US Now Produces More Oil and Gas Than Russia and Saudi Arabia

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Claudia Assis writes that the US will end 2013 as the world's largest producer of petroleum and natural gas, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia with the Energy Information Administration estimating that combined US petroleum and gas production this year will hit 50 quadrillion British thermal units, or 25 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, outproducing Russia by 5 quadrillion Btu. Most of the new oil was coming from the western states. Oil production in Texas has more than doubled since 2010. In North Dakota, it has tripled, and Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah have also shown steep rises in oil production over the same three years, according to EIA data. Tapping shale rock for oil and gas has fueled the US boom, while Russia has struggled to keep up its output. 'This is a remarkable turn of events,' says Adam Sieminski, head of the US Energy Information Administration. 'This is a new era of thinking about market conditions, and opportunities created by these conditions, that you wouldn't in a million years have dreamed about.' But even optimists in the US concede that the shale boom's longevity could hinge on commodity prices, government regulations and public support, the last of which could be problematic. A poll last month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that opposition to increased use of fracking rose to 49% from 38% in the previous six months. 'It is not a supply question anymore,' says Ken Hersh. 'It is about demand and the cost of production. Those are the two drivers."'"

Comments

Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

So is the U.S. still going to import?

Re:Importation

[schneidafunk]

1) Import as much as possible
2) stockpile it
3) resell later for massive profit

Re:Importation

[alexander_686]

2 Factors.

America uses more oil then it produces but produces more gas then it uses.

America has a lot of refiners. IIRC Nigeria exports oil to the US where it is refined into gasoline and shipped back. Also remember that plastic is comes from oil and gas - and we produce and consume a lot of plastic.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:Importation

[Big Hairy Ian]

but produces more gas then it uses.

You leave congress out of it!

Re:Importation

[SJHillman]

That strategy seems to work well for aluminium oxide, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, diamonds, ferrochromium, ferromanganese, iodine, iridium, mica, niobium, platinum group metals, talc, tantalum, thorium, tin, tungsten and zinc.

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

Re:Importation

[SJHillman]

You're more Illinois Nazi than Grammar Nazi. A proper Grammar Nazi would not have used a comma to separate independent clauses without a conjunction. Perosnally, I would have preferred a semi-colon. All the cool Nazis are using them these days.

Re:Importation

[erroneus]

THIS is what I believe is the US's plan to remain relevant in the coming economic collapse. As the rest of the world attempts to "route around" the damage caused by the US, the US's energy independence and abundance will make the US into an attractive exporter to control and keep the price of energy lower. At the end of the day, it's energy that runs the world. It is figuratively and literally a "power struggle."

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you notice that:
1) We're talking about production of quadrillions of units of things? It almost doesn't matter how small the thing is. The resulting container for your "stockpile" would be just way too big. The cost of building and maintaining a meaningful stockpile would be enormous.
2) The price of energy is not supply driven, it's currently demand driven? While this suggests that now WOULD be a good time to stockpile, if not for item 1, it also assumes that in the future, prices will again be supply driven. Given the increasing diversity of energy sources and potential for renewables to dominate energy production in the long term, its at least possible that energy will stay a demand-driven market. In other words, prices might not rise much and if it does, there are vast reserves of hydrocarbons to tap into that are profitable to extract when prices rise. This means that there won't be the sharp rise in prices that a stock-piler would depend upon.
3) "Import as much as possible" so the implication is that in the future it will be more expensive to transport energy than it is today. This contradicts the entire history of technology development. The alternative implication is that the world has gone to hell. In which case, who is going to buy your oil and gas for massive profits?

The more interesting subject is:
We're in the middle of a massive energy production boom. Energy production in any one place tends to be a boom and bust business. What portion of our income is coming from this (probably temporary) boom and what investments can we make that prepare us for the inevitable bust, or at least prepare us for a decline?

Re:Importation

[Joce640k]

In related news, the USA has no plans whatsoever to do anything about the environment.

I guess that's what happens when you let J.R.Ewing, et. al. run the country.

Re:Importation

[Grey Geezer]

You may be forgetting that (we are told that) oil price is set in the global marketplace. "American" oil does not stay in America. This "fact" is always used to explain price increases. Increased "American" oil production will only effect oil prices in the context of global supply. "Drill baby Drill would have only marginal downward presure on prices. So it follows that "Hoard baby Hoard" would also have only marginal upward presure on oil prices. All this talk about increased American production being a boon to Americal consumers is mostly nonsense. Same applies to the argument that the Keystone pipeline would be a boon to consumers here in America. These are con jobs designed to make a very small handful of already very wealthty Americans even more wealthty. Most Americans will/would see very small price changes at the pump.

Re:Importation

[demonlapin]

The US hasn't built any big new refineries in a while - like since the seventies. We actually import refined products like gasoline to meet our needs. Source. Some big upgrades have been done, but we're not bringing lots of new capacity online.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

And yours is a run-on sentence.

Re:Importation

[luis_a_espinal]

1) Import as much as possible 2) stockpile it 3) resell later for massive profit

Amazing that this was even up-voted. Slashdot users suck at logistics.

Re:Importation

[Hoi Polloi]

Good luck with that. Unlike diamonds natural gas isn't exactly rare.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't store oil indefinitely, it has to be turned over. Even the SPR rolls old stock out and pulls in new stock to replenish aging stores.

Re:Importation

[alexander_686]

While it is true we have not built any new refiners since the 1970s we are still a net exporter or gasoline and other petroleum products.

From your own source:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_m.htm

(I think America needs to build more refineries but does not thanks to NIMBYs)

Re:Importation

[mrchaotica]

Clearly, that is not what we're doing, because the most efficient way to "stockpile" would be to not pump it all out of the ground in the first place. That's the whole idea behind the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which the "drill baby, drill!" folks are trying to shortsightedly destroy.

Re:Importation

[geekoid]

Diamond aren't actually rare. There are places in Africa where you can literally pick them up out of river beds.

Raw diamonds, not the finished cut stuff.

Re:Importation

[Bartles]

So the oil that is millions of years old that we pump out of the ground, and then pump back into the ground to stockpile suddenly goes bad if we dont use it in several years?

Re:Importation

[ShanghaiBill]

1) Import as much as possible

Amazing that this was even up-voted. Slashdot users suck at logistics.

They also suck at geology. The US is at the leading edge of the fracking revolution, but Russia, China, Europe, Argentina, Africa, etc. also have enormous amounts of shale gas and oil. Far more than all the conventional reserves combined. All they need is the right technology and economic incentives to start extracting. The presumption that there is a coming supply shortage is ridiculous.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with stockpiles, as the US will eventually find out, is after a few years the amount in reserve doesn't equal the amount on the books. It all just seems to - evaporate. It's like magic.

Re: Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people here just are from other places than the USA, you ignorant prick of a baboon.

Re:Importation

[ColdWetDog]

Not necessarily - depends on the reason for the stockpile. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is designed to alleviate short term fluctuations such as in an embargo or war. It's oil you can get out by flipping a switch. Leaving it in the ground would be a longer term stockpile. However, it's not like you can just punch a hole in the ground and set up a tap and collect the dollars. Wells cost a lot of money so sinking them and leaving them to produce at some unknown time in the future is not an economically viable proposition unless you plan on nationalizing the oil companies.

The economics of oil production are complex and odd. Public companies pretty much have to drill constantly as their stock prices depend mostly on proven reserves rather than actual production. And you don't know what you have until you've got it.

Further, there are tragedy of the the commons issues - if you don't drill out the reservoir you've already spent time and money developing, that clown on your right just might beat you to it.

So 'efficiency' is a poor, nebulous metric. Given the private ownership of oil companies in this country a long term holding strategy isn't going to happen. It's not rational and it's not in the societies best long term interest, but it's what we've got.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

Diamonds are not rare at all. They are very common.

The issue is that the diamond market is controlled by a single company which keeps the supply artificially low.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

Refined oil moron

Re:Importation

[demonlapin]

Sorry, should have been more specific. We import specific products - blending products in particular, especially for the oxygenated blends required in certain metro areas in winter. American gasoline is a ridiculous mishmash of products required in different states, etc.

Re:Importation

[VortexCortex]

"Drill baby Drill would have only marginal downward presure on prices. So it follows that "Hoard baby Hoard" would also have only marginal upward presure on oil prices.

Appalling. I've always been concerned about the state of children laboring in sweatshop, but now you're offsetting the economy by exploiting infants?! Shame on you.

Re:Importation

[ebno-10db]

A proper Grammar Nazi ... Perosnally ...

