It is currently Fri May 24, 2013 12:19 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: energy security...
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:39 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
with all this talk about the keystone rejection(i personally think it was the right call.. more on that later...)

something to keep in mind..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 06242.html

U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years.

A combination of booming demand from emerging markets and faltering domestic activity means the U.S. is exporting more fuel than it imports, upending the historical norm.

U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years, Liam Pleven reports on Markets Hub.

According to data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Tuesday, the U.S. sent abroad 753.4 million barrels of everything from gasoline to jet fuel in the first nine months of this year, while it imported 689.4 million barrels.

That the U.S. is shipping out more fuel than it brings in is significant because the nation has for decades been a voracious energy consumer. It took in huge quantities of not only crude oil from the Middle East but also refined fuels from Europe, Latin America and elsewhere to help run its factories and cars.

As recently as 2005, the U.S. imported nearly 900 million barrels more of petroleum products than it exported. Since then the deficit has been steadily shrinking until finally disappearing last fall, and analysts say the country will not lose its "net exporter" tag anytime soon.

"It looks like a trend that could stay in place for the rest of the decade," said Dave Ernsberger, global director of oil at Platts, which tracks energy markets. "The conventional wisdom is that U.S. is this giant black hole sucking in energy from around the world. This changes that dynamic."


So long as the U.S. remains the world's biggest net importer of crude oil, currently taking in nine million barrels per day, it isn't likely to become energy independent anytime soon. Yet its growing presence as an overall exporter of fuels made from crude gives it greater influence in the global energy market.

If the trend toward net exports persists, it could also influence the national political debate over U.S. energy policy, which has been driven primarily by concerns about upheaval in the Middle East over the past decade. The independence of the U.S. from foreign oil sources has long been a lightning-rod issue in Washington, one further inflamed by last year's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Supporters of off-shore drilling have used the desire for independence to push their cause, setting up a battle with environmental groups and others who prefer a shift away from carbon-based fuels.


U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring. Above, natural gas is burned off near an oil pump jack in North Dakota in October.

The growth in exports is part of a "transformation of the energy system," says Ed Morse, global head of commodity research at Citigroup Inc. "It's the beginning signs of a process that will continue for the next decade and will point toward energy independence."

The reversal raises the prospect of the U.S. becoming a major provider of various types of energy to the rest of the world, a status that was once virtually unthinkable. The U.S. already exports vast amounts of coal, and companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. are pursuing or exploring plans to liquefy newly abundant natural gas and send it overseas.

The shift is one of the clearest demonstrations of the diverging fates of the U.S. and emerging market economies. While the U.S. labors under stubbornly high unemployment and sluggish growth, emerging-market economies are growing strongly, bolstering demand for fuel.
Related Video


U.S. customers have been pulling back in part because an anemic economic recovery has left millions still looking for work. In August, U.S. drivers burned 7.7% less gasoline than four years earlier, when gasoline usage peaked. Production of ethanol made from corn has also ramped up dramatically in recent years, cutting into the need for other fuels.

Now, "we're not using as much," said James Beck, an analyst at the EIA. "Prior to 2008, basically anything we produced, we used."

But U.S. drivers aren't seeing much benefit in the form of lower prices because refineries on the Gulf Coast are shipping much of their output to places where demand is strong, keeping prices high.

The U.S. was a net exporter of petroleum products in six of the first nine months this year, and the trend accelerated in the third quarter, with September data released Tuesday showing net exports of 919,000 barrels per day, more than any month this year. That indicates to observers that this year will be the U.S.'s first as a net exporter since 1949, when the U.S. economy was ramping up rapidly after World War II.

Mexico and Brazil were major consumers of U.S. exports, according to the September data, while the Netherlandsג€”home to key European ports ג€”and Singapore also were significant net importers.

Gasoline and low-sulfur diesel continued to be among the biggest lures for foreign customers, as was petroleum coke, which is used to make steel. Those are among the many products that are thrown off in the process of refining crude oil.

The growing exports have made the U.S. a pivotal part of the supply chain. In 2006, the U.S. was a net importer of petroleum products from Brazil, but last year it sent a net 106,000 barrels a day.

Argentina and Peru are now net importers from the U.S. For the next year or two, "the economies in Latin America will be growing faster than in the U.S. and the trend of increasing exports should continue," says Daniel Vizel, U.S. head of oil trading for Macquarie Group Ltd.

Singapore's net imports from the U.S. roughly quadrupled in the past five years, while Mexico's rose by about two-thirds. Mexico, in particular, is having trouble keeping pace with gasoline demand and buys about 60% of gasoline exports from the U.S.

The figures illustrate the impact of the significant increase in domestic production thanks to new sources of oil coming from North Dakota and Texas. North Dakota's oil production of 424,000 barrels per day in July was up 86% over the same period in 2009.

Growing domestic output means refineries in the U.S. are making more fuel than the local market needs. That has given those on the U.S. Gulf Coast added incentive to look for customers abroad.

Also adding to the U.S. exporting firepower: Refineries are more efficient, giving them an edge over older facilities in Europe. New drilling methods are boosting U.S. oil production, helping ensure steady supplies of raw material for refiners to process.

The U.S. could expand its export trade further next year. Motiva Enterprises LLC, a joint venture between Shell and Saudi Arabian Oil Co., is expected to finish work next year on a refinery expansion in Port Arthur, Texas, which would double the facility's capacity and make it the largest in the U.S. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP and TransMontaigne Partners LP plan to build a $400 million terminal on the Houston ship channel.

For decades through World War II, the U.S. was a net exporter of petroleum products, with sales reaching a high of 126 million barrels in 1944. The country then became a net importer in 1950, and grew increasingly dependent on foreign supply in the 1960s. Net imports peaked just above a billion barrels in 1973, the year domestic oil prices spiked amid the Arab oil embargo. After falling off in the 1980s and 1990s, net imports spiked again in the middle of the last decade before tapering recently.

To be sure, the balance could shift back relatively quickly. If the U.S. economy were to rebound sharply, domestic need for fuels refined from crude oil could also shoot back up, which could increase crude import demand. In addition, U.S. refineries could lose customers if foreign economies falter, sending the U.S back to being a net importer.

Meanwhile, export demand is boosting corporate profits for oil majors, such as Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell PLC, and major U.S. refining firms, such as Valero Energy Corp. and Marathon Petroleum Corp.

