if you frack all of West Texas, it's less of a concern to humanity, than if you frack right beside a town. There are a myriad of concerns.

One thing your post did not address is the effect upon the environment. Disturbing the water table, extensively, is actually a rather new experiment.

---

I would say that effects on the water table are many times taken into consideration nowadays before drilling ever begins. I own land in East Texas that is near to an underground water source for a town of around 5,000. This tract has yet to have a well drilled, I believe due to the location. O&G companies do sometimes try to have some foresight in their activities. Not saying they're "Saints" by any means...just that they can see the obvious.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

kenjon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Washington Post has lost all credibility at this point. They still have a lot of good writers, and clearly report on a lot of news people need to know about, but there are better options that are less biased. I read NYT sometimes, and while it's biased, it still tries to be fair. WaPo doesn't even try.

Fracking is an interesting issue, but no matter your opinion, you have to know it can cause environmental damage. Whether it's an acceptable level of damage or not is the question. As noted, it won't impact most of US oil, this ban. And I doubt you'll see Congress actually passing a fracking ban. This is as bad as it will get from Biden, he can't do any more. Certainly some people will lose money from this.

---

Huh? I'm just curious what you know about it.

---

I do have a personal interest in horizontal drilling. I benefit from it.

It is known by almost everyone not benefitting from it, that blowing up stuff underground, can have negative effects upon the environment.

---

Blowing stuff up underground? LMAO

That's not even close to what's happening. The fractures are the size of spider webs made through perforations in the pipe only in the formation zone thousands of feet from any water table. A tiny charge goes off to make perforations.

I hope you don't believe we're moving the earth lol

---

A significant percentage of fracking fluid absolutely escapes into the water table. I also understand current fracking is much safer than fracking in its beginning. It's simply not safe around drinking water supplies, and has actually caused holes in the ground. Once again, doing it in uninhabited West Texas is different from doing it around people. And it's a relatively new experiment we are conducting on the environment.

Related:

Transportation Secretary nominee Pete Buttigieg defends Biden's elimination of Keystone pipeline jobs, saying those workers need to get "different ones"pic.twitter.com/T56f7aKp8D

Tommy Pigott (@TCPigott) January 21, 2021

Doc Holliday said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

kenjon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Washington Post has lost all credibility at this point. They still have a lot of good writers, and clearly report on a lot of news people need to know about, but there are better options that are less biased. I read NYT sometimes, and while it's biased, it still tries to be fair. WaPo doesn't even try.

Fracking is an interesting issue, but no matter your opinion, you have to know it can cause environmental damage. Whether it's an acceptable level of damage or not is the question. As noted, it won't impact most of US oil, this ban. And I doubt you'll see Congress actually passing a fracking ban. This is as bad as it will get from Biden, he can't do any more. Certainly some people will lose money from this.

---

Huh? I'm just curious what you know about it.

---

I do have a personal interest in horizontal drilling. I benefit from it.

It is known by almost everyone not benefitting from it, that blowing up stuff underground, can have negative effects upon the environment.

---

Blowing stuff up underground? LMAO

That's not even close to what's happening. The fractures are the size of spider webs made through perforations in the pipe only in the formation zone thousands of feet from any water table. A tiny charge goes off to make perforations.

I hope you don't believe we're moving the earth lol

---

A significant percentage of fracking fluid absolutely escapes into the water table.

---

No. Fracking fluid (proppant) is not making it's way through pipe, then casing and then through a mile of rock into a water table they are regulated to stay away from, especially in significant amounts.