Re:Importation

[dj245]

You may be forgetting that (we are told that) oil price is set in the global marketplace. "American" oil does not stay in America. This "fact" is always used to explain price increases. Increased "American" oil production will only effect oil prices in the context of global supply. "Drill baby Drill would have only marginal downward presure on prices. So it follows that "Hoard baby Hoard" would also have only marginal upward presure on oil prices. All this talk about increased American production being a boon to Americal consumers is mostly nonsense. Same applies to the argument that the Keystone pipeline would be a boon to consumers here in America. These are con jobs designed to make a very small handful of already very wealthty Americans even more wealthty. Most Americans will/would see very small price changes at the pump.

For oil this is true. The cost to ship oil is quite low, so oil produced in one country doesn't really help lower prices. The price is reasonably the same around the world.

For natural gas, this doesn't apply. Transporting large amounts of natural gas is expensive. It is energy intensive to compress and cool the gas into a liquid. Some gas is lost during the ocean journey, either as blowoff (LNG ships typically do not have liquification equipment on board, so as the gas heats up, it boils off), fuel for the ship, or both. Right now the US has huge natural gas production, but moving it outside of the US is expensive. So natural gas in the US costs ~25% what it costs in Europe, and ~35% of what it costs in Russia. The natural gas boom IS keeping gas prices very low, and in places where electricity and heating is gas, this is saving US consumers a lot of money.

Re:Importation

[bdwebb]

THIS is what I believe is the US's plan to remain relevant in the coming economic collapse. As the rest of the world attempts to "route around" the damage caused by the US, the US's energy independence and abundance will make the US into an attractive exporter to control and keep the price of energy lower. At the end of the day, it's energy that runs the world. It is figuratively and literally a "power struggle."

Totally agree...no other countries in the world are responsible in ANY way for the coming economic collapse. Clearly the US is filled with much more intelligent people working daily to exploit the rest of the world. Pony up the oil bitches.

Your logic is retarded but unfortunately you are right about the part where we want to control as much oil as possible...just like every other country in the world.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, but what does 'perosnally' mean?

Re:Importation

[SJHillman]

I never claimed to be a Grammar Nazi. I'm more of a Grammar Nazi Groupie. It's a thing.

Re:Importation

[triffid_98]

(I think America needs to build more refineries but does not thanks to NIMBYs)

I'm sorry, but that's totally not the reason we haven't built refineries. There has been exactly one request for a new (production sized) refinery in the US since the early 1980's and it was approved.

Building refineries is expensive. It's generally cheaper to expand existing facilities...or not, because then you can game the market by shutting down refineries and laughing maniacally when gas prices shoot up. This is what happens when you have two or three players controlling the entire US refining market. Ideally this would prompt additional players to enter the market, but the barriers to entry are quite high in this case.

Re: Importation

[rujholla]

you are foolish if you think just in terms of pump price. Look at the average wage for unskilled labor in North Dakota. This boombis not just affecting a few.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wells cost a lot of money so sinking them and leaving them to produce at some unknown time in the future is not an economically viable proposition"...um, hate to burst your bubble here champ, but that's EXACTLY why hundreds of gas wells have been left sitting unproductive (in PA) since 2010. When the price of oil/gas/diamonds/etc on your markets collapses, most corporations will, and do, choose to either stockpile or cancel production rather than sell at a loss. Also see: every factory shutdown, ever. No one chooses to produce at a loss, and if that means abandoning the sunk costs, then so be it. Banks like black numbers, or their absence, far more than ongoing red numbers. But nevermind that you contradict your own argument two sentences later: "stock prices depend mostly on proven reserves rather than actual production"...but...I thought we HAD to produce?

"Given the private ownership of oil companies" just makes it obvious that you're clueless. *Private* companies have no inherent profit motive, only public companies experience that. Private companies are at the behest of their owners, who may, or may not, have short-term profit among their motivations. Also see: every land owner ever who chose to hold on to their property rather than *immediately* sell when the corpo farm/etc came calling for their signature.

I won't mention that you don't understand what "tragedy of the commons" means. But then, I suppose these sort of malformed lib-boilerplate rants are par for the course on Slashdot these days. Clickbate everywhere mateys!

Re:Importation

[Bartles]

We don't stockpile refined oil, at least not like we stockpile crude in the Strategic Oil Preserve.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

You really should have left the original "then"s in your quote. It looks like you are trying to correct the proper usage now. What are the grammar rules for quoting someone and altering their speech?

Re:Importation

[erroneus]

Well, the thing is keeping the US dollar the international fiat currency. If the dollar fails, the "world banks" would unite and create a world currency. Then we'd have more of the same crap because they never actually learn their lessons.

As far as "no one else was responsible in any way" goes? Well I suppose it's about who you ask. Turns out, there was a systematic activity whereby the largest banks in the world and the governments which regulate them were convinced to allow additional leveraging of things that shouldn't have been leveraged. (hint: it's the stuff that led to the collapse and bank failures and bailouts... and seriously, who could ever think that commoditizing bad/risky debt was a good idea?!) Just about all the banks and nations were persuaded to go that route... some took more work than others but eventually through whatever means, they were convinced... all except Brazil. And wouldn't you know it but Brazil didn't suffer the way the rest of the world has been? Sure, there has been some effect there, but not quite like EU countries and the like. And why?? Doesn't have to be said. But sure, you could make the argument that "everyone got stupid at once" and the scenario I describe kinda shows that. But the way I see it, certain powers made it happen and caused/directed others to follow suit. I can't say that it was 'conspiracy' even though that word is no longer a word that means "go away, you're a nut-case" but it can be shown that those things happened even if the 'why' is speculative.

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

While oil is fungible, it is also a highly constrained commodity. Meaning tiny changes in supply cause huge changes in price.

Re:Importation

[budgenator]

A scary amount of Canadian Oil is transported by rail, making an Obama croonie much wealthier, and in a demonstrabley unsafe manner. The Keystone XL would probably make a Bush croonie somewhat wealthier in amnner with a pretty solid saftey record. All things being equal doesn't it make more sense to transport oil via a means that is not only cheaper, but doesn't roll off unattended destroying whole towns full of sleeping people?

Re:Importation

[budgenator]

A well casing for an oil well is built to withstand 18,000 PSI of pressure, 7 million lbs of vertical load and 2 million lbs of side load and accidents can rip them to shreads and twist them into pretzels; I don't think we know how to put it back in the same way it came out.

Re:Importation

[budgenator]

I guess you missed the memo, global warming stopped 17 years ago, you won; now please move on to the next apocoplyse.

Re:Importation

[Bartles]

That's nice, but no one said they put it back in the same place it was found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Petroleum_Reserve_(United_States)

Re:Importation

[evilviper]

"American" oil does not stay in America.

You are quite wrong.

"In 1975, the U.S. government banned crude oil exports with only some limited exceptions".

See: "The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-163, EPCA)"

Re:Importation

[Anonymous Coward]

where do you think baby oil comes from?

Re:Importation

[HuguesT]

And manipulates people into thinking that they must buy a diamond-equipped ring when becoming engaged. And that this ring may never be sold again.

Re:Importation

[budgenator]

If you change the conditions under which the oil is stored, you change the way it ages. If you take a 1/2L Coke and pour it into an empty 2L bottle , then for 3 weeks keep adding another 1/2L each week the result is going to be quite different than an unopened 2L Coke will have. Oil a complex mixture of gasses like methane, butane and propane, disolved solids like your parafins and asphalts and liquids like gasoline, kerosene, diesel and mineral oils; if you let the gasses boil off, the solublity of the whole decreases and the solids precipitate out and the bottom becomes a layer of sludge and lost. Normally the solids are refined and used as is or cracked into more valuable things like diesel or gasolene. The temperature, pressure and premeability of the containing cavern all affect what stays disolved and what diffuses away.

Re:Importation

[bdwebb]

I appreciate your considered response and I rescind my previous comment about your logic being retarded given your reply. My sarcasm was intended to identify that this was not just the US...this was the leaders of almost all of the major world powers standing behind idiotic policies of easing regulations. Sure, there may have been louder voices (and the US was certainly one of them) but ultimately all those involved in this debacle need to be held accountable and I'm tired of the US shouldering the blame for ALL of it.

There are greedy assholes in positions of power everywhere willing to do almost anything for more power or more money and, if anything, those in the US and other 1st world countries have to be at least a LITTLE more wary about the way they go about severely bending the rules because they have to at least pretend to be accountable. Many of those who should be sharing in the responsibility can simply do what they want with little to no resistance and did so willingly and without prompting when this opportunity to commoditize these bad/risky debts through easing of regulations came about.

Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

...are shitting their pants.

Re:Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama bumper sticker: Drill Here, Drill Meow!

Re:Environmentalists...

[i kan reed]

No. While the long-term implications of increased production are troubling, and there should be local concern regarding fracking(I've changed my mind, real scientific evidence suggests groundwater contamination isn't uncommon), as far as the big environmental concerns go: it doesn't matter where fossil fuels come from, it matters how much are being burned.