"Unless there is a recession around the world, we're going to be exporting for quite some time," says Mike Loya, head of Americas for Swiss energy-trading firm Vitol Group, which moves more than five million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products every day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
I posted this in the other thread, but this guy makes a great case for our energy situation as well as the likely death of the Keystone XL pipeline.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/01/19/keystone-xl-voting-for-the-stone-age/

Quote:
Keystone XL: Voting for the Stone Age

Warren Meyer, Contributor
1/19/2012 @ 9:12PM

Yesterday, as expected, President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, a private infrastructure project meant to bring Canadian oil to Gulf Coast refineries. In doing so, he was not quibbling over the pipelineג€™s route, but pandering to a group of his supporters who want nothing so much as to roll back modern industrial society.

Ostensibly, Obama made the decision to block the pipeline because of concern over contamination of the Ogallala Reservoir, a vast underground water source that makes much of Midwestern agriculture possible. And I am sure there are folks whose concerns are narrowly about the Ogallala or other enivornmental and NIMBY concerns along the proposed route. But the US has tens of thousands of miles of petroleum pipelines, many cris-crossing this same general area. There is nothing unprecedented or unmanageable about this particular line. Had these routing issues been the actual problem, the Obama Administration could easily have approved the line with conditions or route modifications.

But local environmental concerns were merely the public pretext for a decision that is much more troubling. Opposition to the pipeline began to rally among radical environmental groups long before any of them had the first clue about the pipeline route. The real goal of these groups was not to protect water along the pipeline route, but to make it impossible to develop new sources of oil in Canada. Unable to stop Canadian oil drilling and tar sand extraction programs, environmental groups are now trying to block any pipeline that is proposed out of the oil producing regions.

Some would argue that these opponents arenג€™t anti-energy, they just want to shift energy use from fossil fuels to ג€œgreenג€ energy like wind and solar. This is either disingenuous or unbelievably naive. The Keystone XL pipeline would have single-handedly carried more energy to the United States than the sum of all the green energy projects funded by the Obama Administration. And it would have done so entirely with private funds rather than the Administrations increasingly ill-fated and ham-handed attempts at venture capitalism with taxpayer funds. The fact of the matter is that, for the foreseeable future, opposing fossil fuels is equivalent to opposing energy use.

The Keystone decision only makes sense in the context of a general push to limit energy supply and roll back our industrial economy and all its amazing gifts. Part and parcel of this same effort has been the growing opposition to natural gas fracking. Fracking is an underground procedure that has been used safely and succesfully for decades to extend the life of older oil wells. Fracking is one reason that serial predictions of older fields ג€œrunning out of oilג€ have been repeatedly incorrect.

Recently, though, fracking has presented the promise of substantially inreasing our domestic energy supply by opening up new shale formations previously thought to be impossible to produce. With this new promise, anti-growth, anti-energy environmentalists have suddenly taken notice, and are gearing up to try to kill this exciting (and ironically quite clean) new energy source.

Both the opposition to the pipeline and fracking share a quasi-irrational (ג€œIג€™m blogging against the modern economy from my iPhoneג€), almost aesthetic distaste for energy production, the modern industrial economy, and capitalism itself. Fortunately, though, a quest for a sort of Medieval socialism does not play well with American voters, so opponents cast about for logical-sounding arguments that focus-group better. My guess is that the appeal of inexpensive, domestically-sourced energy will be strong enough to overcome these attacks.

First postscript: Does anyone doubt that had this exact same route been for high speed rail, rather than a pipeline, it would already have been approved and President Obama likely would have been proposing to throw a pile of taxpayer money at it to boot? This despite the fact that high-speed rail almost certainly has more environmental negatives than an underground pipeline.
The route has always been a red herring ג€” the real goal is reducing energy supply.

Second postscript: The ג€œscienceג€ behind the opposition to fracking has been amazingly similar to that behind global warming alarmism. Global warming supporters count on ignorance when they try to blame modern droughts on CO2, hoping folks will forget much worse droughts in the 1930′s when Co2 was at a supposedly ג€œsafeג€ level. Similarly, there have been examples of methane in drinking water for decades, but because this fact was never widely publicized, fracking opponents can count on this ignorance to try to blame this long-existing effect on recent fracking.

Third postscript: I find the contrast between the California High Speed Rail line and the Keystone XL pipeline to be simply amazing. In the case of the rail line, the Obama administration continues to try to perform CPR on an infrastructure project that makes no sense, is way to costly, and will likely bankrupt the state of California with all the taxpayer money required. In the case of the pipeline, the Obama administration killed a private infrastructure project that is widely supported, covers its own costs, and requires no taxpayer money. I wonder where Thomas Friedman is ג€” does he still lament our inability to do large infrastructure projects of the kind President Obama just blocked, or does he only support large state-funded triumphal projects? This seems yet another example of what I called the tendency of government to shift capital from the productive to the sexy.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:44 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
the majority of that article is just mis-informed/misplaced.. arguing the politics of it rather than the reality of america's current position.. it was a political move to give the president 60 days to decide on the issue.. (yes added to the state depts year investigating it).. but its not like this is a easy choice.. approving the pipeline has far reaching implications on the oil market and industry.. but we won't hear the in depth debates this issue deserves during a election year.. or ever really...

the right will scream about foreign oil dependence and job creation.. the left will scream environmental concern.. neither of these have anything to do with this pipeline.. all the jobs would be very short term.. and america is not dependent on heavy crude..(all that canada would be pumping thru keystone)... this pipeline is about fast tracking and some would say by-passing cushion oklahoma... relieving the glut that is currently there.. its a temp glut though.. two years ago the storage tanks were empty..

thats the problem i have with the pipeline.. the proponents are making the claim that the glut is artificially keeping the price of domestic oil down.. when imho the glut is merely a symptom of domestic demand being low due to the recession.. its why i posted the net exporter article.. its not like we are going to save this oil... we are going to the refine light crude and we are going to sell it to the gasoline to the highest bidder(currently south america).. and fast-tracking the process of selling it.. sounds great? well.. what happens when demand rises in america? the pipeline imo allows for more volatile swings in the price of oil mostly in the upward direction.. thats the problem i have with the way this debate is framed in politics...

http://newsok.com/keystone-xl-expected- ... ncial-news


to be clear.. i do not buy the environmental claims made against the pipeline.. i subscribe more to supporting and protecting independent domestic producers... and ultimately the stability of oil prices...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:59 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
chump change wrote:
i subscribe and ultimately the stability of oil prices...


It isn't clear to me how someone interested in oil price stabilization would object to a project like Keystone XL.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:14 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
Employee wrote:
chump change wrote:
i subscribe and ultimately the stability of oil prices...


