18 votes

Ted Cruz: Fracking America Back to Greatness

Stumping at a GOP Think Tank.

If this guy was selling me a car I'd find another lot. My antennae twitch the moment he moves his lips. If this is the 'Future', we're doomed.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

true... we should all drive electric cars

Everyone know electric cars are better for the environment! Look at how they mine the rare earth elements to construct those batteries...


Not to mention most our power grid is fed by the burning of coal. So mine some rare earths, mine some coal, and burn the coal to propel your car! Not to mention oil is used to transport all those items across the planet and to run the factories...

proverbs 20:15
There is gold, and an abundance of jewels;
But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing.

I hope that is sarcasm

but it definitely isn't electric cars or coal.

Do some research.

sure was

Research what? Don't worry, I am working on a new thread that will be on the subject and very comprehensive. My few line response was just that, a response. And yes, the majority of our grid is fed by coal. May 2013 was the first time natural gas exceeded coal to supply energy to the grid and it was only a function of its low price. what I described it the current process that provides energy to electric cars.

My point was that alternatives are not very good for the environment at this point either. We need to continue to drill and frac... It CAN be done safely. Natural gas is our best opportunity to clean up emissions and move towards viable alternatives.

proverbs 20:15
There is gold, and an abundance of jewels;
But the lips of knowledge are a more precious thing.

Before you tell someone else

Before you tell someone else to do some research, maybe you should do some for yourself. What is hydraulic fracturing? And what does it have to do with the water table?


"Streamline permitting for offshore rigs" come on are you kidding me?

I wrote a law review article about the permitting process in law school from my research I found all the rigs in the southeast give their application and contingency plans to one man in one office in New Orleans and he rubber stamps anything... most applications are copied and pasted from the exon valdez crises and don't actually account for anything.

BP's applications had walruses and seals as potentially effected species IN THE GULF OF MEXICO!

The frackers and oilers are tycoons.. Cruz is the new koch brothers trying to sell monopoly interest in the guise of libertarianism.

Cruz will tarnish our reputation with the progressives if we let him.. we can not let him win or he will wedge us away from common ground and coalitions and back into Neo-Con colonialism.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.


First the Heritage Foundation is a collection agency for RHINO, tea-GOP usurpers of the RP Libertarian momentum. Got that. The Heritage Foundation is just as full-a-shit as Ted Cruz. Now, last I looked, Cruz was Canadian. Ya? So first we have a 'birther' headline with Obama, now some segment on the Republican party wants there own 'birther' headline.?? This non-story doesn't deserve much attention. Cruz doesn't deserve any.

I'm a Birther, You're a Birther

..He's a Birther, She's a Birther,
Wouldn't you like to be a Birther too___
(sung to the tune of "the Dr. Pepper jingle")

Cruz__Cruz__Cruz, They call him the Cruiser___
Cruz__Cruz__Cruz, Ya know he's a loser.
(sung to the tune of "The Rapper")

Anybody know any Canadian songs?

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Here's one



What a moron - thats all I can say.

The whole energy charade reminds me of the great Irish famine.

Did you know that Ireland had net exports of food during the famine?
Umm- that's not a famine people - that is effed up policy.

Do you also know the US had net energy exports in 2013??

So what Cruz wants to do is take the chance of polluting huge amounts of land and water so we can export oil? So he wants to make sure he bleeds our resources for the betterment of corporate profits?

And he thinks nobody in the Dem party is going to call him out on this and crush him during a primary???? I mean why not just say you want to club baby seals and kill puppies- you MIGHT have a better chance of winning.

Oh boy we really do love a sucker dont we.

When people think they are for free market

Don't you just love it when people who are supposedly for free markets then pick the technology they know will succeed if we had a free market.

Remove all the special industry protections, subsidies etc. Enforce strong property rights to protect environment so people are paying the true cost of consuming the resource. Then lets see what moves to the top.

Its the same argument I hear with nuclear. We can't survive without it because of the energy demands. Well, in a true free market, the solution to a problem isn't necessarily the one you are thinking about. There are many possibilities. Maybe power demand doesn't increase because free market innovations in efficiency. If power is limited, then the free market will work in other ways to bring about balance.

Anyone that says they are for the free market, and then proclaims to then pick the winning technology in the same sentence really doesn't understand what they are talking about.