Re:Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the problem. If you give the US more efficient ways to get oil, it will be burned. The reason for them is that they increased the amount of oil they are extracting, not that Russia extracts less now.

Re:Environmentalists...

[i kan reed]

Yes, but if market forces(sans true-cost of fossil fuel burning) are pushing for more production in the U.S., if the U.S. didn't, someone else would.

Re:Environmentalists...

[TWiTfan]

A religious fanatic will always find *some* sign that armageddon is coming, no matter what. This just means that the whole "We've hit peak oil, now it's all downhill from here!! Doooommmm!!!" scenario is temporarily removed from their vast arsenal of doomsday scenarios. But they'll have a dozen more boogeymen to replace it with by tomorrow. You can't stop Chicken Little from being Chicken Little.

Re:Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better pants than the people shitting up the ground...and by shit, I mean dangerous toxic chemicals let over from the processes used to extract the oil from the containing membrane.

Re:Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but they use only ONE sheet of TP to clean up when they do..

Re:Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here comes the DEBT LIMIT debate, right on queue.

Re:Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Religious fanatics running the country are already waging crusades under the guise of "bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East" and defending God's chosen people. They are so reckless because they are trying to turn the book of Revelation into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Religion is lunacy!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Environmentalists...

[AGMW]

... real scientific evidence suggests groundwater contamination isn't uncommon ...

Please provide a link to this evidence. Fracking has been industry standard practice for 50 years or so - it is NOT a new invention - and there are no recorded instances that I am aware of where contamination has been proven.

There was a case where contamination was found, but tests that would have shown fracking to have been the cause (the gas that is released has a 'signature' and so can be traced to a specific well) was not done for some reason (possibly because the well drilled to run the tests could have been the problem!).

Re:Environmentalists...

[sycodon]

Didn't the EPA withdraw a study from peer review? Something about how the methodology was fatally flawed.

Re:Environmentalists...

[i kan reed]

Ok, I hope the NIH is good enough for you, because it's what determined my own concern.
here

Re:Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Also remember that the shale gas/oil is very deep (~3km), while ground water that can be consumed by humans is shallow (~300m). Any water reservoir that can be contaminated by oil/gas moving through the induced fractures will have a very high salt content. Very high as in "at least ten times more saline than sea water", or "brine". Any water that could conceivably be contaminated by fracking is unsafe for consumption anyway.

Re:Environmentalists...

[Salgak1]

Cue the Brony Apocalypse in 3. . 2. . .1. . . .

Re:Environmentalists...

[Hoi Polloi]

It is ok, we have a backup planet.

Re:Environmentalists...

[i kan reed]

That's assuming the contamination is from the fracking fluids, and not methane, which is by far the more common problem.

Re:Environmentalists...

[geekoid]

Not 'someone else'. Areas that can.

There is a difference.

Re:Environmentalists...

[i kan reed]

Sure, but shale oil is far from uncommon.

Re:Environmentalists...

[geekoid]

Unlike a fantatics ability to see some reason the world is going to end, there is actually a limited amount of hydrocarbons.

Re:Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

Methane contamination is often accompanied by other things.

Re:Environmentalists...

[ColdWetDog]

The amount of proven reserves in oil shale (tight oil, NOT shale oil which is just low grade kerogen, a step up from peat moss) are limited. Planetwide use of "oil" is about 85 E6 barrels per day. You get into trouble with definitions - do you include condensate from natural gas wells or not, but we're going to do an order of magnitude calculation here, so don't get too picky. So, about 3 E10 barrels / year - that's a shitload of fossilized plant poo.

So, even if you take the cornicopian approach of quite a bit of tight oil available world wide (30 billion [3 E 10], you only get a year's worth out of it. Of course, there are other forms of oil - conventional oil from the big, classic fields in the Middle East and Alaska, oil sands, and others, but you begin to see that all of that tight oil doesn't kick the can much further down the road.

We're doomed.

Re:Environmentalists...

[ColdWetDog]

Also remember that the shale gas/oil is very deep (~3km), while ground water that can be consumed by humans is shallow (~300m). Any water reservoir that can be contaminated by oil/gas moving through the induced fractures will have a very high salt content. Very high as in "at least ten times more saline than sea water", or "brine". Any water that could conceivably be contaminated by fracking is unsafe for consumption anyway.

The bigger problem in fracking is not introduction of contaminants from the fracturing of the rock. As you point out, that happens a depths very different from most aquifers. The problem comes from bad cementing of the bores and leakage from the well itself. It's a technical issue, it can be identified and dealt with. It need not happen. It just requires people to behave in a professional and competent manner at all times.

Oopsie.

Re:Environmentalists...

[VortexCortex]

as far as the big environmental concerns go: it doesn't matter where fossil fuels come from, it matters how much are being burned.

Correct. Additionally: It doesn't matter that the fuel is fossil, it matters that it is burned.

Burning things is bad, mkay?

Re:Environmentalists...

[i kan reed]

Well, there's always the hope for building long-lasting safe nuclear pla---ahahahahahaha, yeah right.

Re:Environmentalists...

[Eunuchswear]

as far as the big environmental concerns go: it doesn't matter where fossil fuels come from, it matters how much are being burned.

Correct. Additionally: It doesn't matter that the fuel is fossil, it matters that it is burned.

Burning things is bad, mkay?

Wrong. Burning non-fossil fuel is not a problem, it does not increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Re:Environmentalists...

[HuguesT]

86*10^6 barrel * 365 = 30 * 10^9 ; however the China post article mentions 300 * 10^9 barrels as recoverable. That's 10 years of supply, not 1.

This is perhaps not so bad news, I don't know.

Re: Environmentalists...

[Anonymous Coward]

So all those people who die due to smoke and particulate inhalation from wood fires used for cooking can forget about the African dream of development?

Re: Environmentalists...

[Eunuchswear]

That's not a problem with burning things, it's a problem with burning things badly.

I have a wood fire in my house. Smoke does not get in my eyes.

Re: Environmentalists...

[I'm New Around Here]

Hi Eunuchswear.

I was looking over my past posts, and noticed a response from you has a yellow orb looking thing after your name. Apparently it is because you listed me as a foe. I am just wondering if that is an active position you have about myself, and if so why. I know I am abrasive sometimes, so I can understand it if I pissed you off or insulted you. But I'm just wondering about it.

Respectfully,
I'm New Around Here

Re: Environmentalists...

[Eunuchswear]

In general I tag someone "foe" when they say something racist, or, more rarely, something particularly stupid about AGW.

In your case, I can't rember why.

Re: Environmentalists...

[I'm New Around Here]

Ok. It was probably about AGW, because I don't say racist things. Although, I don't agree with the current state of anti-discrimination laws as they pertain to small business owners, so maybe that counted. But anyhow, it's good to know there's an honest person reading my comments.

Good to hear back from you.

.
PS. I watched your video there about a week ago. It was very interesting.

Re: Environmentalists...

[Eunuchswear]

Although, I don't agree with the current state of anti-discrimination laws as they pertain to small business owners, so maybe that counted.

Well, as a small business owner I find your view on discrimination vile, but, like I say, I can't remember.

Re: Environmentalists...

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, it's more my view on laws about discrimination. I think racial prejudice is ridiculous, but it is only someone's thoughts. Outlawing unpopular thought isn't right. I don't think the law should be able to punish people for their thoughts, which is what the current anti-discrimination laws are.

I would much rather know that the owner of the store around the corner doesn't like me based on my skin color, or religion, or wife's ethnicity (all of which aren't the same as mine). I would rather know that the store owner doesn't want me as a customer, because in that case, I would rather give my hard-earned money to someone who isn't like that. I would much rather you have the right to know if your money is supporting people who feel superior to you. But nowadays, you could be sending money to racist assholes, and you don't know because they aren't allowed to be racist in public.

So the basis of my views on discrimination laws is that outlawing "thoughtcrime" is bad, and I want to know if my money is supporting racism or other discrimination.

I don't know if that clarifies my stance, or solidifies your dislike of me. But I wanted to make it clear what my views are. Either way, it's nice talking with you. Hope you have a great weekend.

Re: Environmentalists...

[Eunuchswear]

Well, it's more my view on laws about discrimination. I think racial prejudice is ridiculous, but it is only someone's thoughts. Outlawing unpopular thought isn't right. I don't think the law should be able to punish people for their thoughts, which is what the current anti-discrimination laws are.

Who the fuck is talking about outlawing thought?

We're talking about outlawing behaviour

If someone sells a service they sell it for money. That's it. Allowing businesses the choice of their clientele based on something other than the ability to play is simply allowing discrimination.

You have no problem with this because you know you will never have to suffer it.

