Slashdot Mirror

Texas has been prosperous precisely because of fiscal conservatism.

Texas has been prosperous because it has a about 1/3 of US oil reserves and oil is doing well. 4 of the 5 largest companies based in Texas are oil and gas companies. That's how they can get away with the tax policies they do. Many other states don't have massive oil reserves to take up the slack. If conservatism were such a boon then how do you explain California which clearly is not conservative leaning having a far larger economy than Texas despite having higher tax burdens as a general proposition?

Bernie Sanders promoted Scandinavian Social Democracy also. That's madness.

Norway has higher before-tax per-capita GDP than the U.S., but only because it -- like Qatar, Brunei, Kuwait and UAE -- exports massive amounts of fossil fuels. (I haven't seen any rankings of after-tax per-capita GDP, but Norway would have a much poorer showing in such a ranking. You can ignore Ireland's high ranking in this list, which is purely an artifact of being a tax haven for multinational corporations.)

The other Scandinavian countries have significantly lower before-tax per-capita GDP than the U.S -- despite the advantage of their socio-ethnic homogeneity, and despite our disadvantage of still being a net oil and gas importer (despite what you may have heard).

Therefore there's absolutely no reason the U.S. should want to emulate the Scandinavian Social Democracy model.

No I have not. I am ,however, familiar on an amateur level with the oil industry. There are dozens of articles about the boom bust cycle and its associated impact on massive drug use spikes within the field workers. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Cr...

Force them?

Last time I checked, only 5 of the 29 members of NATO (you know, our closest allies) meet the 2% goal they PROMISED to meet only 4 years ago (that they promised to meet for the last 50 years).

So, I think your point is baloney.

Also, US now has the largest oil reserves recognized in the world. If the price of oil goes up, the US's strategic situation is IMPROVED.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/En...

You realize your repeating Russian propaganda?

*You're

Fracking is a 100 year old technology,

It's good because it's old? Fallacy.

it's just been demonized by hydrocarbon producers who's profit margin is threatened.

Uh no. They're the ones doing the fracking. They inject their refinery wastes into the wells, too, so it's a win-win for them.

cost of oil, coal and such is dictated at the moment by market factors - what kind of money can you get by selling it. basically what this means is that if demand goes down they can sell it for cheaper than they are selling it at now.

For a decade or two this may be true of Saudi surface oil (where Jed Clampet and a squirrel rifle drill a deep enough to strike oil), but it isn't true for frack oil where you have to figure in the cost of the sand and it isn't true for Canadian shale-oil where you have to figure in the energy cost of separation and transportation and already it isn't true for North Sea oil and it's doubtful that it will be true for deepwater wells in the Arctic or Gulf of Mexico or other places even if you can ignore the cost of environmental damage and human lives lost. In fact oil Energy Return On Investment (EROI) has been decreasing to from 2000:1 in 1919 to 5:1 in 2007. In fact, just as whales became more and more difficult to harvest as we approached peak whale oil in 1845, we are approaching the point where every drop of oil takes more energy and blood to extract.

“For God’s sake, be economical with your lamps and candles. Not a gallon you burn, but at least one drop of man’s blood was spilled for it.” -- Herman Melville (Moby Dick 1851)

Here's six of them.
"(not counting 2 trillion dollars and 4000 lives in a war over oil)

Intangible drilling oil & gas deduction ($2.3 billion)
Excess of percentage over cost depletion ($1.5 billion)
Master Limited Partnerships tax exemption ($1.6 billion)
Last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting ($1.7 billion)
Lost royalties from onshore and offshore drilling ($1.2 billion)
Low-cost leasing of coal-production in the Powder River Basin ($963 million)

As subsidies age, they start to look less like subsidies. They start looking like fixed features of the landscape, like mountains or rivers, rather than choices we are making. They just look like the status quo.

In terms of permanent tax expenditures, fossil fuels beat renewables by a 7-1 margin:"

https://renewnd.areavoices.com...

In the 2015-2016 election cycle, oil, gas, and coal companies spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying and received $29.4 billion in federal subsidies in total over those same years â" an 8,200% return on investment.

