
As oil and gas exports surge, West Texas becomes the world’s “extraction colony” - howard941
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/10/11/west-texas-becomes-worlds-extraction-colony-oil-gas-exports-surge/
======
patagonia
Texan here. I’m anti fossil fuels, pro solar and wind. I’ve stopped trying to
have any conversations with other Texans about this topic. Texans are very pro
fossil fuels, on balance. I’m saying this as an Austinite.

It’s interesting to see this in the Texas Tribune.

From time to time I have reason to drive through or fly over (I know,
hypocrite) West Texas, and passing through the oil fields one can literally
watch the world burn. It’s unreal.

Edit: Just a note on the people in the energy industry. They’re good people on
balance. I might have come across as incidentally disparaging people in the
energy industry. I have many friends and family of friends that have spent
their entire career in the industry. It’s like Silicon Valley and tech’s
problems. NYC and the financial crisis. Economic and financial incentives
supported by cultural norms. In Silicon Valley the confidence that technology
will improve our future means sometimes it is developed without pause for
impact. In Texas a strong Christian ethos encourages a certain view of
“stewardship” of the earth that does not mesh well with the constantly
evolving culture of environmentalism. But as people they’re good people.

~~~
S_A_P
Houstonite here that works in the energy industry. Im not sure you are talking
to the right people. Im not anti fossil fuels, but Im not really "pro" fossil
fuels either. If you look at the oil and gas business, there really just isn't
any viable alternatives available on a large scale at this moment. I would
echo some other comments in that Texas has a lot of solar and wind farms. My
father in law has a ranch out in west Texas and every surrounding property has
wind or solar generation on it. I am encouraged by this, and while I don't
really like looking out at the landscape to see a bunch of windmills, I think
it is important to try and reduce our fossil fuel use. The fact of the matter
though is that until we give up plastic, and figure out how to store
electricity, we need nat gas or nuclear for electricity. Ive read conflicting
data about the worlds lithium supply, but it may or may not be able to replace
crude for transportation. Electric planes still seem a decade off or more. If
crude went away tomorrow, I would still work in the energy industry so I don't
care if that were to happen. I can say that I have been encouraged by some of
the internal projects some "big oil" companies are taking on. I wish it could
be a case of just stop using oil. Life as we know it would cease if we did
that.

~~~
diafygi
Former Houston old-energy chemical engineer here (also grew up in west Texas).
I switched careers to cleantech, and I see now something I didn't see back
when I was in old-energy: being neutral about fossil fuels is just as bad as
being pro fossil fuels.

First, that attitude makes you, your family, and your friends more susceptible
to propaganda from pro-fossil fuel interests. You're more apt to believe crazy
stuff like we'd have to stop using plastic or that nuclear would have to also
go away. You're more apt to doubt the science behind climate change. You're
more apt to be mislead on the economics or feasibility of renewables.

Second, that attitude makes you think we're not in a rush, so we can afford to
wait until things are figured out more. It makes you think that we have to
figure out storage for wind and solar and airplanes, even though we don't have
to worry about that until we reach much higher levels of penetration than we
currently have (and we're already making good progress nonetheless). It makes
you think that we'd fall into chaos if we use less natural gas and oil, even
though it's going to be a gradual transition and will be replaced with equal
or better alternatives.

Unfortunately, because of previous neutral attitudes like yours, we're now in
a goddamn race for our lives as the nightmares of climate change are starting
to happen (how many Americans died in Puerto Rico? California's wildfires?
etc.). Nature doesn't give a fuck. It's too late to be neutral anymore.

So from one Texas energy worker to another, I beg you to stop being neutral.
Unlike most other people, you actually have domain expertise to have a
substantial impact fighting climate change. Remaining neutral when you work in
energy is just making everyone else's lives worse.

~~~
Knufen
Your entire reply is extreme in the sense it is all absolutes. Please provide
sources that we are in a 'race for your lives'. And please don't make
assumptions about other people or their lives without more information. It
gives you the appearance of a paranoid alarmist.

~~~
diafygi
> Your entire reply is extreme in the sense it is all absolutes. Please
> provide sources that we are in a 'race for your lives'.

Graph:
[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM3...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM3a.png)

Report: [https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/](https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/)

News: [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-
repo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-
report-2040.html)

This is the carbon emission reduction curve we have to hit if we want to hit
our Paris Agreement targets. That's a pretty steep drop off if you ask me, and
certainly falls into the category of a "race for your lives".

Do you disagree? Please provide sources that we aren't in such a rush to
curtail fossil emissions (because there's mountains of science saying we are).

> It gives you the appearance of a paranoid alarmist.