I have no respect for your "theoretical" position that has no connection with reality.

No dogs or Irish allowed.

Re: Environmentalists...

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, it's more my view on laws about discrimination. I think racial prejudice is ridiculous, but it is only someone's thoughts. Outlawing unpopular thought isn't right. I don't think the law should be able to punish people for their thoughts, which is what the current anti-discrimination laws are.

Who the fuck is talking about outlawing thought?

We're talking about outlawing behaviour

But we aren't talking about behavior such as physically attacking someone. We are talking about behavior of choosing who to associate with. That is definitely in the "personal belief" category of "thoughts".

If someone sells a service they sell it for money. That's it. Allowing businesses the choice of their clientele based on something other than the ability to play is simply allowing discrimination.

Yes, you are right. But I am saying I would rather allow the discrimination than outlaw it.

Also, I am limiting this to small businesses, not corporations or the government. I think you, as a person, have the right to choose who you deal with. I don't think I have the right to force you to deal with someone against your will, just because you are also the owner of a business.

You have no problem with this because you know you will never have to suffer it.

Yes, I have. So has my wife. Our cases weren't as severe as the violence that blacks faced in the South, even from their own government. Although, people of my wife's ethnic group were put in concentration camps, based on that one criteria. But I have been discriminated against. I reserve the right to choose to not associate with a business after that.

I have no respect for your "theoretical" position that has no connection with reality.

Fair enough, though I don't consider it theoretical.

No dogs or Irish allowed.

Yes, people can be racist assholes. But the law isn't able to change that. If anything, it seems to have made it worse.

Unfortunately, I'm sure our exchange here hasn't endeared me in your mind. So be it. I will still wish you good luck and prosperity.

Breaking News!

[Anonymous Coward]

American citizens are now suspected terrorists.... oh wait....

Re:Breaking News!

[ebno-10db]

That justifies the NSA's actions.

Geopolitics

[pr0nbot]

I wonder what this means for geopolitics... will the US continue to support the Saudis etc?

OTOH I expect we'll just see Jevons Paradox in action, which would mean we still need the Saudis.

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

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm worried it might bring even more long term dependency on foreign oil when US supplies are depleted. Right now, if SHTF and all of the ME decided to stop exporting to the US, it would hike prices, but not completely stop the US economy. If the US is empty, then it means a dependency on that area, far worse than now, similar to how if Russia turns off the natural gas to Germany, German citizens will freeze to death by the tens of thousands.

Re:Geopolitics

[SlippyToad]

Doesn't actually sound all that paradoxical, once you look at it.

The more useful a thing is, the more it will get used.

Until it runs out. Fortunately at the same time we're doing this renewable energy is taking off hugely, so by the time we finish rapidly eating the last few bits of the petroleum cake, we'll have a new cake to chow on.

The cake is still a lie, BTW.

Re:Geopolitics

[polar red]

dependency on foreign oil

use wind and solar (and other renewables, like tidal and wave) to avoid this.

Re:Geopolitics

[tnk1]

We'd still support the Saudis because Europe and China still use Mideast oil. We might not have been independent of Middle East oil, but we've always used much less of it than other places do. The problem here isn't feeding US SUVs as much as it is keeping the world stable and out of an energy crisis. If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to Europe, the US would be mostly okay, but it would trash our allies and seriously destabilize the world picture.

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

Very True!

Re:Geopolitics

[Frontier Owner]

Of course we will.

oil is a commodity sold on the open market. If Saudi production goes down that is less on the market. and prices go up. Just because we are producing it, doesn't mean we don't pay for it.

Re:Geopolitics

[petes_PoV]

If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to ... it would trash our allies

When you say "allies", are you sure you don't mean "markets"? I don't think the USA has allies any more - just peoples and countries who depend on it for aid and subsidies and TV programmes.

Re:Geopolitics

[khallow]

I'm worried it might bring even more long term dependency on foreign oil when US supplies are depleted.

Price goes up, people switch to other things. That dynamic hasn't changed.

Right now, if SHTF and all of the ME decided to stop exporting to the US, it would hike prices, but not completely stop the US economy.

Doesn't sound like much of a problem then because you're speaking of a temporary thing. Supply shocks would just encourage people to switch over to other systems even if the good is otherwise in plentiful supply.

If the US is empty, then it means a dependency on that area, far worse than now, similar to how if Russia turns off the natural gas to Germany, German citizens will freeze to death by the tens of thousands.

German citizens would not. They can switch over to electric heat.

Re:Geopolitics

[SirGarlon]

That is a pretty weak argument in favor of the US taxpayer to prop up the Saudi royal family, in my opinion. If stabilizing the Mideast benefits China and Europe, why can't they pay for it with their own blood and treasure?

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

BS! Fossil Fuels would price themselves out of the market!

Re:Geopolitics

[bill_mcgonigle]

If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to Europe, the US would be mostly okay, but it would trash our allies and seriously destabilize the world picture.

Awesome, let's let Europe deal with Europe, then. The Marshall Plan is so last century.

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to Europe, the US would be mostly okay, but it would trash our allies and seriously destabilize the world picture.

I thought there is a global market for oil. If so, Middle East not delivering oil to Europe would be felt by US quite a bit as well.

Re:Geopolitics

[cavreader]

It would stop more than just the US economy. Why can't people understand how the largest economies in the world are intertwined and what effects one effects them all. The new natural gas production off the coast of Israel, Cyprus, and Turkey will give Europe another source of natural gas which nullifies any threat of shut down from Russia.

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

Because treasure is measured in petrodollars. The OPEC nations deal in dollars, sustaining the US dollar's place as world reserve currency and thus ensuring foreign demand for dollars.

Re:Geopolitics

[cyber-vandal]

Price goes up, there's no realistic alternative, people buy less of other things. That's the reality. Economics only works if there's an alternative and there isn't one. Public transport sucks and bikes and electric cars are extremely impractical. What alternative sources of energy are drivers going to switch to? Or airlines? Or anyone else who depends on fossil fuels?

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an example of a great idea that won't work. We can't 'extract' enough wind, solar, etc. to come anywhere near what we need. That includes turning Arizona into a solar plant and Colorado into a wind farm. In other words, we don't have enough places to put generators even if we achieve theoretical efficiencies.

Re:Geopolitics

[fustakrakich]

In the Middle East, the US is Europe's (mostly the UK, but France has a big dog in this race) muscle. And even if Europe doesn't need the oil, they don't want to let China prosper from from it. So, at this point destabilization is the plan to scare them off, like in Africa. It's kind of like when Iraq burned the Kuwaiti oil fields during their withdrawal, or even what the Union troops did to Atlanta during occupation.

Re:Geopolitics

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Supply and demand. You lower the costs is, economically the equivalent of increasing supply, and people will find a use for it.

Jevon's Paradox seems rooted in a static rather than dynamic analysis.

There are other concerns, like pollution, but as shortages go people in a free society solve problems faster than they become serious.

This is why I laughed at the whole Peak Oil bullshit, a tired retread of 1970s shortage scares. Note Simon's minimum 10 year granularity though.

Re:Geopolitics

[poity]

Alliances arise out of necessity and mutual benefit, not from mutual like or some playground friendship mentality. As much as the governments of US allies may publicly denounce US actions for the sake of their own domestic image, they still collude with the US on geopolitics. For example, Merkel and parliamentarians may denounce PRISM and make public overtures of "overview" and "investigation", if only to keep their parties in favorable light with the public, but the BND's data-sharing will nonetheless continue because they need US data as much as the US needs theirs, if not more so.

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

have you some studies to back that up ?

Re:Geopolitics

[gothzilla]

We've been independent of mideast oil for quite some time. We import as much as we do because we refine it and resell it as gasoline. The US is the worlds gasoline refinery. If we never exported gas then we wouldn't have needed the imports from them.

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

because they need US data as much as the US needs theirs, if not more so.

Need?! How so, need?

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

Living in a certain French city, I don't even own a car. I use the bicycle to go to work and back, and sometimes public transport if I need to go further afield. If planes stopped working I'd just have to visit my family a little less frequently, but I don't like them anyway. People should go ahead and get used to more sustainable transportation methods, and stop whining so much about the alternatives.

Re:Geopolitics

[ColdWetDog]

Because we keep our fingers in the pie. If we let the Chinese take over succoring the Saudis, they get to play the Golden Rule. Remember, it's not just money - US military power is a very considerable influence in the Middle East. At present, we are propping up the Royal Saudi government because they're less insane than some of the other regional powers. The Chinese at present do not have the ability to project military force to any great extent - come back in a couple of decades and the situation may be different but for now they're entirely outclassed by the US.

We also have to keep Israel around and intact. While you can argue whether or not that's moral, sensible or feasible, the politics in the US will absolutely not allow abandonment of Israel. China isn't likely to care all that much. Europe isn't even a player here.