Defies the laws of physics and it's actually never happened before:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/12/15/yes-direct-injection-of-fracking-fluid-into-groundwater-causes-contamination/?sh=3ba9607319d3

---

Damn, I finally agree with the Doktor!

edit: Fluid definitely escapes its casing, but I posted a quote about it reaching groundwater, was actually looking for information about it reaching the water table.

edit2:

Quote:

---

Figure ES-7 illustrates how the vertical separation distance between the targeted rock formation and underground drinking water resources can vary across the United States. The two example environments depicted in panels a and b represent the range of separation distances shown in panel c. In Figure ES-7a, there are thousands of feet between the bottom of the underground drinking water resource and the hydraulically fractured rock formation. These conditions are generally reflective of deep shale formations (e.g., Haynesville Shale), where oil and gas production wells are first drilled vertically and then horizontally along the targeted rock formation. Microseismic data and modeling studies suggest that, under these conditions, fractures created during hydraulic fracturing are unlikely to grow through thousands of feet of rock into underground drinking water resources.

EPA study

---

I'll admit that I seem to be wrong about it reaching the water table. I have read that in multiple places, and never gone to the trouble of seeing if it was correct or not. It commonly reaches groundwater, not the water table.

The larger point I'm making, about fracking damaging the environment, is still worth making.

Quote:

---

A well with insufficient mechanical integrity can allow unintended fluid movement, either from the inside to the outside of the well (pathway 1 in Figure ES-6) or vertically along the outside of the well (pathways 2-5). The existence of one or more of these pathways can result in impacts on drinking water resources if hydraulic fracturing fluids reach groundwater resources.

EPA study

---

Stranger said:

---

My son's employer provides fuel to frac operators in West Texas and New Mexico. He said that almost 100 percent of their jobs in New Mexico are on federal land.

This will hurt,

---

New Mexico is a large player in O&G activity on federal land. Hard to believe , but about 1/3 of land in New Mexico is federal land.

Porteroso said:

---

edit: Fluid definitely escapes its casing, but I posted a quote about it reaching groundwater, was actually looking for information about it reaching the water table.

edit2:

Quote:

---

Figure ES-7 illustrates how the vertical separation distance between the targeted rock formation and underground drinking water resources can vary across the United States. The two example environments depicted in panels a and b represent the range of separation distances shown in panel c. In Figure ES-7a, there are thousands of feet between the bottom of the underground drinking water resource and the hydraulically fractured rock formation. These conditions are generally reflective of deep shale formations (e.g., Haynesville Shale), where oil and gas production wells are first drilled vertically and then horizontally along the targeted rock formation. Microseismic data and modeling studies suggest that, under these conditions, fractures created during hydraulic fracturing are unlikely to grow through thousands of feet of rock into underground drinking water resources.

EPA study

---

I'll admit that I seem to be wrong about it reaching the water table. I have read that in multiple places, and never gone to the trouble of seeing if it was correct or not. It commonly reaches groundwater, not the water table.

The larger point I'm making, about fracking damaging the environment, is still worth making.

Quote:

---

A well with insufficient mechanical integrity can allow unintended fluid movement, either from the inside to the outside of the well (pathway 1 in Figure ES-6) or vertically along the outside of the well (pathways 2-5). The existence of one or more of these pathways can result in impacts on drinking water resources if hydraulic fracturing fluids reach groundwater resources.

EPA study

---

---

Banning it altogether would destroy the industry. It's not just some little easy regulation.

kenjon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

edit: Fluid definitely escapes its casing, but I posted a quote about it reaching groundwater, was actually looking for information about it reaching the water table.

edit2:

Quote:

---

Figure ES-7 illustrates how the vertical separation distance between the targeted rock formation and underground drinking water resources can vary across the United States. The two example environments depicted in panels a and b represent the range of separation distances shown in panel c. In Figure ES-7a, there are thousands of feet between the bottom of the underground drinking water resource and the hydraulically fractured rock formation. These conditions are generally reflective of deep shale formations (e.g., Haynesville Shale), where oil and gas production wells are first drilled vertically and then horizontally along the targeted rock formation. Microseismic data and modeling studies suggest that, under these conditions, fractures created during hydraulic fracturing are unlikely to grow through thousands of feet of rock into underground drinking water resources.

EPA study

---

I'll admit that I seem to be wrong about it reaching the water table. I have read that in multiple places, and never gone to the trouble of seeing if it was correct or not. It commonly reaches groundwater, not the water table.

The larger point I'm making, about fracking damaging the environment, is still worth making.