How can I be paranoid if the science backs me up? However, I do think being an
alarmist is appropriate for the situation. If that graph isn't a mash-the-big-
red-button moment, I don't know what would be.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I believe that there is a gap in your argument. We have to hustle to hit our
Paris Agreement targets, but missing them isn't exactly equivalent to dying -
at least, I don't think you've shown it to be. That's why it's not "a race for
our lives".

But, you may say, a lot of people will die from climate change. (And a lot
_definitely_ die from pollution.) A lot die from malaria, too, but we don't
have a "race for our lives" on that one. Cynically, most people don't consider
a bunch of _other_ people dying as a "race for our lives".

(We did more or less have a "race for our lives" on AIDS, though. It seems
that we start to care when it's hitting closer to home, and we think that it
could be _us_. That's the problem with your argument. You haven't shown people
enough evidence that they think it will be _them_ dying, so they don't think
it's "a race for our lives".)

~~~
diafygi
Hmmm, for non-scientific discussions, I tend to like the XKCD scale for global
temperature averages.

[https://xkcd.com/1379/](https://xkcd.com/1379/)

Going above Paris gets into the "there be dragons" realm of human survival.
The Pentagon is predicting mass migrations, wars, famine, and economic
implosion[1]. I feel like that certainly constitutes "race for our lives"
level of rhetoric.

Usually, when someone balks at strong rhetoric on climate change they are (1)
unaware of the scale and severity of the problem or (2) don't see those
affected as within their "our" definition (e.g. it will happen to _other_
people, not _my_ people). The former is slowly being solved through increased
education and awareness, the later will likely always be present due to human
tribalism and racism.

As far as the malaria theory, it's a very different strategy when you are
actively causing the problem you are trying to solve. It's as if we are
repeatedly shooting ourselves in the foot, then some of us say we should stop,
then you say why are you so focused on the foot-shooting vs cancer killing us.
One is an immediately addressable problem caused by ourselves, one is a
natural threat that is not under our direct and immediate control (thus takes
much longer to understand and solve).

[1]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-
global-w...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-
warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html)

~~~
specialist
IIRC, Eocene period had atmospheric CO2 up to 2000 ppm, the known max. I
figure we'll meet that target (ocean acidification, thawing tundra,
desertification). So life will somehow survive. Though I wouldn't place bets
that we humans will squeeze thru that keyhole.

------
thematt
This is a complete house of cards, for multiple reasons. It's yet another boom
that will result in a lot of hardship for people.

First, all the fracking in Texas is fueled by cheap interest rates and private
equity. The industry as a whole is losing money -- to the tune of $600 billion
since 2007. And when investors (I'm looking at you pension funds) finally
realize that there is no path to making these companies profitable, especially
when the decline rate on their wells is 70% in the first year, they will stop
pouring money in. A lot of companies will vanish when this happens.

Second, the media loves to play up the notion of "energy independence" and
headlines of the United States producing more than Russia/Saudi Arabia, but
neglects to understand the differentials in crude quality. The US (especially
Texas) is producing light oil, which increasingly is not wanted in the
industry. The refineries in the US have consumed all they can and are
increasingly in need of heavier oil to mix with, hence why you see the US
exporting our oil and importing oil from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. When
exports have been maxed out and foreign buyers slow their purchases these
companies will have nowhere to send their oil and will need to slow drilling.

~~~
ykevinator
The worst part is that private companies make the profit while tax payers
clean up the mess. Reverse socialism at its worst.

~~~
Faaak
How will tax payers clean up the mess ? What do you mean by it ?

~~~
nradov
Many of the extraction companies will eventually go bankrupt and liquidate,
leaving toxic waste sites behind. Then the government ( funded by taxpayers)
will have to step in and clean up the mess.

------
ghufran_syed
"Residents with no say in these decisions are stuck with the consequences" \-
I'm pretty sure that these residents get to vote for state assembly people who
obviously support the policy, to vote for city council people who support the
policy, for US Congress, House and Senate, and for the presidency. Saying that
you "don't have a say" when a democratic decision goes against you is pretty
misleading - perhaps more accurate to say "some residents, who disagree with
the democratically taken decisions at local, state and federal levels..."

~~~
zepto
Perhaps there are no candidates who represent the residents views.