It isn't clear to me how someone interested in oil price stabilization would object to a project like Keystone XL.


thought i did a decent job explaining how the keystone project would raise oil prices.. :lol:

light crude prices have been set at cushion OK since the 80's.. this pipeline project proposes that cushion OK is unable to process enough light crude to meet demand.. i'm citing that the demand they are talking about is strictly foreign (currently) and subject to market conditions..i.e its a temporary problem.. we didn't have this problem two years ago...

the pipeline's purpose is being sold as a way to send heavy crude to coastal refiners (heavy crude is not priced at cushion only light crude is)... the byproduct of that is light crude will be able to move faster as well... (its written in the agreement light crude will flow as well)...

if there is oil in the tanks at cushion the price stays somewhat stable.. if its sent directly to the refiners.. it goes up..

i just dont see the justification in dramatically changing the way we price light crude to satisfy canada's heavy crude problem..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:37 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
chump change wrote:
Employee wrote:
chump change wrote:
i subscribe and ultimately the stability of oil prices...


It isn't clear to me how someone interested in oil price stabilization would object to a project like Keystone XL.


thought i did a decent job explaining how the keystone project would raise oil prices.. :lol:

light crude prices have been set at cushion OK since the 80's.. this pipeline project proposes that cushion OK is unable to process enough light crude to meet demand.. i'm citing that the demand they are talking about is strictly foreign (currently) and subject to market conditions..i.e its a temporary problem.. we didn't have this problem two years ago...

the pipeline's purpose is being sold as a way to send heavy crude to coastal refiners (heavy crude is not priced at cushion only light crude is)... the byproduct of that is light crude will be able to move faster as well... (its written in the agreement light crude will flow as well)...

if there is oil in the tanks at cushion the price stays somewhat stable.. if its sent directly to the refiners.. it goes up..

i just dont see the justification in dramatically changing the way we price light crude to satisfy canada's heavy crude problem..


We fundamentally disagree. Even if the U.S. government adopts stringent policies to cut oil use, the United States will be dependent on crude for decades. Oil demand across the world, meanwhile, is rising, which applies upward pressure on prices and makes it economical to extract oil from Canadaג€™s tar sands (no Epic or "provincial parklands"). Canada will produce its oil. We will burn a lot of it, no matter what, because thereג€™s still spare capacity in existing U.S.-Canada pipelines.

Doubling the amount of energy we can purchase from Canada seems far more favorable to our interests than buying from Venezuela or the Middle East.

I also disagree with the gloomy economic forecasts this pipeline brings with it. The states doing well on the job front have something in common. Theyג€™ve actively utilized energy development and exploration. Pennsylvania has seen a tremendous influx of jobs from the natural gas industry following the opening of the Marcellus Shale reserves and that expansion has translated into growth in many sectors of the economy beyond just energy production. North Dakota, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming are also reaping similar benefits.

Pennsylvania experienced almost 130 percent job growth over the last decade. In 2010 alone, more than 65,000 Pennsylvanian jobs were created. This employment boost largely came from natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale. North Dakota created over 3,000 jobs last year. This growth is monumental, considering that this stateג€™s population is well under a million. These impressive jobs numbers are a direct result of harvesting the Bakken Shale.

Several other states have experienced similar trends in job growth. This past yearג€™s employment boosts in Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Wyoming (+1.4%, +1.1%, and +1.0%, respectively) are mostly attributed to incredibly active oil and gas industries. The Gulf states still hold tremendous potential in terms of exploration, development and processing which could be delivering tens of thousands of jobs in the near future with nothing more required of Washington than to simply stop standing in the way of progress.

If I recall correctly you were a "roughneck" so I don't doubt you have insights that I'm not privy to. But I simply don't see a reason to oppose this pipeline.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:11 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
i oppose the pipeline because it isn't necessary.. it won't create a bunch of job..(it won't fuck up the environment either) and ultimately the only purpose i can see of it.. is that it allows major oil companies a back door way to fuck with the equation that Cushion Oklahoma provides... an equation that has over the last 20 years.. worked pretty good...


natural gas production has nothing to do with us allowing canada this pipeline.. its not like they sell us heavy crude..

for what its worth..i agree wholeheartedly with you on natural gas it was the next subject i was going touch on in this thread... but natural gas is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the tar sands.. for one.. america has plenty of it.. we are producing the shit out of it.. and i'm hopeful the trend of natural gas power plants keeps going.. its the best thing to happen to this country in a long time..

i have reservations about fracking.. but thats a whole other thread...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 06 2006
Posts: 9435
Location: Houston
Employee wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/01/19/keystone-xl-voting-for-the-stone-age/

Quote:
Keystone XL: Voting for the Stone Age

Warren Meyer, Contributor
1/19/2012 @ 9:12PM

Yesterday, as expected, President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, a private infrastructure project meant to bring Canadian oil to Gulf Coast refineries. In doing so, he was not quibbling over the pipelineג€™s route, but pandering to a group of his supporters who want nothing so much as to roll back modern industrial society.

Ostensibly, Obama made the decision to block the pipeline because of concern over contamination of the Ogallala Reservoir, a vast underground water source that makes much of Midwestern agriculture possible. And I am sure there are folks whose concerns are narrowly about the Ogallala or other enivornmental and NIMBY concerns along the proposed route. But the US has tens of thousands of miles of petroleum pipelines, many cris-crossing this same general area. There is nothing unprecedented or unmanageable about this particular line. Had these routing issues been the actual problem, the Obama Administration could easily have approved the line with conditions or route modifications.

But local environmental concerns were merely the public pretext for a decision that is much more troubling. Opposition to the pipeline began to rally among radical environmental groups long before any of them had the first clue about the pipeline route. The real goal of these groups was not to protect water along the pipeline route, but to make it impossible to develop new sources of oil in Canada. Unable to stop Canadian oil drilling and tar sand extraction programs, environmental groups are now trying to block any pipeline that is proposed out of the oil producing regions.

Some would argue that these opponents arenג€™t anti-energy, they just want to shift energy use from fossil fuels to ג€œgreenג€ energy like wind and solar. This is either disingenuous or unbelievably naive. The Keystone XL pipeline would have single-handedly carried more energy to the United States than the sum of all the green energy projects funded by the Obama Administration. And it would have done so entirely with private funds rather than the Administrations increasingly ill-fated and ham-handed attempts at venture capitalism with taxpayer funds. The fact of the matter is that, for the foreseeable future, opposing fossil fuels is equivalent to opposing energy use.