The situation is by no means stable. Saudi Arabia is slowly running out of exportable oil. Maybe 30 -50 years left. They've pretty much discovered all of the hydrocarbon deposits at present and really only have the option of trying squeeze more out of the fields (which makes output collapse faster) and making a concerted effort to use all of the natural gas that they waste. It's clear they've been lying through their teeth about their reserves (they haven't changed in 20 years despite cranking up the production ... hmmm, magic abiotic oil fairies somewhere?). Most of the current Royal Family is about to kick the bucket and there are hundreds of princelets running around confusing succession. They have a burgeoning population of young people without much to do who are very much attracted to the public dole. Their women are restless. They're running out of water. As a country they are remarkably inept at creating technological solutions to problems - typically it's all done by Western countries.

And then you have the bat shit crazies running the other countries.

We're doomed.

Re:Geopolitics

[houghi]

I was thinking in a different line. Perhaps the rest of the world can invade the USofA to overthrow a regime that allows torture and spies on their own citizens. A country that produces weapons of mass destruction. A political system that ignores the people and is set up to only benefit the elite minority.
A country that has supported Al Quaida and other terrorist organizations.

We can say all this, where in effect we are just after their oil. But then, who would fall for such a thing and not see the real reason?

Re:Geopolitics

[petes_PoV]

Alliances arise out of necessity and mutual benefit

I understand that. But when the US spends as much on its military as the next 19 countries military spending, put together it's difficult to see where the mutuality is. Countries can still arrange trade agreements - as free trade benefits everybody. However that's not the same as alliances and comes back to the point about markets.

The one area where the USA does still need, and exploits,alliances is to give a stamp of respect and credibilty to the actions it wants - and takes. However, the balance (for an example, consider the single-handed taking of a Libyan, from Libyan soil, by the americal military today) is shifting away from asking for, requiring or respecting other countries views or international law to a policy of isolated action with no consideraton of "playing nice" to take your playground mentality.

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with applying the Jevons Paradox to oil usage is that petroleum usage is fairly inelastic - just because you can afford to drive twice as far, doesn't mean you're going to choose to live twice as far from your workplace.

More fundamentally, I dislike discussing Jevons Paradox in the context of improvements in efficiency or increased supply, because it just brings a defeatist bent to the discussion that rationalizes not doing anything to improve the situation. An improvement's an improvement, no matter what.

Re:Geopolitics

[Jane Q. Public]

Despite rumors of "peak oil", there are still huge reserves of oil around the globe. Still in the ground, that is.

We won't have come anywhere near to running out by the time our automobiles are powered by something other than oil.

Re:Geopolitics

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

We'd still support the Saudis because Europe and China still use Mideast oil. We might not have been independent of Middle East oil, but we've always used much less of it than other places do.

I've never understood this argument, but it is bandied about a lot, I'll give you that. Oil is (almost) perfectly fungible, i.e. you don't particularly care where your oil comes from, as long as you can get enough. That you get most of your oil from closer (i.e. slightly cheaper) sources, e.g. domestically and from latin america doesn't matter one bit, since if we Europeans couldn't get it from closer sources (Middle east, Russia, North Sea) we'd compete for your resources.

Oil is traded on a global market. If supply globally goes down, then prices go up. For everyone. Doesn't matter if your preferred supplier goes bust. You'll just compete for those that are left.

Re:Geopolitics

[HornWumpus]

US is a tax haven for many Europeans. They may not need the data, but their tax man sure wants it.

Re:Geopolitics

[HornWumpus]

Long term it's a global market. Short term, not so much. For example the only refineries that can handle the shitty oil that comes out of Venezuela are in the USA.

The 'price shock' would be felt mostly in Europe.

Re:Geopolitics

[HornWumpus]

Oil is not fungible. Light sweet crude is fungible. Most S. American oil is thick, sulfurous oil. Your refineries can't handle it.

You would have to try to buy refined gas from the appropriate refineries.

Re:Geopolitics

[budgenator]

I've got some nice wind turbins in Tehachapi Gorge that are a good investment opertunity for you and a few of your best freinds ....

Re:Geopolitics

[evilviper]

I don't think the USA has allies any more

NATO is still in-force, and was pretty recently beneficial to the US in getting other countries to send forces into Afghanistan.

Re:Geopolitics

[rmdingler]

I hope your optimism proves out. Premature reports of the eminent death of hydrocarbon reserves have been circulating since Carter(76-80) in this fool's living memory, and color me astonished if the alleged scarcity of an energy source has not been exploited prior to that, for fun and profit.

Re:Geopolitics

[rmdingler]

Except that as cost goes up, alternatives become more economically viable. No worries, if left untampered-with by your corporate/government complex, the free market tends to correct itself.

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

It should mean leaning on Saudi Arabia to make democratic reforms and get their terrorism espousing religious fundamentalists under control or else we boycott their oil.

Re:Geopolitics

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Yes, that's why I said "almost". But by that token, you shouldn't be able to process it either, as WTI is among the sweetest and lightest grades of crude there is. But somehow you have acquired the ability to process thicker more sour variants. I wonder why? Market pressure perhaps?

Which was kind of my argument all along. This market is global, and for good reason. Shipping is readily available, easy and cheap.

P.S. Here in Sweden we refine mostly Brent, but also Russian oil, that is sometimes very high in sulphur. So it's not impossible by any means to build/maintain/have the capacity for various grades, without breaking the bank.

Re:Geopolitics

[Jane Q. Public]

" Premature reports of the eminent death of hydrocarbon reserves have been circulating since Carter(76-80) in this fool's living memory"

Yes, I remember them too. But also remember Malthus: by his famous principle, we would all have eaten each other about 600 years ago.

The problem with these doomsayers is that they take any given short-term trend and extend it out to infinity, without regard for any other variables or changes. It's what Malthus did, it's what the Global Warmists did, it's what the "peak oil" people did.

So far, all of them have been wrong.

Re:Geopolitics

[Savage-Rabbit]

If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to ... it would trash our allies

When you say "allies", are you sure you don't mean "markets"?
I don't think the USA has allies any more - just peoples and countries who depend on it for aid and subsidies and TV programmes.

That's what happens when you let a Bush loose in a porcelain shop.

Re:Geopolitics

[cyber-vandal]

You're lucky enough to live in a country with good public transport and bicycle friendly policies. I'm not.

Re:Geopolitics

[cyber-vandal]

Eventually they may become economically viable once the price gets so ludicrous that only the super rich can afford to use it and it gets cheaper to buy new aircraft instead of paying the oil companies. This isn't going to happen soon. The price of petrol has doubled here in the UK in the last 15 years and yet there has been no significant reduction in traffic levels. Electric cars are very rare and expensive with few charging points, public transport is currently being mismanaged by the private sector with government subsidies and is a joke and cycling is very dangerous and impractical. The free market solving everything is as likely as Soviet communism solving everything.

Re:Geopolitics

[volmtech]

The US military is mostly a jobs program. Most of the people responding to the /. submission asking if the government shutdown was hurting them were employed on military bases. Almost every congressman has a base or defense plant in his district. None of them can ever vote to cut military spending. And presidents love to have that big dick to swing around.

Re:Geopolitics

[LienRag]

We'd still support the Saudis because Europe and China still use Mideast oil. We might not have been independent of Middle East oil, but we've always used much less of it than other places do.

You got this right.

If the Saudis suddenly stopped selling oil to Europe, the US would be mostly okay, but it would trash our allies and seriously destabilize the world picture.

That's probably right, but it's not the main problem. The real thing that the US fear is what happens if an independant Mideast government starts selling oil directly in euros, without asking for US approval. That would show the Emperor dollar having no clothes, and this can't happen.

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

> So far, all of them have been wrong.

Yes, but only because the circumstances changed. Malthus, Hubbert, etc. were correct in predicting that if things continue as they are, what the effects would be. If there hadn't been a green revolution, food production would not have kept pace with population. If new methods of extraction hadn't been developed, oil production would peak and then decline. This isn't controversial, it's just math.

Re:Geopolitics

[khallow]

Price goes up, there's no realistic alternative

We can stop already. There are realistic alternatives, they just aren't attractive at current price points for fossil fuel petroleum.

Public transport sucks and bikes and electric cars are extremely impractical.

Well, that's three alternatives right there. They are "extremely impractical" now, but won't necessarily be in the future.

What alternative sources of energy are drivers going to switch to? Or airlines? Or anyone else who depends on fossil fuels?

Biofuels and coal-derived synthetic fuel for example.

Re:Geopolitics

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes, but only because the circumstances changed. Malthus, Hubbert, etc. were correct in predicting that if things continue as they are, what the effects would be. If there hadn't been a green revolution, food production would not have kept pace with population. If new methods of extraction hadn't been developed, oil production would peak and then decline. This isn't controversial, it's just math."