See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"A 2016 study estimated that global fossil fuel subsidies were $5.3 trillion in 2015, which represents 6.5% of global GDP.[3] The study found that "China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion)."[3] The authors estimated that the elimination of "subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP."[3] According to the International Energy Agency, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies worldwide would be the one of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gases and battling global warming.[4] In May 2016, the G7 nations set for the first time a deadline for ending most fossil fuel subsidies; saying government support for coal, oil and gas should end by 2025.[13]"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

"Oil Change International has released a new study this week that evaluates the progress that G20 nations have made toward phasing out these subsidies. The results are not pretty. No subsidies have been eliminated since the pledge was taken in 2009, and even more disturbingly, G20 countries are simply changing the definition of what subsidies are in order to claim progress.

In short, the G20 is cooking the books and cooking the planet. As the graphic below shows, there is likely more than $1 trilion annually provided for the production and consumption of oil, gas, and coal. Thatâ(TM)s a lot of money to be wasting and hiding, and it could be put to far better use for education, hunger, poverty, renewable energy, and many many other uses. "

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Ga...
"I have posted frequently (most recently in a three-part series that starts here) on the topic of underpricing of energy in the United States, but we are not the only offender. Many countries around the world subsidize consumer energy prices in ways that bring them to levels even lower than what U.S. consumers pay. These policies burden the rich and the poor alikeâ"rich countries like Saudi Arabia and poor ones like Egypt, and within each country, both rich and poor citizens.

Who subsidizes fuel prices and why?

Many countries around the world subsidize fuel prices. A recent

No. 50% of gold is used in jewelry. The 40% that's used for investments is backed by the fact that people want it for jewelry and similar.

How's your new bitcoin necklace looking?

This said, it's not that bitcoin doesn't have a base market. It does. Buying illegal things, paying ransoms, and laundering money. Of course, that's not exactly the sort of base you want if your hope is that governments will never take measures against your "currency".

Who said wind is cheaper? Quote please?

Wind and solar are cheaper than coal in Australia.
Wind is cheaper than coal in India.
Wind directly competes with coal on price.

... and now for an opposing view:
News Flash: Wind is not cheaper than coal.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Ene...

That is the report I was looking at.

The live cost of Chernobyl is estimated to be up to a million.

The worst nuclear accident in history may have killed "up to" a million. Coal kills a million every year (air pollution in general kills 5.5M a year) in normal operation without an accident (and also has numerous accidents that kill thousands every year).

Coal only kills about 13,000 Americans a year these days, but is much worse in most of the world. For example, "researchers found that coal use shaves off 5.5 years of the average lifespan of a person living in northern China compared to the someone in the south." (source) In China alone Coal kills 670,000 a year.

Actually, you are mistaken. The data that you used from your quick google search was from 2015. In 2016 and most of 2017, it changed. http://marketrealist.com/2015/...

What are you talking about? I quoted no data. And I'm not wrong. Rig counts have been climbing for weeks (I think only recently did they break the climbing streak): http://www.businessinsider.com...

In any case, anything that you said does not discount what I said, in fact agrees with it. Near $50 a barrel, probably 60-70 now would be a fair market value.

I still think $60-$70 is out of the question with the new market. Permian break-even occurs around $40 and is profitable even below $50: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Cru... And that assumes no further advancements in efficiency. The Permian production price was $98 in 2013. It was $38 in 2016. Newer fields are going as low as $20 profitability: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... We are not going to see $70 oil again. $60 is a longshot possibility, but unlikely.

The Cartel is by no means broken, and as the supply price is driven down and competing tech is made enviable, you will see the price rise again.

It's completely broken. OPEC tried to freeze production to boost prices and it didn't do anything. The US producers just filled the gap. The US is profitable at $50 oil. OPEC is not: https://www.bloomberg.com/news... What you're going to see is a great deal of budget changes and economic realignment in OPEC nations. There's gonna be subsidy cuts and attempts at building other industries, because they won't be able to rely on oil anymore.