The Keystone decision only makes sense in the context of a general push to limit energy supply and roll back our industrial economy and all its amazing gifts. Part and parcel of this same effort has been the growing opposition to natural gas fracking. Fracking is an underground procedure that has been used safely and succesfully for decades to extend the life of older oil wells. Fracking is one reason that serial predictions of older fields ג€œrunning out of oilג€ have been repeatedly incorrect.

Recently, though, fracking has presented the promise of substantially inreasing our domestic energy supply by opening up new shale formations previously thought to be impossible to produce. With this new promise, anti-growth, anti-energy environmentalists have suddenly taken notice, and are gearing up to try to kill this exciting (and ironically quite clean) new energy source.

Both the opposition to the pipeline and fracking share a quasi-irrational (ג€œIג€™m blogging against the modern economy from my iPhoneג€), almost aesthetic distaste for energy production, the modern industrial economy, and capitalism itself. Fortunately, though, a quest for a sort of Medieval socialism does not play well with American voters, so opponents cast about for logical-sounding arguments that focus-group better. My guess is that the appeal of inexpensive, domestically-sourced energy will be strong enough to overcome these attacks.

First postscript: Does anyone doubt that had this exact same route been for high speed rail, rather than a pipeline, it would already have been approved and President Obama likely would have been proposing to throw a pile of taxpayer money at it to boot? This despite the fact that high-speed rail almost certainly has more environmental negatives than an underground pipeline.
The route has always been a red herring ג€” the real goal is reducing energy supply.

Second postscript: The ג€œscienceג€ behind the opposition to fracking has been amazingly similar to that behind global warming alarmism. Global warming supporters count on ignorance when they try to blame modern droughts on CO2, hoping folks will forget much worse droughts in the 1930′s when Co2 was at a supposedly ג€œsafeג€ level. Similarly, there have been examples of methane in drinking water for decades, but because this fact was never widely publicized, fracking opponents can count on this ignorance to try to blame this long-existing effect on recent fracking.

Third postscript: I find the contrast between the California High Speed Rail line and the Keystone XL pipeline to be simply amazing. In the case of the rail line, the Obama administration continues to try to perform CPR on an infrastructure project that makes no sense, is way to costly, and will likely bankrupt the state of California with all the taxpayer money required. In the case of the pipeline, the Obama administration killed a private infrastructure project that is widely supported, covers its own costs, and requires no taxpayer money. I wonder where Thomas Friedman is ג€” does he still lament our inability to do large infrastructure projects of the kind President Obama just blocked, or does he only support large state-funded triumphal projects? This seems yet another example of what I called the tendency of government to shift capital from the productive to the sexy.


I'm not feeling this at all. His premise that people opposing the pipeline are anti-energy, and want to return us to a Stone Age economy is ridiculous.

I'm of the belief that fracking does have a potentially ill effect on the environment. Because the price of oil is so high companies are willing to try to risk lawsuits, and use more controversial methods of extraction.

The bottom line is that many think we might have 100 years of oil left if we mined every single drop. Yes, we have a lot of oil now, but the emergence of countries like India and China are going to greatly increase demand as well. We're not going to drastically affect the cost of oil by drilling everything here in our country. Places like Venezuela and the Middle East have the real power of price control.

At some point green energy is going to take off. We're in the early stages now, but it's worth pursuing. That's why I'm not so pissed at the Solyndra nonsense, at least they were trying to make a positive move toward clean energy and energy independence. Assuming the loans weren't tied to Obama's campaign of course...

Obviously, petroleum will always play a part in the world economy. I'm not anti-petroleum, I'm for finding clean energy methods we can use in combination with oil and natural gas. I think most reasonable people would agree with that.

Yeah, that writer is pretty fucking awful.

_________________
[quote="Bunz"]A cosign from you is good because you hate everything. [/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:48 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
the thing about fracking is that its all about the sub contractor that actually cases the well.... casing the well is everything in fracking.. the texas railroad commission just passed a huge resolution requiring the industry to release what actually they are putting down the wells.. aka the recipe.. thats a huuuugggeee deal.. if they can link the ingredients to the water contamination.. or even worse if they can link fracking to the dozens of small earthquakes around the country.. then well.. game over..

the texas rail road commission is everything in this country when it comes to oil and gas..they are also pro-industry and very conservative..and if they are clamping down on the industry.. its a red flag.. its why i said this guy is mis-informed.. even the industry leaders are being to recognize that fracking needs regulation..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:04 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
jamrage wrote:
I'm not feeling this at all. His premise that people opposing the pipeline are anti-energy, and want to return us to a Stone Age economy is ridiculous.


It's "ridiculous" if you're an opponent of domestic energy.

jamrage wrote:
I'm of the belief that fracking does have a potentially ill effect on the environment. Because the price of oil is so high companies are willing to try to risk lawsuits, and use more controversial methods of extraction.


His commentary on fracking obviously struck a nerve. Do you, too, believe that fracking causes earthquakes?

jamrage wrote:
The bottom line is that many think we might have 100 years of oil left if we mined every single drop. Yes, we have a lot of oil now, but the emergence of countries like India and China are going to greatly increase demand as well. We're not going to drastically affect the cost of oil by drilling everything here in our country. Places like Venezuela and the Middle East have the real power of price control.

At some point green energy is going to take off. We're in the early stages now, but it's worth pursuing. That's why I'm not so pissed at the Solyndra nonsense, at least they were trying to make a positive move toward clean energy and energy independence. Assuming the loans weren't tied to Obama's campaign of course...

Obviously, petroleum will always play a part in the world economy. I'm not anti-petroleum, I'm for finding clean energy methods we can use in combination with oil and natural gas. I think most reasonable people would agree with that.

Yeah, that writer is pretty fucking awful.


Your analysis is "pretty fucking awful", too. In all fairness; what are you talking about? If you have some time to kill you should read this study conducted by Energy Tomorrow: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/API_Booklet_Jan_2012_v2-1.pdf

In the last part of his statement regarding rejecting the pipeline, Obama said he was "committed" to American-made energy? So what is his "commitment"? Is it the permitting slowdown in the Gulf that led to the departure of 11 rigs and more than $21 billion in capital investments? Is the permitting, leasing and drilling slowdown on federal lands in western states that has cost us production, jobs and millions in federal and state tax revenues, royalties and lease payments? A slowdown, by the way, not seen on private lands, which means itג€™s a policy-driven slowdown, not an economic-driven problem. Is it a a five-year plan that raises royalty rates and places most of our offshore resources off-limits, a step back from the president's previous announcement that we would expand offshore access? Or is it the eight federal agencies now considering duplicative regulations on hydraulic fracturing, the process upon which rests 69 percent of future natural gas production?