Well, the alternative woulda been "Klaus Barbie's Acolyte"

Well, the alternative woulda been "Klaus Barbie's Acolyte", the ex-CIA hangman of the Bolivian Revolution and current Lt. Governor of Texas, David Dewhurst. In a choice between evils, I think we got the lesser in Cruz.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

That makes me feel better


I do. I feel better having the golfer-evil Obama instead of Bish

I do. I feel better having the golfer-evil Obama instead of Bishop Willard "White Horse Prophecy" Romney for President. Sure, Obama is a lazy, incompetent, careless, distracted narcissist with a Nero complex, but on the other hand he's a great sports conversationalist. If we got stuck with Romney, WWIII will just about have been concluded by now, to the utter demise of most of the world.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

Don't bank the 'recovery' on

Don't bank the 'recovery' on one industry...

Conservatism was never about 'pro-business' but about 'small-business'.

Southern Agrarian

Fracking, deep water drilling, and Artic exploration are

desperate acts in an attempt to make the impossible, possible.

We humans are practical and inventive. Out of our practicality, we collect the low hanging fruit first, and leave the rest for later. This is because there is greater return for our efforts collecting what is easiest to acquire. We don't drill down 30,000 feet in remote locations to acquire oil if we can acquire it by only drilling down 10,000 feet just down the road. But this gives rise to cost that grows exponentially. This can be observed by taking the actual cost to acquire oil over time and experimenting to see which mathematical formula produces a line that best matches this actual data.

It does not matter what individual source of energy we are talking about or the totality of energy production; exponential growth in cost is what is observed. This applies to non energy resources as well. At one time gold and silver, for example, were found very near the surface, even on the surface, but today we are forced to mine very deeply into the earth at ever increasing costs to acquire poorer and poorer deposits.

When our cost to acquire resources is increasing at an exponential rate (compound rate), in order to just maintain a constant level of production, we must expend more and more energy each year which forces us to find energy at an exponential rate also else our economy will decline. This is an impossible task and can only temporarily be accomplished by desperate measures which we are witnessing today in fracking and going to remote, inhospitable places to suck up the dregs in an effort to postpone the inevitable end of the industrial age.

The industrial age only began ~400 years ago with the exploitation of coal. Before that we were limited to renewable sources of energy, and human population was restricted to what these resources would support. The industrial age allowed for an explosion in human population because production exploded to provide for us. As production collapses, the reverse will occur.

Cruz totally misunderstands the energy problem. What he sees as a miracle is nothing more than a desperate, super high cost effort to keep the party going for a few more years. Fracking is nothing new; it simply was not employed because it was too expensive a way to get oil and gas. Think not only in terms of dollar cost, but in the amount of energy that must be expended to get back more energy. The more energy that must be expended to acquire energy, the less energy is available to fuel economic production, i.e., less energy profit.

When politicians, either on the right or left attempt to decide what is produced, how it is produced, or who gets to consume it, thing only turn bad. Yes, we should get government out of economic decisions and let free men in a free market do what they can. The free market is not going to repeal the laws of nature, but it will do a much better job within the constraints of nature to make thing better or less desperate.

At this juncture in history, we are about to learn just how bad things can be in the perfect storm of increasing energy cost and massive government intervention in economic activity. I think we will witness a significant reduction in population numbers, a much lower standard of living, and the end of costly, complex centralized government in favor smaller, localized government units. Just as the industrial age is terminal, so is the federal government.

For a more complete understanding:


"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

I'm sorry but this is way off.

"Fracking, deep water drilling, and Arctic exploration are desperate acts in an attempt to make the impossible, possible."

Fracking, deep water drilling, and Arctic exploration are attempts at economically producing useful energy, which is something they are doing as we speak at millions of locations across the globe. It is not accurate to call what they do "impossible" since they are in fact already doing it, and it is not honest to misattribute their intentions.


Rather than type out a long, line-by-line response, I will just ask you one question:

Can you show me a graph that backs up your assertion that the cost to produce oil in real terms has grown "exponentially"?

Since your whole argument is predicated on the fact that the cost to acquire resources grows exponentially over time, if you are unable to provide evidence that this is correct, the rest of your post is meaningless.