At least they're working toward solving the problem, unlike Australia and USA, who would rather bury their head in the sand, deny there is a problem or spread FUD on renewables.

That's an awfully broad brush you are painting with there. I cannot speak with any authority about Australia but there are literally millions of people here in the US who are very strong proponents of renewable energy and are working very hard to make it a reality. The fight against renewables is largely coming from the fossil fuel industry and those whose livelihoods and bribes depend on it. That's a powerful and wealthy industry that employs a lot of people (around 2 million directly and many times that indirectly) so it makes the fight harder in a democracy. We also have a political right wing whose members tend to regard anything good for the environment (or helpful to others for that matter) as suspicious and "socialist".

In China they also have the problem of VERY bad and obviously present pollution from their dependence on coal and other dirty sources of energy. It's a lot harder to argue against clean energy when you can visibly see the pollution and the problems it causes. In most places in the US the pollution problem is far more subtle so it's easier to brush under the rug and ignore for those inclined to do so.

You're post is just speculation. Investment in coal is on the decline: http://oilprice.com/Energy/Coa...

Trump said he wanted to decrease regulations, not increase investment. That's very different from the picture you are trying to paint.

Again, if you want to unconditionally accept the word of a guy in a YouTube video, while ignoring the thousands of peer-reviewed studies cited and summarised in the reports I linked to, there's nothing I can say you'll listen to.

But if you want to know who's lying to who, ask for proof. And proof isn't people saying or writing whatever they feel like on blogs or videos, it's peer-reviewed evidence. The climatologists have produced the evidence cited above, while deniers have only produced rhetoric. Evidence like rising global temperatures and hurricanes getting stronger for the last 40 years, despite what you've been told.

If you just want to follow the money instead, look at the $33 trillion dollars of fossil fuel revenue at stake. Who do you think has the biggest incentive to mislead you - scientists on an $80k salary with their reputations on the line, or oil execs earning hundreds of millions from stock options?

Doesn't bother you ?

According to Sputnik International, Wikileaks reportedly uncovered a paid-for speech made in 2014 by the former Secretary of State in front of an audience of “North American oil and natural gas tycoons.”

“We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia,” Clinton allegedly said

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Ene...

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil...

And our navy locks in bio diesel.

> As a more practical measure, as long as the population is growing, the economy can grow.

There is a cap on time and energy.

In the 20th + 21st centuries, we've been able to grow our economies and populations way beyond natural limits because we've had access to the cheap energy to do so. That won't last forever, and then the party will be over.

My references are for natural gas, but some of the same logic will apply for oil. US natural gas storage numbers have been very high, leading to low prices. US producers want prices to go up to justify the costs involved in drilling. An export market will increase demand for their product, increasing the price. There will be increased production at the higher price as well, but I expect new rig counts to be quite price sensitive.

So US producers are pushing for this change to improve their profitability. Other countries will benefit from an additional source of LNG, considering Russia is currently a main natural gas supplier for Europe and the political ramifications that entails.

That all sounds quite reasonable...

I did some searching and came across this:

http://oilprice.com/The-Enviro...

And it makes a very compelling argument...

Then you read the comments below...

"Not so simple!!! C14 spiked with atmospheric atomic testing conducted since 1945 and has been declining since the atmospheric test ban. This effect is dominating any decline observed in C14.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Sorry to burst your carbon bubble."

---

What is a layperson to believe? The person who wrote the linked article makes his living off global warming, so he is biased, but that doesn't mean he is wrong automatically.

Nuclear has by far the lowest [environmental impact], but for the same reason that many environmentalists are still opposing the Keystone pipeline despite the reality of more incidents of environmental damage from the alternative (inefficient rail shipping with nearly 100x the rate of environmental exposure), it's all about emotion for many in the movement, not about what's truly, measurably better for the planet.

Yes, the total economic loss due to the Fukushima nuclear disaster, estimated at $240-500 billion, is nothing but emotion.

The total cost of resettlement, cleanup, and paying medical claims due to Chernobyl is estimated by Belarus at $235 billion.