You just repeated, in different words, what I already said. You described taking a short-term trend and extending it out to infinity, without considering other VARIABLES (i.e., things that can change).

Re:Geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but do you mean they were "wrong" in that the variables changed, or "wrong" to make the projection based on the present conditions? :)

Full circle.

[Anonymous Coward]

When clean drinking water is run by a cartel maybe they'll think outside the 20 year box.

So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas inside. Each gas well requires an average of 400 tanker trucks to carry water and supplies to and from the site.

It takes 1-8 million gallons of water to complete each fracturing job.

The water brought in is mixed with sand and chemicals to create fracking fluid. Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing.
Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as
The fracking fluid is then pressure injected into the ground through a drilled pipeline.

500,000 Active gas wells in the US X 8 million Gallons of water per fracking X 18 Times a well can be fracked

72 trillion gallons of water
and
360 billion gallons of chemicals
needed to run our current gas wells.

The mixture reaches the end of the well where the high pressure causes the nearby shale rock to crack, creating fissures where natural gas flows into the well.

During this process, methane gas and toxic chemicals leach out from the system and contaminate nearby groundwater.

Methane concentrations are 17x higher in drinking-water wells near fracturing sites than in normal wells.

Contaminated well water is used for drinking water for nearby cities and towns. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water. Only 30-50% of the fractring fluid is recovered, the rest of the toxic fluid is left in the ground and is not biodegradable. The waste fluid is left in open air pits to evaporate, releasing harmful VOC’s (volatile organic compounds) into the atmosphere, creating contaminated air, acid rain, and ground level ozone. In the end, hydraulic fracking produces approximately 300,000 barrels of natural gas a day, but at the price of numerous environmental, safety, and health hazards.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm paying 2.92 in Virginia.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as

SUCH AS??? You can't leave us hanging! Oh, the suspense...

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fracking has been linked with autism.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[arth1]

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because of the deniers who will refuse more stringent pollution control and gasoline taxes. But sooner or later, it will be up to a more normal level.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[TWiTfan]

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because cars don't yet run on natural gas?

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because the leftist environmental movement is powerful in Washington and won't allow us to build new refineries. Crude oil imports/drilling has gone up but refining capacity has remained the same since the 1970s.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[h4rr4r]

Huh?
You have been able to buy CNG civics for a long time. Now other manufactorers are doing it too. Ford has trucks and vans powered by CNG. Conversion is not terribly expensive either.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fracking has been linked with autism.

So there was a well near your childhood home?

You are going to have to come up with some stats for that one... Then you are gong to have to come up with some verified studies that isolate FRACKING as the cause of the issues you claim. (I'm guessing that you won't be able to, because there are OTHER environmental factors at play here.)

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[TWiTfan]

Okay, well perhaps I should change my comment to "Because very, very few cars run on natural gas?" The only sales figures I could find for the Civic CNG indicated that Honda had only sold about 1,600 of them in 2012. Promising, but not exactly commonplace.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because cars don't yet run on natural gas?

http://www.holden.com.au/about/innovation/ecoline/lpg

If the market demanded LPG, Holden (GM in Australia) would be more than happy to export this

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh what? Refining capacity has gone DOWN, not because of environmentalists, but because it was deemed not cost effective to upgrade existing facilities to current safe standards. It's about money not environmentalism. They've realized that they have a lock on the supply so they can effectively charge whatever the highest amount the consumer will bear. We've wound down in both wars and are still not out of the recession, the gas consumption has gone down, yet somehow prices have remained the same, even through a strengthening dollar. Yeah sure, I believe that "environmentalism" has something to do with it.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[h4rr4r]

Yeah, refueling is a bit hard to find, home compression is expensive and energy density is not that great by volume for CNG. Nor is MPG that good. Not only because of the realities of CNG but also because they are just changing the timing on a gasoline ice, not building something more suited to CNG. Kind of similar to the issue with ethanol and high blends of it. Sure gasoline engines can burn it, and it works, but since they are really tuned for something else it is not ideal.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[gtall]

And the U.S. hasn't built any new refineries in quite awhile.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[fustakrakich]

The ingredients are trade secrets, leaving us to speculate the worse as the only option, until they open up the books. That's just the way it has to be played.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The water brought in is mixed with sand and chemicals to create fracking fluid. Approximately 40,000 gallons of chemicals are used per fracturing.
Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as"

Most of the volume is plain, old, dihydrogen monoxide. Last I checked it was only 400 chemicals. I guess the numbers have gone up.

Seriously, if you're going to cut-and-paste this stuff, at least try to do it correctly. "Such as..." what? It's chopped off. And I'm sorry, but hearing there are "600 chemicals" in there isn't the least bit frightening. There's a lot more than 600 chemicals in a typical meal. I know the sheer number of chemicals is supposed to sound scary, but "chemicals" aren't generically bad. We're made of them. Be specific or don't bother. And, yes, sometimes the companies won't divulge trade secrets and identify what is being used, but A) the law should change so that they have to, B) much of the stuff that is used is pretty innocuous anyway (no worse than soap or what is already in groundwater), and C) it's so diluted by the water that surface contamination from other sources (e.g., run off from roads) is far more likely to affect groundwater used for drinking water in a significant way. People are up in arms about hydraulic fracturing occurring kilometres below their drinking water and in systems where the flow wouldn't get to shallower levels for thousands of years (and by then be incredibly dilute), but they won't think twice about having a gas station, agriculture with pesticides or manure, or an ordinary landfill site near them, which are a lot more likely to be a problem for water supplies.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

And why exactly would we need more gasoline taxes? There's no "denial" there. Just an honest question about the necessity of the government bleeding the economy dry.

The pollution control thing could be a focus of "deniers", so that is at least a plausible scenario. But the taxes thing just belies a very European misunderstanding of American culture: our government is extremely conservative by your standards, and for similar reasons, taxation is conservative too. We pay very high individual (income and property) taxes, but that's it. Sales taxes are low. VAT is nonexistent. Excise taxes aren't much (except for cigarettes).

The bulk of my property taxes go to pay for the local school district and fire protection district. Other things paid for by that tax bill are: local metro area zoo and museum district, "special" school district for troubled kids, water and sewer system maintenance fees, and a few other similar local fees.

The bulk of my income taxes go to pay the feds for all the crap they do. A small portion goes to the state I live in, and similarly pays into their general fund.

The roads are adequately maintained with the existing gas taxes and out of the general funds of the feds and state. I think that you're just jealous that our gasoline prices, though high by our standards, are a fraction of yours.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins such as"

Would have been much more informative if you would have at least included one carcinogen and/or toxin...

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[ColdWetDog]

The exact mixtures are 'secrets'. The basic ingredients are well known. All you have to do is grab a sample of fracking fluid from the waste truck and run it over to the lab.

The 'secret' secret is just a smoke screen to make it harder to regulate.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[ColdWetDog]

But they have increased capacity in a number of them. Remember, the US total use of oil is flattening out. We've got the refineries we need at present.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[arth1]

I think that you're just jealous that our gasoline prices, though high by our standards, are a fraction of yours.

Dude, I live in the US. And I think the prices are way too low.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you using "chemicals" like it's a dirty word? I'm sure there are plenty of toxic chemicals being used, but when you try to paint them all with the same brush you look ignorant as fuck.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Contaminated well water is used for drinking water for nearby cities and towns. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.

Please provide a citation to a single case of groundwater contamination shown to be a result of fracking.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid,

Including chemicals such as dihydrogen-monoxide?

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[fiannaFailMan]

Why are we still paying $3.50/gal for gasoline?

Because your roads are heavily subsidized by the federal income tax, allowing you to enjoy some of the cheapest gas in the western world. If your gas taxes covered the full cost of the infrastructure you're using you'd be paying at least $8/gallon at the pump like they are in Europe.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gasoline is expensive, because there are more and more cars in the world.

Developing countries did buy quite many cars in the last 5 years. Also, the dollar is worthless by the year and the price of oil did adjust to the inflation of USD.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it not have been simpler to just say that the price has not gone down because the production methods enabling this supply boom are economical solely due to higher prices?

Also your cut 'n paste job is pretty sloppy, you're missing entire sections of 'your' argument.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you site actual scientific and Natural gas production studies to verify your statements. Otherwise, it has as much truth as the statement that Joseph Mengele was involved in the Kennedy assassination or that the Koch Brothers are a part of the Illuminati trying too destroy this administration through the shutdown. (Neither of which I believe)

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you used the appropriate unit of measure for nature gas figures, it would give your environmentalist screed much more credence.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm always seeing this argument. "If we can be self-sufficient in gas, then we'll be independent of 'world oil prices'."