I borrow the following from Tom Woods:

"---In 1950, for example, Americans had to work six minutes to earn the money that would buy them a loaf of bread; by 1999 that was down to just three and a half minutes.

---To be able to buy a dozen oranges in 1950 took 21 minutes of labor. It was only nine minutes by 1999.

---Paying for 100 kilowatts of electricity required two hours of labor in 1950, but only 14 minutes in 1999.

---Someone in 1900 would have had to work nine hours, as compared with four hours in 1950, and three hours in 1999, to earn the money to buy a pair of jeans.

---For a three-pound chicken, it was 160 minutes in 1900, 71 in 1950, and 24 in 1999."

What do you think the data would look like for oil? Or Gas? Or gold? Or silver?

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Just one graph. That's all you want?


Further reading:



And if that isn't enough, look up the work of Prof. Charles Hall who has studied this issue extensively.

The cost in real terms to acquire energy has increased because it increasingly takes more and more energy to acquire new energy. It doesn't matter how you adjust this in terms of dollars. What matters is how much energy you have remaining out of each barrel of oil, for example, and as more and more each year is expended to get a barrel of oil from a new field, less and less is available to run the economy. This is the cost increase. This is energy that isn't available to fuel economic activity because it is used up in the process of acquiring more energy.

You miss the entire point when you use data on productivity to say things cost less. Of course we have gotten more productive because we have used more and more exogenous energy like coal, oil, and natural gas to produce more and more things more quickly with less human labor. You essentially prove the point that we are heavily dependent on energy for high production, and the corollary is that when we reach energy constraints then human labor per unit of production will go up, i.e., productivity will go down, and we will all have less to consume.

It all turns on how much energy we can extract at what expenditure of energy, and the data shows it takes more and more energy because we use up the easiest to find reserves first. This should be intuitive, if nothing else. What business man in his right mind goes goes after the most difficult, dirty, smallest pooled, lowest grade, most remote, deepest deposits while his competitors do the exact opposite? Everyone follows the low hanging fruit principle, the path of least resistance, and this ultimately dooms an economy faced with finite resources.

What is impossible is that fracking or deep water oil, or Arctic oil will substitute for the depletion of cheap conventional oil. The cheap discoveries are gone and what is left to find is dirty, deep, lower quality, remote, and low profit. What this means for the industrial age is contraction of output, i.e., less for everyone, which leads to conservation, which in turn leads to deprivation, which in turn leads to death for those on the margins.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

I don't know where to start...

From the first link:
"Early in the history of fossil-fuels extraction the energy available in the minerals extracted was high."

--Yikes. First off, I don't know if he's using "energy available" in the thermodynamic sense of the word, i.e. exergy, but I'm guessing from the quality of his website that he just means the amount of useful energy that can be obtained from the fuel. If that is the case, he is dead wrong, because even if ALL of the oil extracted is of a lower grade, our advances in refining and combustion have more than made up for that.

"However, as the more-easily extractable minerals are no longer available the energy return over energy invested (EROEI) decreases."

--This assumes a world where we don't get more efficient over time. In *reality*, as oil gets harder to find, we get better at finding it. As it takes more energy to find oil, we figure out how to combust more efficiently. This is the same phenomenon I showed with the price of electricity, oranges, bread, etc over time. This whole EROEI nonsense only matters IF we don't get better at producing it over time, IF demand does not increase, IF efficiencies in use don't increase, IF new uses aren't found for it, etc etc. His argument is based on a thousand "if's" and he fails on every count.

Here's the thing: even the EROEI is going down, who cares?? When you dump coal into a power plant and electricity comes out, the amount of electrical energy produced is smaller than the amount of chemical energy within the coal. When wind blows on a windmill, the amount of electricity produced is less than the amount of kinetic energy in the wind that spun the turbines. When you put gas in your car, the energy contained within the gas is much less than the energy produced by the engine. Congratulations, you've just rediscovered the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. *Even though the amount of energy produced is less than the amount of energy put into the system, it is a good thing, because it is a more useful form of energy.*

"The cheap discoveries are gone and what is left to find is dirty, deep, lower quality, remote, and low profit."

Low profit? Are you serious? I guess no one told Exxon/Chevron/MarkWest/Shell/BP/Williams/Range/Consol/etc, because they seem to be doing ok in the profit department...