A hypothetical nuclear disaster in France similar to Fukushima is estimated to cost $580 billion. Other estimates run much higher.

Many conservatives believe Obama is anti oil -- primarily because the oil lobby says so, and true conservatives will believe anything that sounds negative about a democratic POTUS. The reality is very different. The stated energy policy is "all of the above", and the USA has expanded and continues to expand its energy capacity hugely.

Rance Tidal Power Station opened in 1966, still going strong, salty water not a problem.

The UK is planning a large tidal lagoon, backed by Prudential Insurance, they don't seem to be in the slightest bit worried about salty water either. UK Renewables May Be Turning The Tide

And of course there's a global shipping industry. Coal doesn't go by airplane.

The French seem to of sorted it, see post #48303643 I've heard that the paint on boats and marine infrastructure is now polluting the oceans so I'm against paint that isn't biodegradable.

Personally I'm not keen on this system of dumping turbines into a bay, tidal lagoon and tidal barrier systems would surely reap far more power.

For example: UK Renewables May Be Turning The Tide

It seems that a large scale project is viable, with a conservative large insurance company investing in a tidal power scheme:
UK Renewables May Be Turning The Tide

Large scheme, scalable to GW's of power, cheaper than off-shore wind, able to provide electricity on-demand, something that solar and wind aren't so good at.

Here, maybe this will help. You can tell whether it's a fossil fuel or not, but not whether a person burned it, or where it came from. You can't even tell it if came from coal or oil, since both are made of C13. You simply cannot determine the original of an individual atom of carbon once it has been released into the atmosphere, only what kind of course it came from.

When you find an individual C13 molecule, you do not in fact know that human activity released it.

Note that I have argued passionately in favor of the AGW theory in this thread, so if you are moderating me down because you think I don't believe in global warming, you're an idiot.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html

Time magazine "mainstream" enough for you?

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1095057.html

Or that, less mainstream though. Note both are from 2000 (before we attacked Iraq/Saddam).

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafis-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

Several links in there, some stale but a few at least worked.

http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/iranian-oil-bourse-opening.php
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Iran-Opens-Oil-Bourse-Harbinger-of-Trouble-for-New-York-and-London.html
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2314.cfm

I'm sure there's a lot more on the Iran oil bourse, it's in wikipedia as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

And that is the WORST metric going. The reason is that emissions is NOT based on ppl, but GDP.
Only idiots try to push the concept of per capita.

And claiming that 3rd and 2rd world produce small amounts per capita indicates total foolishness on your part. Many of their are massive. Worse, China doubles every 10 years, and they are NOT SLOWING DOWN.

here is based on 2005 emissions which is worthless, but there it is
This is based on PPP GDP (which is also a bad idea, but still better than per capita) However, as you look at it, you realize that most of the bad polluters, are oil producing, high GDP growth nations, AND CHINA.

Even with GDP based, you can see that the majority of 3rd world nations that do not have economy, have no real emissions.

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Fossil-Fuel-Industry-Receives-1.3-Trillion-in-Subsidies-Each-Year.html

Apparently you are blissfully unaware that China used predatory pricing on rare-earth metals to put every other non-Chinese rare-Earth mine out of business or mothballed quite a few years back, and then parlayed that into a monopoly in powerful magnet production by squeezing out every other manufacturer once they had the monopoly on the raw materials.

Thorium reactors by design are meltdown proof.

You know, I'd go with "citation needed", but how about I just bust this myth right here and now.

Thorium reactors require uranium and/or other fissile material. They are not any safer than conventional reactors on this basis. A shorter explanation of just how much of a pipe dream thorium reactors are is here along with the caveat that dropping a bomb on one would be a very messy affair.

And they are not meltdown proof; if the safety controls fail. Thorium reactors are so-called "meltdown-proof" because they have a plug in the bottom of the reactor that will disintegrate and drop the core into a large holding tank. As the molten salt that acts as the coolant is now spread out, the theory is this is safer. But it all depends on that plug giving way, and this is only a theoretical model.