New leases on federal lands were down 44% in 2009/2010 compared to 2007/2008. Permits and new wells drilled were both down 39% for the same time frame. The economic downturn in 2007 was a factor in this decline, but leasing, permitting and drilling have rebounded on private lands; the decline in new permits in the West is significantly greater on federal lands (-39%) than non-federal, private lands (-20%) over the last two years. Returning permitting, leasing and drilling to 2007/2008 levels would create 30,000 jobs over the next four years and increase federal royalties by $2 billion.

Federal policies like slow permitting and leasing rates, and the outright rejection of the Keystone XL are clearly slowing the development of vitally needed energy, and costing jobs, energy production and revenue to the government.

Does that read like a president "committed" to domestic energy?

No.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:35 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
i simply made the observation that the texas rail road commission is beginning to take bold steps in regulating fracking...

rumorville in some of the most conservative counties in texas (whose landowners are making a great deal of money from the gas and oil fracking is freeing up) is that the process is flawed.. people are demanding to know what is actually being pumped into the ground.. and are asking why all of a sudden there are small earthquakes around the oil fields in which frackin is being done...

i'm not a geologist.. pretty sure you aren't either... so no one can really rule out what fracking does and doesn't do...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 9:42 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
from the horses mouth

this isn't some ole conspiracy prison planet stunt.... local news interviewing a local oil and gas geologist... in texas...
Quote:


http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Co ... cy7Ng.cspx

SAN ANTONIO - There is speculation that fracking being done by the oil companies in the area could have contributed, if not caused, Thursdayג€™s 4.8 magnitude earthquake that struck 76 miles south-southeast of San Antonio.

Local geologist John Long was at work on the eleventh floor of the Frost Bank Building along Northeast Loop 410. He actually felt the earthquake from his office. Within minutes he had a good idea of what caused the earth to shake.

Long works for Osborn Heirs, a local compnay that specializes in oil and gas exploration and development.

ג€œI usually get here early. At about 7:24 I noticed that the blinds, we have metal blinds here, they started shaking and rattling -- and I did feel a slight sway in the room," recalled Long.

The earthquake only lasted a few seconds.

"I looked on the map and it turns out it's right in the middle of an existing oil field, Fashing Field, which has had earthquakes over the last 40 or 50 years,ג€ explained Long.

According to Long, the oil field has been around since the mid 1950's. A lot of drilling has gone on since then, and coincidentally, there have been a handful of earthquakes over the years.

ג€œStarting in 1973 it had an earthquake that registered at a 3.0, and then in 1984 it had an earthquake that registered about 3.5 or so,ג€ said Long.

In Longג€™s expert opinion, it's very possible the earthquake is a result of the disposal of fracking fluids.

ג€œI know the previous earthquakes were tied almost without a doubt with drawing fluids out of the ground,
and Iג€™m not sure how much fluid is being withdrawn from that field right now, but they are injecting fluid into the ground with these frack jobs,ג€ added Long.

All this is being done over a fault that has mostly been inactive, but with the recent boom of fracking in the area Long says it appears the fault was forced to awaken and caused a shake up.

ג€œAnytime you take fluid or add fluid to the earth in this particular area it seems as if it leads to earthquakes,ג€ said Long.


the second bolded portion i think is what sticks out the most.. its not an all out indictment of fracking.. just saying fluids in and out cause small earthquakes... ...

the PROBLEM is that small earthquakes crack well casings... and now instead of controlled process.. the "anonymous" fluids are now leaking at different depths...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:43 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
chump change wrote:
Long works for Osborn Heirs, a local compnay that specializes in oil and gas exploration and development.


chump change wrote:
i'm not a geologist.. pretty sure you aren't either... so no one can really rule out what fracking does and doesn't do...


Unless that guy's a geologist, which is apparently the new metric in Biko, his firsthand accounts shouldn't matter to you. It's confusing as to why you would introduce his statements to the conversation provided that. The last I checked earthquakes were caused by tectonic plates, but perhaps science lied to me.

This FOF (Fear of Fracking) is beginning to read a lot like the hysteria whipped up by anthropogenic global warming proponents.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:50 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
the first paragraph states he a geologist... and I mis-spoke.. meant to say "no one in biko can say what fracking...."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 06 2006
Posts: 9435
Location: Houston
jamrage wrote:
I'm not feeling this at all. His premise that people opposing the pipeline are anti-energy, and want to return us to a Stone Age economy is ridiculous.


Employee wrote:
It's "ridiculous" if you're an opponent of domestic energy.

No, it's typical righty rhetoric that states that if you aren't 100% for drilling any and everywhere you are an environmental nutjob and/or anti-American energy luddite. I'm not opposed to domestic energy, but I want to be relatively certain that we're not destroying the environment and our own water supply while we do it. Water is becoming a more and more important resource as we all know.

I definitely err on the side of caution because even if we were to drill everything we've got it's not going to make that much of a difference in the long run. It'll take us a little bit longer to get to a crisis level, but we're talking about temporary energy relief that won't truly affect the price of oil at all.

jamrage wrote:
I'm of the belief that fracking does have a potentially ill effect on the environment. Because the price of oil is so high companies are willing to try to risk lawsuits, and use more controversial methods of extraction.


Employee wrote:
His commentary on fracking obviously struck a nerve. Do you, too, believe that fracking causes earthquakes?


I really don't know what to believe about fracking and the potential for it to cause earthquakes. On the surface (wocka wocka wocka!) it would seem unlikely, but I do think that more research should be done about it. Currently, I'm more concerned with the chemicals that they're using in the process possibly seeping into the ground water. Chump change seems to be covering that part of the debate well.

jamrage wrote:
The bottom line is that many think we might have 100 years of oil left if we mined every single drop. Yes, we have a lot of oil now, but the emergence of countries like India and China are going to greatly increase demand as well. We're not going to drastically affect the cost of oil by drilling everything here in our country. Places like Venezuela and the Middle East have the real power of price control.

At some point green energy is going to take off. We're in the early stages now, but it's worth pursuing. That's why I'm not so pissed at the Solyndra nonsense, at least they were trying to make a positive move toward clean energy and energy independence. Assuming the loans weren't tied to Obama's campaign of course...

Obviously, petroleum will always play a part in the world economy. I'm not anti-petroleum, I'm for finding clean energy methods we can use in combination with oil and natural gas. I think most reasonable people would agree with that.

Yeah, that writer is pretty fucking awful.