Then they wouldn’t have a say.

~~~
ghufran_syed
Sure. But they have the right to run for office - so if _none_ of the 100's -
1000's of people who _do_ represent their views chose to run, isn't that a
choice too?

Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that the more popular choice won i.e.
overall, the people of the city decided that the benefits outweighed the harm?
And as more evidence of harm is accumulated, I'm sure their views on
regulation will change. But I think it's unhealthy to imply that when "our
side" loses, then the results are not legitimate, but when "our side" wins,
only then is it "democracy in action", "will of the people" etc

~~~
adventured
Of course that's exactly what happened. The anti views are the minority. Their
complaint is actually that they're losing out to a more popular position in a
Democracy. The oil industry jobs pay extraordinarily well compared to (non-
existent) alternatives that were there before the oil boom. There was no
economy in West Texas before the fracking output soared. There's nothing out
there other than Midland and Odessa, and their populations hadn't changed much
in 30 years. The choice is extraction economy or no economy. And if by some
unexpected effort + resources the state decided to invest vast tax revenue to
build up a non-extraction economy in the area, it will take decades anyway.

~~~
sremani
As usual an unpopular yet sound argument from adventured. The real losers are
people downvoting because of their shallow mental models.

West Texas oil is making US more secure and access to cheap energy will not
only make things better in Texas, but Mexico is going build on this supply of
NG.

West Texas is extraction colony, for America. The rest of the world is buying
because it is sweet as hell and produced in most stable region on the planet.

------
benj111
There seems to be a fair amount of cognitive dissonance here.

The central complaint almost seems to be that it's getting exported, rather
than getting used domestically.

And as a non American I'm struggling to understand the lack of environmental
opposition. Is the article biased, or does environmentalism not exist in
Texas?

Finally speaking as someone from the UK. This is scary. Theres been an ongoing
battle over fracking, with the first well drilled this year. Hopefully we have
better standards in place.

~~~
syn0byte
Plenty of environmentalists all over the place. plenty of people not happy
about it. None you will hear about because who would you hear it from? The 9
o'Clock news?(Brought to you by Ford and Chevron.) Even "grass roots" social
media platforms; You subscribe to any local Texas groups on
twitter/insta/whatever?

Texas is a single state with 4 times the land mass of the entire UK. Do the
people Glasgow stop what they are doing, take vacation time and go to protest
a new Tesco building over a historical site in London? Likewise people in
Houston have little reason and large costs to fight something happening 500
miles away. Nor do they have anything to say about or vote to cast in (almost)
any elections that would have (directly) altered policy in the area, which is
again, 500 miles(800km) away.

~~~
benj111
The article doesn't contain the voices I would expect. I'm wondering whether
that is an article bias, or just that those voices aren't present.

I don't know the ideology of the newspaper, I don't know the local politics.
Which is why I asked the question.

No offense was intended.

------
village-idiot
Curious what that'll do to West Texas' non-extraction economy.

Once a whole nation state depends on extraction, they usually lose other forms
of economic activity. This is usually called "Dutch Disease" for historical
reasons. But what happens when a small region within a country becomes
entirely dependent on resource extraction?

~~~
lurquer
There never was a non-extraction economy in West Texas. The place is empty.
Some cattle. Fire ants. And the occasional SS retiree living in a mobile home
in the middle of nowhere (such as the lady highlighted in the article).

Weep over the rainforests. Weep over the wetlands. Heck, you can even weep
over the drained swamps. But, spare your tears for West Texas... there is
NOTHING you could do to that terrain or ecosystem that wouldn't be an
improvement over the wasteland that it now is.

~~~
p1esk
How about weeping over natural gas flaring equivalent to daily exhaust emitted
by about 2.7 million cars?

~~~
Scoundreller
It's a temporary thing.

Once the number of LNG liquefaction plants in North America more than doubles,
NG will be worth collecting for export to markets that pay more than domestic
buyers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LNG_terminals#North_Am...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LNG_terminals#North_America)

The oil market is much more globalized than NG.

------
danschumann
I don't own a car. I also think climate change is similar to fighting obesity:
"you must change your behavior today or something will kill you in x years"
Usually people have a wake up call(cardiac event, can't run up stairs without
being winded, etc), before they get really serious about weight loss. What
would be a similar wake up call for the planet? People don't attribute floods
and stuff to climate change, so therefore it's not a wake up call.

~~~
thucydidesofusa
I'd wager that most people's wake up call would be weather that's more extreme
than climate change will likely produce. I imagine climate change to be
worrying when plants don't grow around me and that probably will never happen,
some just plants will recede into colder ranges and plants from warmer ranges
will come in.

~~~
CuriousSkeptic
If you live in the right place that is. There are countries worrying about
completely disappearing (due to raising sea levels) right now.

------
dsfyu404ed
Environment aside, what's the expected long term impact of lifting oil export
restrictions?

~~~
ars
The restrictions were intended to make sure America was energy independent.
Since that goal was accomplished, there isn't really a reason to keep them.

Increasing American exports hurts countries that depend on energy exports.
America can manage both with and without exports, but other countries can not.

The next step in my mind is increasing non-oil American energy and exporting
even more oil, this would further destabilize those oil-dependent countries
(most of whom are not friends of the US).