Meltdowns are one possible failure mode of a reactor. They aren't even the most common, nor most dangerous, depending on the design. A thorium reactor can still fail catastrophically if the piping becomes plugged. Think about this for a second; the primary coolant is molten salt. What happens if it becomes too cool or solidifies in places; The plug as at the bottom, and heat rises. Impurities could slowly build up, the plug could fail to melt away due to corrosion, etc.

Thorium reactors are not meltdown proof; Poor maintenance is as much as hazard for them as any other. And as a bonus... they're about 50 years away from being feasible anyway.

Thank you for playing though... now kindly stop spreading bullshit.

Energy use fundamentally underlies all economic activity, and this is primarily a technological issue. The general ignorance regarding this relationship and what it implies about how we produce energy can theoretically be addressed by the Internet as it is an issue of consciousness.

Gail Tverberg's excellent article on the matter should be carefully considered: http://oilprice.com/Finance/the-Economy/Why-Rising-Energy-Costs-are-Responsible-for-Widespread-Economic-Recession.html

The globe consumes on the order of 17 terawatts, primarily in some form of fossil fuel. Average use per person is around 2 kW, while the United States average is around 10 kW. As increasing energy use is a primary method of reducing poverty, we need to consider raising global per capita use. In order to address both the economy and the climate, all fossil fuel consumption must be eliminated while dramatically lowering the cost of that energy production. Meaningfully lowering the cost of energy requires minimizing land and material use, so energy density is of great significance. The only reasonable candidate for accomplishing this is nuclear power, but as current technology is no where near suitable for this task, so we must look to new technologies. Currently the most promising approach involves something called the molten salt reactor, which has precious little public support despite its potential for addressing both cost and liability. If we are going to responsibly manage the great risk that all of humanity faces, this situation must radically change.

To have some idea of the scale of the challenge that faces us, aiming for 50 terawatts of production by 2050 will merely raise per capita consumption to 5 kW. Today, it is unimaginable that this will be achieved as current efforts are focused on increasing efficiency to mitigate rising costs. This will not solve our problem or help us avert the risk of catastrophe- it only buys us a little time. With the right technological approach, this goal looks within reach, but this will require substantial public support in terms of mindshare and $billions, perhaps 10s of $billions. Current renewable approaches figure in the range of 100s of $trillions and is not remotely feasible for addressing poverty, climate, or any of the other myriad of problems we face including disease.

This truly is an issue of consciousness, and hopefully the Internet will serve its purpose in helping us confront our widespread superstitions and general fear so that we may focus our efforts towards policies that will make a difference. Our intelligence is being challenged and our future is at stake. What will we make of this? Are we going to be content with a hellish existence, or will we rise from this mess with a coordinated effort to address fundamental problems with this experiment at civilization?

it's more from the fact that the cheapest source of hydrogen will be from gasification of fossil fuels, and from the fact that hydrogen via electrolysis is horribly inefficient

You don't say.... I hear that won't be true for much longer though...

In fact, that's pretty close to the minimum amount of change we see each and every day.
http://oilprice.com/commodity-price-charts?1&page=chart&sym=CL*1&name=Crude%20Oil%20WTI

Just build a Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor (WAMSR) next to the site, problem solved.

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/MIT-Develops-Meltdown-Proof-Nuclear-Waste-Eating-Reactor.html

So, we're going to start trying to nix the primary way we generate electricity...and not go nuclear even though we can recycle buried waste into power...and instead we're going to cut down a bunch of trees on public land and toss up solar and wind farms? Yeah, that's logical.

This is purely political and not about the environment or climate change. The climate changes naturally, and adapts to the creatures (us and everything else on earth) and their affects on it. If anything we should be burning less coal from switching to nuclear plants.

I'll just leave this here. http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/MIT-Develops-Meltdown-Proof-Nuclear-Waste-Eating-Reactor.html

WHO has a "vested interest in downplaying serious problems" now?

WHO defers all radiation related maters to IAEA per "agreement"..

Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands have already perished because of Fukishima.. Elevated Radiation exposure normally doesn't kill you outright(unless it takes out nerves that regulate the heart beat). It degrades your body functions, prematurely aging, some will get cancer.. on average a shorten lifespan.