Employee wrote:
Your analysis is "pretty fucking awful", too. In all fairness; what are you talking about? If you have some time to kill you should read this study conducted by Energy Tomorrow: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/API_Booklet_Jan_2012_v2-1.pdf

In the last part of his statement regarding rejecting the pipeline, Obama said he was "committed" to American-made energy? So what is his "commitment"? Is it the permitting slowdown in the Gulf that led to the departure of 11 rigs and more than $21 billion in capital investments? Is the permitting, leasing and drilling slowdown on federal lands in western states that has cost us production, jobs and millions in federal and state tax revenues, royalties and lease payments? A slowdown, by the way, not seen on private lands, which means itג€™s a policy-driven slowdown, not an economic-driven problem. Is it a a five-year plan that raises royalty rates and places most of our offshore resources off-limits, a step back from the president's previous announcement that we would expand offshore access? Or is it the eight federal agencies now considering duplicative regulations on hydraulic fracturing, the process upon which rests 69 percent of future natural gas production?

New leases on federal lands were down 44% in 2009/2010 compared to 2007/2008. Permits and new wells drilled were both down 39% for the same time frame. The economic downturn in 2007 was a factor in this decline, but leasing, permitting and drilling have rebounded on private lands; the decline in new permits in the West is significantly greater on federal lands (-39%) than non-federal, private lands (-20%) over the last two years. Returning permitting, leasing and drilling to 2007/2008 levels would create 30,000 jobs over the next four years and increase federal royalties by $2 billion.

Federal policies like slow permitting and leasing rates, and the outright rejection of the Keystone XL are clearly slowing the development of vitally needed energy, and costing jobs, energy production and revenue to the government.

Does that read like a president "committed" to domestic energy?

No.


I'm not going to read a 50+ page report by a severely biased industry lobby, there's just no way I could take anything they write very seriously.

I'm not surprised you're disagreeing with me, but what specifically about my analysis do you find to be the most offensive?

I actually agree with you about the oil rig policy of the Obama administration. I supported a shutdown in the short term after the BP incident, but after an analysis they should have been reopened. We were fine with the rigs before, and it hurt an already suffering region of the country.

It's clear that you don't care for Obama's energy policy. Some of it is well founded, but you assert that he's anti-energy while I think he's generally being more cautious. We won't ever agree on that. As I'm sure you know, the XL pipeline isn't totally dead. I'm hearing that we could see an amended version agreed to by Obama after the election.

We're exporting more energy than we're importing for the first time in years. Everyone wants energy independence, but conservatives and liberals just disagree on how to achieve that end. Liberals generally want more alternative options explored, conservatives want to drill. The oil isn't going anywhere, and rest assured that when a Republican eventually retakes control of the White House drilling will increase again.

Finally, you're not really saying that article you posted was fantastically written, right? Shaky logic, fantastic rhetoric, 3 postscripts, and to/too errors? I stand by my original statement.

_________________
[quote="Bunz"]A cosign from you is good because you hate everything. [/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 07 2006
Posts: 9460
Location: Where one of the greatest MC's was a local cat
Electioneering. The pipeline will be approved next year no matter what.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:20 am 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
jamrage wrote:
jamrage wrote:
I'm not feeling this at all. His premise that people opposing the pipeline are anti-energy, and want to return us to a Stone Age economy is ridiculous.


Employee wrote:
It's "ridiculous" if you're an opponent of domestic energy.


No, it's typical righty rhetoric that states that if you aren't 100% for drilling any and everywhere you are an environmental nutjob and/or anti-American energy luddite. I'm not opposed to domestic energy, but I want to be relatively certain that we're not destroying the environment and our own water supply while we do it. Water is becoming a more and more important resource as we all know.


You are opposed to the production of domestic energy and that's fine, but wind power and solar power are demonstrably not viable options, for a plethora of reasons, that can be readily implemented at a local scale; forget nationwide. All you do is scream "GREEN ENERGY!" and pretend to be the voice of the people? What does water and its overwhelming abundance have to do with anything? My God, man, are you seriously one of those that believe the planet will run out of water?

jamrage wrote:
I definitely err on the side of caution because even if we were to drill everything we've got it's not going to make that much of a difference in the long run. It'll take us a little bit longer to get to a crisis level, but we're talking about temporary energy relief that won't truly affect the price of oil at all.


This whole discussion revolves solely around "the long run." A country that is discovering new, massive sources of domestic energy and implementing them and their required infrastructure, over time, is a detriment how?

jamrage wrote:
I'm not going to read a 50+ page report by a severely biased industry lobby, there's just no way I could take anything they write very seriously.


Shocking.

jamrage wrote:
I'm not surprised you're disagreeing with me, but what specifically about my analysis do you find to be the most offensive?


I've made myself very clear, I think. I'd ask that question of you: what is it about my wanting America to be as reliant on itself as possible regarding energy that offends you?

jamrage wrote:
It's clear that you don't care for Obama's energy policy. Some of it is well founded, but you assert that he's anti-energy while I think he's generally being more cautious. We won't ever agree on that. As I'm sure you know, the XL pipeline isn't totally dead. I'm hearing that we could see an amended version agreed to by Obama after the election.


Is being "cautious" handing $500,000,000 of taxpayers dollars (that won't be repaid) to Solyndra while torpedoing a proven method of energy production? Is being "cautious" doling out millions of dollars in government loans (that won't be repaid) to Willard & Kelsey Solar Group LLC (another Obama energy failure)? Is being "cautious" betting on the green sector to the tune of $6.5 billion of taxpayers money in below investment grade junk bonds? There are twelve clean energy companies, now in trouble, that collectively have been approved for $6.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. Five of them are already kaput (bankrupt): The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AESג€™ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

That is not the "caution" I expect a president to exercise. It is reckless and naive.

jamrage wrote:
Finally, you're not really saying that article you posted was fantastically written, right? Shaky logic, fantastic rhetoric, 3 postscripts, and to/too errors? I stand by my original statement.


According to who? You?

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:27 am 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
its ok emp.. it wasn't that bad of a self :copy:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:36 am 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
chump change wrote:
its ok emp.. it wasn't that bad of a self :copy:


Nevertheless. I'm sayin', man, bold the entire portion you want to emphasize, B. I can't be letting this shit happen to me on a message board.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 06 2006
Posts: 9435
Location: Houston
jamrage wrote:
jamrage wrote:
I'm not feeling this at all. His premise that people opposing the pipeline are anti-energy, and want to return us to a Stone Age economy is ridiculous.


Employee wrote:
It's "ridiculous" if you're an opponent of domestic energy.


No, it's typical righty rhetoric that states that if you aren't 100% for drilling any and everywhere you are an environmental nutjob and/or anti-American energy luddite. I'm not opposed to domestic energy, but I want to be relatively certain that we're not destroying the environment and our own water supply while we do it. Water is becoming a more and more important resource as we all know.