"we are heavily dependent on energy for high production"

We are also heavily dependent on food for eating. What does that even mean?

"It all turns on how much energy we can extract at what expenditure of energy"

No it doesn't. Electricity is much cheaper to produce per unity energy than gasoline, but how many electric cars do you see every day? It has as much to do (or more) what KIND of energy, rather than how much. Gasoline is more useful for transportation, so consumers are willing to expend n units of another energy to obtain n-1 units of gasoline.


Instead of showing me the one graph I asked for, you linked to 3 separate websites, NONE of which has the graph upon which you based your entire argument. The fact that you linked to 3 different websites when all I asked for was a single picture tells me all I need to know. It's like when a politician is asked a yes/no question he doesn't want to answer, so he gives some long-winded speech that has nothing to do with the question that was asked.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Read the Hirsch Report. It contains the graph you requrested.

Here is an article which reproduces the graph of declining EROEI for oil and gas.

There is a link to the Hirsch Report in this article:


Some comments:

You scoff at energy profits being low. Let me ask you if you think the profit on a barrel of oil extracted by fracking is higher or lower than a barrel of oil extracted from a conventional well drilled to the same depth. If conventional oil is harder and harder to find, and oil companies turn to fracking (which require near $100/barrel to be profitable), do you think there is as much profit for the company. And if the price of oil must be higher to justify drilling these more difficult wells, what do you think that higher oil price does to the economy. What happens is that higher prices tell people they as a society can't afford oil without giving up something else, which is the way lack of energy to fuel economic activity forces economic contraction, i.e., via price.

What being heavily dependent on energy for production simply means that if the amount of energy that can be extracted in a given time frame, after deducting energy expended to acquire that energy, declines, then production declines, and since production is life sustaining, serious problems arise. Since the amount of energy expended to acquire energy is increasing at a compound rate, and since reserves are finite and production increases cannot possibly outrun the declining EROEI, the logical conclusion is that the system is terminal. That is what being heavily dependent on energy for production means to human beings.

As far as your praise of electricity, I point out that it is not a source of energy. It is a carrier of energy. A primary source of energy is needed to produce electricity; coal and natural gas are the primary sources today. Both coal and natural gas are finite resources, and subject to the same low hanging fruit problem. They both require more energy be expended to acquire them as time passes, eventually reaching the point where the energy profit is insufficient (the difference between the energy in what is extracted is hardly more than the energy expended to acquire them). As far as using electricity for vehicular travel, have you considered the gargantuan amount of resources that must be expended to develop the infrastructure. And there are serious questions as to the efficiency of electric cars vs gas cars. I have seen one analysis that accounts for all the energy that must go into a small electric vehicle compared to a Hummer, and the Hummer over its life actually takes less energy to manufacture, maintain, and fuel than the small electric vehicle. It is not just about the fuel cost.

As far as increases in refining efficiency, these have been relatively insignificant over time, and are limited by the energy in the barrels of oil fed into the refinery and the cost of these changes themselves. Most of the refining capacity in the US is near the engineered life, and there are few plans to expand that capacity, simply because oil executives know that the future of oil is not positive, both because discoveries for the last 25 years have been bleak, and because the cost to acquire oil has been rising. I wouldn't hang my hat on increased refining efficiency as an argument that the energy future is bright.

I am not moved by any of your arguments. These issues have been hashed and rehashed for years on various web sites visited by people interested in the energy future, and it is clear to me that we are approaching a cliff event. Out of desperation oil production has been accelerated from the future to the present by techniques like nitrogen and salt water injection, thus distorting the normal production curves. Energy expended to acquire energy keeps increasing. We increasingly have turned to desperate, marginally profitable (both in energy and dollar terms) efforts in order to keep the energy flowing. All these efforts to postpone the inevitable simply turn what would be a more orderly decline into a dangerous falling off a cliff when the measures finally are exhausted.

I point out that technology is knowledge applied to resources. Both are necessary, and if resources decline, so does technology because there is nothing to use the knowledge on to manipulate. How much can human labor produce without machines, and how can we operate or build machines without energy or the primary resources that make up the machines? Complexity breeds collapse.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

The Hirsch Report

I read that article you sent, but I'll discuss that later.