It's an incredibly dumb argument.

Imagine you're a US oil producer, you're pumping millions of barrels a day out of, I dunno, Tennessee or somewhere. What are you going to do with it?
1. Sell it on the world market, at the market price
2. Ignore the world market, sell it at a "fair price" exclusively to your fellow Americans?

If you believe the answer is (2), I have a bridge you may be interested in. If there were a massive oil shortage in, say, Europe, then all that American oil would be loaded onto tankers and shipped away from US shores faster than you could say "six bucks a gallon."

Re: So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it moves, tax it. If it's still moving regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidise it - guess who?

Re: So why didn't prices go down then?

[arth1]

If it moves, tax it. If it's still moving regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidise it - guess who?

The same republican that said "We should declare war on North Vietnam. We could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas".

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

China currently has about 1 million CNG/LNG vehicles in use, and about 2000 refueling stations. This is more effective in reducing gasoline reliance than you would expect, because most of them are taxis, buses and heavy trucks which undoubtedly spend much more time on the road than private cars.

Source: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059972373

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[volmtech]

This is a good thing. Most of the income tax is paid by the rich. The poor can live 50km from their job and still afford the gas to drive that far. The European poor have to live within walking or cycling distance of their job or a train platform. This forces them live on the edge of cities in high rent areas.

Praising availability of European train travel begs the question, who is subsidizing the trains?

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah Its a good thing near by ground water is 1 - 2 Km down

your post is so packed with FUD its leaking into my ground water

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[fiannaFailMan]

Probably the people standing on the platform.

Re:So why didn't prices go down then?

[volmtech]

Uh, no. From a report by the European Environment Agency. "Rail is subsidised to the sum of EUR 73 billion per year. The financial benefit to the sector is split almost equally between infrastructure subsidies and fare reduction subsidies"

Transportation subsidies are a GOOD thing. If people are on the train they aren't on the road getting in my way. Of course American roads are subsidized, but everyone benefits from food and other goods delivered to stores even if they walk to the market.

In my area public transportation is buses that also depend on the roads. One problem is union drivers. Look up the trouble three hundred thousand people in San Francisco are going to have tomorrow. I'm glad I live three thousand miles from there.

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina

[i kan reed]

It's disingenuous to pretend this represents only a penny difference over decades, but groundwater contamination is apparently a problem.

The Propaganda Doesn't Help

[Anonymous Coward]

When Hollywood is falling all over itself to provide a never ending stream of propaganda flicks, ignorant and uneducated celebrity mouthpieces, and other fodder aimed at demonizing energy production, it's no wonder the public doesn't support it.

Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama?

[Assmasher]

LOL...

That sumbitch is destroying the country!

In Soviet USA

[HansKloss]

Russia becomes USA err.
USA beats Russia in oil production, as police country nr. 1, security forces everyhere, shoot and ask questions later... full totalitarian state.

What this world has come to...

Re:In Soviet USA

[Anonymous Coward]

In americanized East,

america bugs evryone, and the israelis bug the buggers.

Dunno how to read "across the lines", but if america suddenly produces the most oil, surely the Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/Syria conflicts can be ended.

During the `80`s and `90`s BP suggested that there are hundreds-of-billions of barrels juST OFF THE COAST OF GAZA! PALESTINIAN GAS FIELDS

no wonder the american-israelis have sabotaged the peace-process and stirred instability in the region.....

Re:In Soviet USA

[Entropius]

You're not allowed to talk about buggering in Russia these days though...

Re:In Soviet USA

[geekoid]

Are you roo young to actually remember the soviet union? becasue the US is nothing like that.

Re:In Related News...

[Assmasher]

Canyonero!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4QgWRycd7I

The first consequence

[Anonymous Coward]

At the next OPEC meeting, the food will be delivered from Five Guys instead of being sent in from a three-star French restaurant.

Food

[tekrat]

So long term, we're contaminating the underground water table, which will eventually rise to the surface, and contaminate the food supply -- Can't you just wait until corn, even grown for livestock feed starts showing trace amount of these chemicals?

Or should we not worry since America doesn't make anything anymore, not even food, and we'll import all of our food from China?

People right now are all up in arms over Fukishima, but I see this fracking as much much worse for us long term -- so bad that it'll make nuclear energy look incredibly clean by comparison.

Re:Food

[cpicon92]

So long term, we're contaminating the underground water table, which will eventually rise to the surface, and contaminate the food supply -- Can't you just wait until corn, even grown for livestock feed starts showing trace amount of these chemicals?

Or should we not worry since America doesn't make anything anymore, not even food, and we'll import all of our food from China?

People right now are all up in arms over Fukishima, but I see this fracking as much much worse for us long term -- so bad that it'll make nuclear energy look incredibly clean by comparison.

Somehow I don't see that happening, given that we currently export massive quantities of food to China.

And of course fracking is worse than nuclear. Nuclear energy doesn't pollute the environment as a matter of course, it only does it when accidents happen. That said, shale gas extraction doesn't have to be nearly as bad as you seem to think. The reason it pollutes the groundwater is pure irresponsibility on the part of the natural gas industry. If the EPA cracked down on fracking they would certainly find a way to do it safely.

If I were you I would worry about the government not working more than anything else. The government is the only body that can really prevent negligence in resource extraction.

Re:Food

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yea, the stuff that they pump under ground is really NASTY right?

You do get that it is nearly 100% water and sand right? With some stuff to make it thicker, xanthan gum and a host of things we USE IN FOOD products too. Yes some of this is toxic, as are food additives used every day. You also get that these things are getting injected thousands of feet below the bottom of any water table, which is covered by impermeable rock (Which I know is true because how would the oil/gas collect if it was not for the impermeable rock formation in the first place.) Some have taken to using waste drilling fluid as part of this, mostly to get rid of it in a way that is safe for the environment. But Oh No, this simply cannot be a safe practice...

Think about this... Personally, I think the damage done by the drilling process is much more significant than FRACKING ever would be. You folks need to get your facts straight and stop playing this "We don't know what's in it" == Fear of the unknown card all the time...

Re:Food

[sribe]

You also get that these things are getting injected thousands of feet below the bottom of any water table, which is covered by impermeable rock...

And you also get that the point of fracking is to fracture that rock so that it becomes permeable???

Re:Food

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, water can be contaminated. However, that water has more than 10% of salt already AND it's very, very deep. 3000m deep. That water is, for all intents and purposes, completely removed from any living creature for the next couple of hundreds of millions of years; then it will go down to the mantle, evaporate, and finally come back in a volcanic explosion. That's a very classic distilling process, after that it will be 100% pure, separated from any possible gas and/or salt. Fracking, done by someone who isn't a total moron, is harmless. A total moron would use too much pressure on a seismically active region, near active faults, and get a few earthquakes, a damaged well and a reservoir they can't produce from anymore.

However, you're right. Nuclear IS incredibly clean compared to basically any viable high output energy source.

Re:Food

[gtall]

How come this notion that America doesn't make anything any longer gets repeated:

"According to the latest research from the United Nations, China has further outpaced its competitors in world manufacturing, generating $2.9 trillion in output annually versus $2.43 trillion from the U.S., the world’s second-largest manufacturing economy."

Re:Food

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear energy is incredibly clean compared to any fossil fuel.

Re:Food

[Lightning McQueen]

If the EPA cracked down on fracking they would certainly find a way to do it safely.

Yes! This strategy of making laws first then letting the Boffins invent stuff is awesome. It's why we have flying cars and make regular trips to the moon! We don't have pollution and food scarcity is all but unheard of ---- because we made some laws!

Re:Food

[ColdWetDog]

Except that there is a barrier of several hundred feet between the shales and the water table. Fracking doesn't make huge cracks thousands of feet in length. Contamination, when it occurs, happens when the well bore is screwed up.

Re:Food

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. counts agricultural output as "manufacturing"; no other country does. (If China did, its output would be close to $6 trillion, not $2.9 T.) In the U.S., Farmer Bob owns a factory!

Re:Food

[Anonymous Coward]

So long term, we're contaminating the underground water table,...

According to the not economically viable alternative energy crowd. Show me a study that we actually have an alternative energy that can both power the US to current levels that isn't fossil fuels or nuclear. So the President tried this with Solyandia. Its failed spectacularly.

Re:Food

[rmdingler]

Nail hit squarely upon head. Well done sir.

Re:Food

[someSnarkyBastard]

Contamination, when it occurs, happens when the well bore is screwed up.

And that _NEVER_ happens...

Obama is Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only has he managed to get every American health care, but he has also made us virtually energy independent.

Way to go, Obama!

Re:Obama is Awesome

[Lumpy]

He also invented the internet!