Employee wrote:
You are opposed to the production of domestic energy and that's fine, but wind power and solar power are demonstrably not viable options, for a plethora of reasons, that can be readily implemented at a local scale; forget nationwide. All you do is scream "GREEN ENERGY!" and pretend to be the voice of the people? What does water and its overwhelming abundance have to do with anything? My God, man, are you seriously one of those that believe the planet will run out of water?


I agree that wind and solar power aren't nearly ready to take the place of oil and natural gas, but some advancements have been made. We haven't put significant amounts of money in green energy until fairly recently, and those monies pale in comparison to the money we throw into the petroleum industry.

We won't run out of water, but many scientists believe that clean drinking water is going to be harder and harder to come by as the global population continues to skyrocket. Will it be a problem for the U.S.? Certainly not in the short term, but parts of the rest of the world are already having issues getting clean drinking water. My water comment was spawned from the fracking discussion, and the concern that the chemicals involved might affect our drinking water supply.

I'm not anti-domestic energy, don't put words in my mouth. I'm generally okay with what we've got going now, but I'm reluctant to start riskier forms of energy accumulation. I told you my stance on oil rigs and that's certainly not anti-domestic energy.

jamrage wrote:
I definitely err on the side of caution because even if we were to drill everything we've got it's not going to make that much of a difference in the long run. It'll take us a little bit longer to get to a crisis level, but we're talking about temporary energy relief that won't truly affect the price of oil at all.


Employee wrote:
This whole discussion revolves solely around "the long run." A country that is discovering new, massive sources of domestic energy and implementing them and their required infrastructure, over time, is a detriment how?


It's a band-aid, not a long term solution. These discoveries and pipelines aren't going to drastically change the price of oil or how long we have before it runs out. Again, what is the going to be the cost of this domestic energy retrieval? If it means fucking up our drinking water supply or other terrible shit then I'm not interested.

jamrage wrote:
I'm not going to read a 50+ page report by a severely biased industry lobby, there's just no way I could take anything they write very seriously.


Employee wrote:
Shocking.


Look, if you have a relatively unbiased report I'll read it, but I'm not going to read a hugely biased report that is going to gloss over any problems the industry has. I don't think you would either if it was about something you disagreed with. 50 pages is a huge ask.

jamrage wrote:
I'm not surprised you're disagreeing with me, but what specifically about my analysis do you find to be the most offensive?


Employee wrote:
I've made myself very clear, I think. I'd ask that question of you: what is it about my wanting America to be as reliant on itself as possible regarding energy that offends you?


There's nothing wrong with that as long as we aren't fucking ourselves in the long run environmentally. We might be completely reliant in the short term (doubtful), but what happens when that energy supply runs out? At some point we're going to have to consider petroleum and natural gas alternatives. When do you think we should do that? We're having the classic energy argument right now.

jamrage wrote:
It's clear that you don't care for Obama's energy policy. Some of it is well founded, but you assert that he's anti-energy while I think he's generally being more cautious. We won't ever agree on that. As I'm sure you know, the XL pipeline isn't totally dead. I'm hearing that we could see an amended version agreed to by Obama after the election.


Employee wrote:
Is being "cautious" handing $500,000,000 of taxpayers dollars (that won't be repaid) to Solyndra while torpedoing a proven method of energy production? Is being "cautious" doling out millions of dollars in government loans (that won't be repaid) to Willard & Kelsey Solar Group LLC (another Obama energy failure)? Is being "cautious" betting on the green sector to the tune of $6.5 billion of taxpayers money in below investment grade junk bonds? There are twelve clean energy companies, now in trouble, that collectively have been approved for $6.5 billion in taxpayer dollars. Five of them are already kaput (bankrupt): The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AESג€™ subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.


I should have spoken more clearly there. My apologies. I think he's being cautious as it relates to the environment, not with how money has been handed out to green energy companies. I think we should scale back the investment, but we should always be investing in new ways to create renewable energy. It's a problem that we're going to have to deal with eventually.

jamrage wrote:
Finally, you're not really saying that article you posted was fantastically written, right? Shaky logic, fantastic rhetoric, 3 postscripts, and to/too errors? I stand by my original statement.


Employee wrote:
According to who? You?


Yeah, and anyone that reads fairly regularly. I'm sorry you're upset that I don't think the article is well written.

_________________
[quote="Bunz"]A cosign from you is good because you hate everything. [/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:18 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Quote:
Warren Buffett cleans up after Keystone XL
The Sage of Omaha is one lucky guy.

by John Hayward
01/24/2012

When President Obama, who is normally a great proponent of ג€œinfrastructureג€ projects, made his bizarre decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline project, I wondered if he might have been induced to create those thousands of American jobs if the oil could be moved by his beloved high-speed rail.

As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety. Fortunately, as Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Monday night Republican debate in Florida, the oil is on private land, so Obama canג€™t shut production down.

Shipping the oil with a pipeline would have significantly reduced costs, as an Associated Press report explains:

Quote:
Billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements have been made in recent years to allow North Dakota's oil shipping capacity to keep pace with the skyrocketing production. North Dakota is the nation's fourth-biggest oil producer and is expected to trail only Texas in crude output within the next year.

Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the state's so-called takeaway capacity is adequate, though producers and the state were counting on the on the Keystone XL to move North Dakota crude.

Shipping crude by pipeline in North Dakota adds up to $1.50 to its cost, compared to $2 or more a barrel for rail shipments, producers say.

"Oil that would have moved by the Keystone XL is now going to shift to rail transportation," Ritter said.


Amusingly, a spokesman for the Sierra Club admitted ג€œthere is no question that [transporting] oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than a pipeline,ג€ but that didnג€™t stop the zero-growth eco-fanatics from calling in their chips with President Downgrade to kill that pipeline.

Those rail shipments are expected to ג€œincrease exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines,ג€ according to Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. Thatג€™s going to be quite a windfall for the railroad companies, isnג€™t it?

As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLCג€¦ which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffettג€™s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. What a coincidence!

For some reason, nobody from BNSF or Berkshire Hathaway would return the APג€™s telephone calls, but oilman Harold Hamm told them he was sure this was just a wonderful ג€œlucky breakג€ for Barack Obamaג€™s favorite billionaire, who is ג€œcertainly favored by this decision.ג€
Iג€™ve heard Buffettג€™s famously overtaxed secretary will be a guest at the State of the Union address tonight. Maybe someone could ask her about it.