"You scoff at energy profits being low. Let me ask you if you think the profit on a barrel of oil extracted by fracking is higher or lower than a barrel of oil extracted from a conventional well drilled to the same depth."
-I scoff at energy profits being low, because they aren't. Obviously conventional production is more profitable for a reservoir than tracking (all else being equal), but all else isn't equal. Let me ask you if the profit on a barrel of oil is higher if they drill in the ground and diamonds shoot into the sky? You're comparing apples and orange. If you can dream up a hypothetical about how industry x could be more profitable if y occurred, that means absolutely nothing. The fact is, gas fracking was a virtually nonexistent industry a few years back, and now they're making money hand over fist. But according to your logic, none of these billions in profits matter, because they *could* be higher under the other imaginary circumstances in your mind.

"a society can't afford oil without giving up something else"
-You have just defined 'opportunity cost'. EVERYTHING in the economy is gained only by giving up something else. This isn't unique to oil, and it's pretty much meaningless to mention in this context.

"reserves are finite"

Oil reserves are higher now than they were 100 years ago. You misunderstand the meaning of the word "reserve".

"As far as your praise of electricity, I point out that it is not a source of energy."
-You went way off the rails here. Electricity is energy. I won't waste my time proving that to you, so if you don't believe me, a quick google search should clear it up. And even if it wasn't energy, how would you then claim that oil was if electricity wasn't? Let me think...there's kinetic energy, potential energy...and oil energy? The energy derived from oil is the chemical energy released as a result of combustion.

"Out of desperation oil production has been accelerated from the future to the present by techniques like nitrogen and salt water injection, thus distorting the normal production curves."

Out of desperation? You mean out of desire to make a profit? Conventional recovery techniques recover maybe 10-15% of a reservoir. You might not like to hear it, but there is an enormous wealth of oil under our feet, more than has every been produced in all of history, that can and will be produced profitably for decades to come. And by distorting normal production curves, I assume you mean make your theory harder to explain.


That Hirsch Report isn't worth spending time talking/thinking about. You remind me of a guy in NYC in 1900 who did the math that if trends continue, everyone in the city will be buried under 10 ft of horse dung in 50 years. You look at these models and hold all other variables constant, which makes the math easier, but completely divorces the graph from reality. What is the EROI for oil? It does't matter. When is peak oil? It doesn't matter. Does fracking cost more than a conventional recovery in that formation (if such a thing were possible)? It. Doesn't. Matter.

Value is subjective. Every time a gallon of gas gets $1 more expensive, another technology (i.e. tar sand recovery) will kick in. This nightmare scenario where oil jumps to $1000 a barrel overnight because no one saw the price going up except for you is never going to happen. The ONLY way something similar will every happen, the only way we will see an oil crisis of any kind, is through government intervention, and not due factors of oil production or economics.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

pretty much sums up my

pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

First of all this sold out puppet Cruz,

Needs to go drink some water near a frack site. If he survives that he will change his mind.

His new favorite saying is, butter my bread with frack money.


I couldn't make it past the 10-min mark.

New York has made many mistakes. But having a MORATORIUM ON FRACKING until more is known of its effect on people & the environment isn't one of them. And by the way, see how he made a *point* of saying the Shale doesn't end at a state line? Yeah, well, neither do polluted WATER SYSTEMS.

Not that that was the only reason. The whole speech seemed canned. Plus I heard all I ever want to about "the American Dream" the night of the RNC.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir


I don't trust Ted Cruz. I could support Rand though and it would be great if Greg Brannon gets in

I hate pandering. Period.

I hate pandering. Period.


You niteowl!
Happy Trading...

As we speak...

Yes. Woke up at 3am. So chiseled a couple of points of S&P.
Speaking of fracking, we have a doosie of a blowout happening now about 60 miles south. So far fracking has been good to my county $$, but I have a couple of friends who lost their multi-million dollar farms to polluted wells.

One of the two guys, Ron Gulla, settled for $1.5 mil.

He had restored the farm to pristine condition. He sells heavy equipment for Deere.
The other guy, George Zimmerman, has spent $2 mil. fighting the driller, Atlas Energy, for about 4 years now.
Looks like he may get something back on his $11 mil. cash, debt free, property this year.