Quote:

---

A well with insufficient mechanical integrity can allow unintended fluid movement, either from the inside to the outside of the well (pathway 1 in Figure ES-6) or vertically along the outside of the well (pathways 2-5). The existence of one or more of these pathways can result in impacts on drinking water resources if hydraulic fracturing fluids reach groundwater resources.

EPA study

---

---

Sir- I say this with respect for you as human. Please stop asserting ideas when you don't understand the subject. I'd be happy to converse with you once you have studied it but the propaganda that your attesting to is either not relevant or has no factual basis.

In this EPA quote, I know of any company that is going to spend millions of dollars fracking down casing that isn't going into the formation that they targeted in the horizontal leg. If issues come up, the frack job will be stopped and the casing repair made. These 'issues' are never near the groundwater supply as casing 'issues' often occur in the horizontal portion of the casing. Groundwater is typically covered by 2--3 strings of casing.

---

The EPA gives 2 examples of the fluid contaminating nearby groundwater. Are you saying that's not true?

kenjon said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

edit: Fluid definitely escapes its casing, but I posted a quote about it reaching groundwater, was actually looking for information about it reaching the water table.

edit2:

Quote:

---

Figure ES-7 illustrates how the vertical separation distance between the targeted rock formation and underground drinking water resources can vary across the United States. The two example environments depicted in panels a and b represent the range of separation distances shown in panel c. In Figure ES-7a, there are thousands of feet between the bottom of the underground drinking water resource and the hydraulically fractured rock formation. These conditions are generally reflective of deep shale formations (e.g., Haynesville Shale), where oil and gas production wells are first drilled vertically and then horizontally along the targeted rock formation. Microseismic data and modeling studies suggest that, under these conditions, fractures created during hydraulic fracturing are unlikely to grow through thousands of feet of rock into underground drinking water resources.

EPA study

---

I'll admit that I seem to be wrong about it reaching the water table. I have read that in multiple places, and never gone to the trouble of seeing if it was correct or not. It commonly reaches groundwater, not the water table.

The larger point I'm making, about fracking damaging the environment, is still worth making.

Quote:

---

A well with insufficient mechanical integrity can allow unintended fluid movement, either from the inside to the outside of the well (pathway 1 in Figure ES-6) or vertically along the outside of the well (pathways 2-5). The existence of one or more of these pathways can result in impacts on drinking water resources if hydraulic fracturing fluids reach groundwater resources.

EPA study

---

---

Sir- I say this with respect for you as human. Please stop asserting ideas when you don't understand the subject. I'd be happy to converse with you once you have studied it but the propaganda that your attesting to is either not relevant or has no factual basis.

In this EPA quote, I know of any company that is going to spend millions of dollars fracking down casing that isn't going into the formation that they targeted in the horizontal leg. If issues come up, the frack job will be stopped and the casing repair made. These 'issues' are never near the groundwater supply as casing 'issues' often occur in the horizontal portion of the casing. Groundwater is typically covered by 2--3 strings of casing.

---

that is correct.....from someone who does this for a living.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Have to respect the dems.

Those are good middle class jobs that mostly go to people who disproportionally vote red.

Punishing your enemies and taking away their means to support their families is good policy.....all while you expand HR departments, diversity training make work jobs, and all types of bureaucratic jobs for your liberal supporters.

The Dems know how to play politics and win.

Did republicans (idiots) ever target a know job field with lots of liberals? Of course not

republicans (idiots) don't know how to harm the Left....but the Left knows how to harm them.

---

hilarious rant.... no fact, but hilarious


as to your last questions, there is a reason every Dan Patrick wanna be attacks teachers, public schools, etc. and it ain't because they are against education. they don't like how those people vote!

Stranger said:

---

My son's employer provides fuel to frac operators in West Texas and New Mexico. He said that almost 100 percent of their jobs in New Mexico are on federal land.

This will hurt,

---

they finding much oil in there? been out of the space a bit but that always seemed like a "hope" more than actual economic find... asking about New Mexico...