~~~
adventured
Venezuela is one of the first test cases for those consequences. Their system
put them down, the US no longer needing/wanting their sour crude will make it
far more difficult to get back up. US oil imports from Venezuela were near one
million barrels per day as recently as 2012. It's down about 40% from there,
and the US now buys around 60% of their total oil output. It has also been
hitting Cuba indirectly (as a Venezuela dependent) for some time and now
appears to be entering another stage there.[1] By the time Venezuela gets
itself back together as a functioning country and could think about rebuilding
its output, the world is unlikely to have much demand for its oil. The IEA is
expecting their oil production to drop below one million barrels per day soon
(from 3.5 million barrels per day in ~1998). Their estimated extractable
reserves was always a bit farcical, however even if you chopped that down by
2/3, roughly 100 billion barrels, that still ends up being several trillion
dollars in national wealth that will mostly never be realized.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-economy/reality-
bite...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-economy/reality-bites-cuba-
plans-more-austerity-as-finances-worsen-idUSKCN1OR0VN)

~~~
alacombe
You cannot put the collapse of Venezuela on US policies... The US didn't put
Chavez / Maduro in power, and they didn't ask them to oppress their own
people.

------
theothermkn
In _The Dictator 's Handbook_, by Bruce bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith,
the authors outline why those who live in an extraction economy often do so
under what we term dictatorships. Briefly, the supporters that are needed to
maintain that extraction economy are a very small subset of the population
and, from a government perspective, are not essential. The supporters you end
up needing are the portion of the working class needed to run the extraction
operation and a police force to keep the rest of the population in check.
(Well, and a treasurer and some other bureaucrats, but the application here is
to Texas in the U.S., where those services, and an army to defend your
territory, are provided by the federal government.) In banana and oil
republics, it's actually beneficial for the ruling class if most of the
population is weakened and starving, as they are less able to organize.

Contrast this with a classical democracy, where the support base is the
general population, and the treasury is made possible by the increased
productivity of an educated populace who have access to infrastructure that
supports their economic activity. In that instance, it is, broadly speaking,
the health of the populace that feeds the health of the state.

I bring this contrast up at this time for two reasons. First, in the present
case of an extraction colony existing inside a U.S. state, we can find a
coherent theory of the difference between Republican/Conservative policies,
such as states rights, authoritarianism, veneration of the mythology of the
(by definition unempowered) individual, and left policies (I leave out
Democrats, our centrist party): The former policies are tailored to preserve
capital concentrations, favor extractive economic activity, curb controls on
pollution, and suppress unions, all with the all-too-easy resort to violence
(or it's equivalent, the all-too-common occurrence of looking the other way).
The latter policies, from the left, are the opposite, intended to protect the
(in fact) powerless and to broaden economic benefit, often through
redistribution. Republicanism in this country, allied with business, exists in
order to set up and protect banana republics at the state level.

Second, we can point to other trends that are worrying in the U.S. For
example, infrastructure decay should be seen as a lagging indicator of the
economic vitality of a democratic nation; if the benefit of infrastructure
accrues indirectly to the ruling class through the productivity of the working
classes, then it (infrastructure) will be maintained. After that benefit has
gone away (say after manufacturing, technology, and information jobs have
moved overseas) the infrastructure can be allowed to decay, as other economic
systems arise to extract what's left. Unfortunately, what's left is the
remaining savings of the working classes. Think ad revenue for eyeballs,
opaque healthcare markets and lack of medical accountability to generate and
capitalize on health calamity, cornered apartment markets to extract rent,
isolated extraction economies like Dakota shale and the Permian basin,
farmland, and so on. No longer relevant to the productivity of a nation, the
citizen becomes, at best, a resource; at worst, a burden.

Anyhow, for the reasons above, I find the presence of these extractive
economies inside the U.S. worrying, more so if they are increasing. The
dynamics of power, namely wealth extraction in order to pay supporters, do not
bode well if it really has come to this.

~~~
CamTin
The US is just returning to its traditional political economy, where the land
is pillaged by elite interests, the rabble is dealt with as it can be, and any
"freedom" anyone has is totally coincidental and mainly stems from the failure
of elites to even pay attention to them because they are making so much more
money subjugating and impoverishing rabble elsewhere.

The mid-20th century was a bizarre anomaly brought on by a number of non-
repeatable factors, most notably WW2, the arms race, and Jim Crow, where we
accidentally had broad-based economic growth that included a (almost totally
white portion of the) working class. For centuries before that, the entire
economic purpose of America was to be a literal extraction colony.

The infrastructure needed to run the wealth pumps (for example, the pipelines
needed to pump crude from the Permian to the Gulf, or the West Coast ports
needed to import Chinese-made dollar store tchotchkes) will not decay, but
things like public transit, water treatment, and midcentury highway tunnels
will probably get worse, at least outside elite enclaves like New York and San
Francisco.