The ג€œtax me moreג€ refrain from liberal billionaires is one of the oldest sucker games in the book. For the well-connected, the money that can be made through government power ג€“ whether by influencing corrupt politicians, or merely predicting what theyג€™re going to do - dwarfs whatever income they offer to cough up.


I highly doubt this is coincidence.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:05 pm 
Offline
The Mayor
User avatar

Joined: September 20 2007
Posts: 9187
Location: eighty duece on my shoulder
lots of mis-information... I'll respond later


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:15 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/mineral-leases-give-boost-to-rural-ohio.html

Quote:
Here in Noble County, where vehicle repair and convenience stores are economic mainstays, Eclipse Resources, a Pennsylvania company, mailed $16 million in oil- and gas-leasing checks last month to 70 households whose property has been found to sit atop oil and gas reserves. Working with a lawyer in nearby Marietta, the residents were able to band together to negotiate an unusually lucrative deal with the company that paid $4,000 an acre and 19 percent royalties on oil and gas production, and included safeguards to protect water and land. (The standard has been $20 to $30 an acre, one-sixth royalty rates, and no protections for water and land.)

In a region where median household income is less than $33,000, the first big flush of oil- and gas-related income produced leasing checks of six and seven figures
ג€” amounts the recipients say are a bit disorienting. ג€¦

More is probably on the way, potentially much more. Some 6,000 feet beneath Noble County and much of east and southeast Ohio lies the Utica Shale, a thick layer of oil- and gas-bearing rock that has attracted billions of dollars in energy industry investment in leases and infrastructure. Representatives of the nationג€™s largest energy companies ג€” Chesapeake Energy, Exxon Mobil and BP, to name a few ג€” crowd the recorderג€™s office at the local courthouse here and in a dozen other counties, scouring property records to identify landowners willing to lease their oil and gas rights.


<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xx5oIfi_9SQ?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xx5oIfi_9SQ?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: energy security...
PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 1:51 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-yor ... le/2521653

Quote:
A brief moment on Wednesday showed why President Obama can't win when it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline. In front of the White House, protesters led by actress Daryl Hannah and the head of the Sierra Club demanded that Obama kill the project. Just a few blocks away, the head of the AFL-CIO's powerful Building and Construction Trades Department joined with the American Petroleum Institute to demand that Obama approve it.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: energy security...
PostPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 3:45 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/285789-state-report-downplays-climate-impact-of-keystone-pipeline

Quote:
The report from the State Department says the Canada-to-Texas pipeline would have little impact on the environment.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: energy security...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:28 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OIL_PIPELINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-13-21-22-10

He's probably right, guys: a major oil pipeline running through the heart of the country wouldn't produce any jobs.

#smartpower

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: energy security...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 16 2004
Posts: 11696
Location: boston
Employee wrote:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-obama-caught-between-friends-in-fight-over-keystone-xl-pipeline/article/2521653

Quote:
A brief moment on Wednesday showed why President Obama can't win when it comes to the Keystone XL pipeline. In front of the White House, protesters led by actress Daryl Hannah and the head of the Sierra Club demanded that Obama kill the project. Just a few blocks away, the head of the AFL-CIO's powerful Building and Construction Trades Department joined with the American Petroleum Institute to demand that Obama approve it.

And Employee is ready to jump onto whichever side is disappointed with the decision!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: energy security...
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:11 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
Cash, this guy is trolling; can you please apply your rules to this post and his by deleting them both?

thxbro.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: energy security...
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:13 am 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/14/kelsey-grammer-i-blew-6-figures-investing-windmill/

Quote:
Former Frasier star Kelsey Grammer told TMZ on Tuesday that wind technology was the worst investment he’s ever made.

Grammer told the tabloid that though his finances are good, he lost hundreds of thousands of dollars on a small wind investment.

“I’m OK, but I didn’t make up for it. It’s just one of those things that’s just a straight loss,” he said. “You’d think it would be lucrative, but it’s not really a friendly environment for new technology, it really isn’t.”

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: energy security...
PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:10 pm 
Offline
I might be a fag but at least I'm not banned
User avatar

Joined: January 30 2004
Posts: 66295
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/03/the-eagle-ford-shale-oil-field-came-out-of-nowhere-and-had-an-61-economic-impact-on-texas-last-year/

Quote:
The Eagle Ford Shale oil field came out of nowhere and had a $61 billion impact on the Texas economy last year

The University of Texas San Antonio (UTSA) released preliminary findings today for its second annual study of the impact of the Eagle Ford Shale on the Texas economy. In its first study for 2011, UTSA found that the oil and gas rush in South central Texas had an economic impact of $25 billion in the 20-county area, and supported 48,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry. But from 2011 to 2012, oil output in the Eagle Ford Shale nearly tripled from 128,000 barrels per day to 363,000 barrels per day, and that surge in oil production boosted the economic impact significantly according to UTSA’s new study for 2012.

Here are some of the preliminary findings of UTSA’s most recent estimates of the economic impact of the Eagle Ford Shale in 2012 (full report will be released on Thursday):

1. Total economic impact on the 20-county area: $61 billion, up from $25 billion in 2011

2. Number of jobs supported: 116,000, many in Texas counties that just five years ago were declining in population, up from 48,000 jobs in 2011.

3. Tax revenue in 2012: More than $1 billion in local government revenue and $1.2 billion in state tax revenue.

Here are some news reports today from the Houston Chronicle, the San Antonio Express News, and 24/7 Wall Street about the UTSA economic impact study of the Eagle Ford Shale.

MP: Economic activity related to the oil and gas boom in the Eagle Ford Shale area of Texas is delivering a stimulus to the state’s economy of more than $1 billion every week. In addition, Eagle Ford Shale area companies hired more than 260 new workers every day in 2012 for shovel-ready jobs in the oil and gas industry, and paid almost $5.5 million every day in tax revenues to the state.

What makes the Eagle Ford Shale story so amazing is how fast development, investment, and production has taken place there. As the chart above illustrates, the Eagle Ford Shale oil boom didn’t even really start until 2011, and then oil output almost tripled in just a single year. Suddenly, Eagle Ford Shale became the “single largest oil and gas development in the world” last year and created an unexpected $61 billion economic “windfall” for Texas that came out of nowhere. One of the strongest reasons to be optimistic about America’s economic future is the energy revolution, which is best illustrated by the amazing job- and prosperity-creating shale formations of Eagle Ford in Texas, the Bakken in North Dakota and the Marcellus in Pennsylvania.

_________________
SYFFAL.COM
Mindbender wrote:
who is this guy, Mel Gibson?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group