According to a 2010 research study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, producing fuel from algae grown in ponds at scale would cost between $240 and $332 per barrel.

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/Why-are-we-not-Drowning-in-Algae-Biofuel.html

Dunno about the Brits, but the US navy seems to be doing something like it

The real problem was crooked regulators. The regulatory agency was responsible for both collecting leasing fees from the oil companies as well as regulating them. Holy conflict of interest Batman!

With that sort of setup no wonder the regulations were laxly applied. And of course the regulatory agency was frequently taken to parties stocked with all sort of goodies by the oil companies. Including prostitutes.

http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Oil-Spills/U.S.-To-Restructure-Offshore-Drilling-Regulatory-Agency-In-Wake-Of-Oil-Spill.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Ocean_Energy_Management,_Regulation_and_Enforcement#Gifts.2C_gratuities_and_the_revolving_door

You doubtless find this of no comfort, but the oil industry doesn't think much of your prophet:
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/What-is-Peak-Oil-Theory-A-Thorough-Look-at-This-heavily-Debated-Topic.html

Also, I'm sure you'll find this of no comfort either but I found it interesting... call it what you will:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vOImnCrKPZ8#

You are of course aware of the huge oil projects started recently on private land in the US right?... The higher the price goes on oil... the more these projects are going to explode... and not just in the US. Globally. There is a LOT more oil then we previously thought.

Actually, it already has been a problem
and continues to be

Until two years ago Oklahoma typically had about 50 earthquakes a year, but in 2010, 1,047 quakes shook the state.

Why?

In Lincoln County, where most of this past weekend's seismic incidents were centered, there are 181 injection wells, according to Matt Skinner, an official from the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, the agency which oversees oil and gas production in the state.

A theory only a crazy cook would embrace, right? Well, lets take another look at TFA and the U.S. Army's deep waste pumping operation -- where for years the U.S. army pumped liquid under preasure into the earth of Colorado

Why was the process halted? “The Army discontinued use of the well in February 1966 because of the possibility that the fluid injection was “triggering earthquakes in the area,” according to the RMA. In 1990, the “Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection--A Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” study of RMA events by Craig Nicholson, and R.I. Wesson stated simply, “Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established.”

bah, just a theory, oh wait,

Twenty-five years later, “possibility” and ‘established” changed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s July 2001 87 page study, “Technical Program Overview: Underground Injection Control Regulations EPA 816-r-02-025,” which reported, “In 1967, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) determined that a deep, hazardous waste disposal well at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal was causing significant seismic events in the vicinity of Denver, Colorado.”

Oliprice.com

And yes, I did pick that source just to tweak you.

The fact that fraking has caused earthquakes isn't actually at issue here. The issue in TFA above is whether some of the fraking quakes contributed to the larger earthquake. It looks like in this case the USGS doesn't believe so -- but the above thread sets out to explain how that could happe

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/U.S.-Government-Confirms-Link-Between-Earthquakes-and-Hydraulic-Fracturing.html
Seems like the US army knew something was not good back in 1966.
By 1990 they seemed to understand a bit more “Injection had been discontinued at the site in the previous year once the link between the fluid injection and the earlier series of earthquakes was established.”
By 2011 more data seems to have made the post Gasland (movie about fracking) US oil industry re think the way they view the US public.
Question the wisdom of fracking, welcome to the world of "insurgency" and enjoy some psy ops from oil industry staff with a military background.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-09/news/30376767_1_download-cnbc-oil-industry-conference

There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that hydraulic fracking has ever caused an earthquake. Please educate yourself on the process of hydraulic fracking of wells at: http://www.chk.com/Environment/Drilling-and-Production/Pages/Completion.aspx ... the amount of energy required to cause even a very small earth quake is incredibly high.... http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Natural-Gas-Does-Hydraulic-Fracturing-Really-Cause-Earthquakes.html

Well Bore.

Change That DOESN'T Matter !!

Yours In Kranoyarsk,
Kilgore Trout