Re:Obama is Awesome

[elsuperjefe]

Not only has he managed to get every American health care, but he has also made us virtually energy independent.

Way to go, Obama!

no, no, no. Obama only gets the blame for high gas prices. You absolutely cannot credit his administration for energy independence or low gas prices or anything positive that happens in the U.S. That's heresy.

Re:Obama is Awesome

[VortexCortex]

And Husein is his middle Name, that's Insane!

Re:Obama is Awesome

[Magius_AR]

no, no, no. Obama only gets the blame for high gas prices. You absolutely cannot credit his administration for energy independence or low gas prices or anything positive that happens in the U.S. That's heresy.

No administration gets the "credit" for low gas prices. Did he personally invent frakking? Did he fund it? Hell no.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

How are we going to blame this on Obama?

He's the damn President of The United States! In case you haven't heard, the buck stops there...

Well, there we have it

[delta98]

FTFA "Tapping shale rock for oil and gas has fueled the U.S. boom, while Russia has struggled to keep up its output." Yes. So, Fracking is a great thing! It puts us..er..I mean U.S. ahead in the output metric. Sweet Crude Almighty $3.00 a gallon of gas is just 'round the conner!

Re:Well, there we have it

[afidel]

I just paid $3.17 last night, just 5% over your $3 target so I'd say we're getting close. What I don't get is why LSC is still at $109 a barrel, with US production up this much and global demand still slightly below 2007 levels we should be under $80, probably around $75. The only thing I can think of is inflation and speculation, and no other metric shows a 25% inflationary factor for the dollar so it has to be down to speculation and manipulation by the financial players, can we please limit their interaction with the commodities market please so the rest of the broader market can reap some of the benefits of this cheaper fuel.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

"can we please limit their interaction with the commodities market please"
LOL. good luck.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

I just paid $3.17 last night, just 5% over your $3 target so I'd say we're getting close. What I don't get is why LSC is still at $109 a barrel, with US production up this much and global demand still slightly below 2007 levels we should be under $80, probably around $75. The only thing I can think of is inflation and speculation, and no other metric shows a 25% inflationary factor for the dollar so it has to be down to speculation and manipulation by the financial players, can we please limit their interaction with the commodities market please so the rest of the broader market can reap some of the benefits of this cheaper fuel.

Simple solution yankee...buy a more efficient car.

From EIA September 10, 2013:
Oil supply disruptions in key producing countries are up sharply:

Libya. Protests at many seaport facilities have blocked exports, and, as a result, crude oil supply disruptions averaged close to 1 million bbl/d in August, up from 0.13 million bbl/d in April. Pipeline closures by militia groups at the end of August have worsened the situation, with disruptions rising to 1.35-1.4 million bbl/d by the end of August.
Nigeria. Disruptions in June on key pipelines helped curtail almost 450,000 bbl/d of production, up 100,000 bbl/d compared to May. Production recovered somewhat by August when 290,000 bbl/d were off-line.
Iraq. Persistent attacks on the pipeline from Kirkuk to Ceyhan in Turkey helped push disruptions of Iraqi crude oil production to 250,000 bbl/d in August, up 100,000 bbl/d from April. In addition, September maintenance at the Iraqi port of Basra could further reduce exports by several hundred thousand barrels per day. Although the Iraqi government has stated that exports will not be affected, a preliminary September loading schedule indicates a decline of several hundred thousand barrels per day.

Re:Well, there we have it

[bill_mcgonigle]

no other metric shows a 25% inflationary factor for the dollar

The BLS methodology used from the 1970's to the 1990's does.

Re:Well, there we have it

[afidel]

I'm not worried about fueling my car, I already drive a 1.8L compact sedan, I'm worried about the drag on economic growth expensive fuel continues to cause.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

It is only price signals that will move us away from this dwindling resource - I cheer every time the price increases because it makes alternatives more viable. Whether those alternatives are biofuels or electric doesnt bother me, as long as we are not hitched to a dwindling resource.

Once those alternatives gain significant market traction prices will drop, especially now that we have much more rare earth resource being freed up in the US, Australia, etc.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

The increase in price is the 'invisible hand' of the market at work, and the invisible hand is slapping us across the face because we are stupid enough to want to continue hitching ourselves to a wagon that is going over a cliff. We need to move off fossil fuels because they are a resource that is running out and we need to use alternatives.

If prices continue to rise, your next vehicle purchase might include hybrids, all-electric vehicles or whatever else is on offer. Once enough people are on-board volume will drive down per-unit costs and we can slowly migrate across to more sustainable energy sources. Without the price signal you would just keep on doing what you're doing and consuming petroleum.

It doesn't matter what your beliefs are on anthropogenic climate change, this is about basic supply and demand. We are running out of easily accessible crude,

Re:Well, there we have it

[afidel]

Did you miss the entire point of the article? We AREN'T running out of easily accessible crude, in fact world supplies are UP due to increased US output, in fact supply is going up faster than demand which would normally drive prices DOWN but that isn't happening which is why I said there are only two logical conclusions, the dollar is inflating relative to crude (unlikely based on other indicators) or there is market manipulation going on (likely based on various studies showing that up to 30% of the cost of a barrel of crude is activity by speculators).

Re:Well, there we have it

[IamTheRealMike]

Well, this is the peak oil argument - more oil can always be extracted, but at what price? The price is high because extracting oil from shale rock is significantly harder than getting the old fashioned stuff, which is why it's been left till last and it took many years of high prices to cause a surge in production. I don't think prices will fall again back to where they were pre-2004, ever.

Re:Well, there we have it

[delta98]

Im going to laugh my ass off when the drill to the mantle project keeps hitting pockets of gas and oil that we have been told for years was a limited fossil fuel. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/tech/mantle-earth-drill-mission/index.html The horseshit about being harder to drill and pull from ungodly depths is just that-horseshit. We have had 5 wells drilled tapped and capped in ANWAR since the '70's. The real problem is how we harness the energy in a responsibile manner. Fracking is not the answer, I was being an ass. The technology exists for cleaner more efficent sorces of power yet our mindset hasn't really changed much since the days of the industral revolution. Wait! lemmie get off my milk basket...mah heads gonna 'splode. It's late for me 3rd shft IT. I had enough.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Refer to above posters reference form EIA, there have been significant disruptions in world supply, the USA producing more is great and all but you cant offset the events in other mass oil exporters.

And yes we are running out of easily accessible crude, hence why we are sourcing crude form Oil Sands with tax subsidies. You can stick your head up your backside all you want but the facts will catch up with you.

There is a reason why Russia is heading into the arctic, why oil companies are performing deep water drilling and the inefficient Alberta reserves are being tapped - because the easily accessible sources are at full tilt and we now have to perform more work for every barrel we extract.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

The price of oil will never get higher than it is now. If it were not currently illegal to make methanol from coal and illegal to mine shale oil on public lands, and illegal to tap the oil off the US coasts, oil would be at about $60 per barrel. These alternative fossil fuels can be extracted and replace current sources for the next 200 years at prices LOWER than they are today. Peak oil is a political, not a geological construct.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be that invisible hand which they tell me can do no wrong.

Re:Well, there we have it

[SleazyRidr]

Fracking is still a rather expensive way to get oil out of the ground. Back in the good old days when you could stick a straw in the ground and oil would come out you could sell it for real cheap and still make boatloads of money. When you can sell oil for over $100 per barrel, you can do some pretty crazy shit to get it out and still come out ahead. When it touched $140 I sat in a couple of planning meeting where geologists were talking about (what I thought were) absolutely insane drilling and mining plans to get not much oil out, but for $140 it was worth it.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Speculation helped along by QE perhaps? During the tapering scare a month ago, there was a lot of sub-$90 betting in options.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the entire point of the article? We AREN'T running out of easily accessible crude, in fact world supplies are UP due to increased US output, in fact supply is going up faster than demand which would normally drive prices DOWN

You seem to be missing the point... it is by no means 'easily acessible' crude... it is actually quite expensive to frak (or extract oil from tar sands for that matter), much more so than just pumping it out of the ground. If it costs x dollars to produce a barrel of oil, nobody is going to produce said barrel of oil unless they can sell it for more than x. High oil prices are here to stay.

Re:Well, there we have it

[HereIAmJH]

I just paid $3.17 last night, just 5% over your $3 target so I'd say we're getting close.

I doubt the recent drop in gasoline prices is related to our increased oil production. They have ramped up over 3 years, yet gas prices have only dropped over the last couple of weeks. I suspect gas prices are dropping due to: moving from summer fuel mixtures, drop in demand since the new school year has started, and drop in demand due to the Gov't shutdown. The number to watch right now is the price of diesel. If it starts a similar drop it will be an indicator that the economy is cooling off and we could be sliding back towards recession. With the gov't shutdown trickling into the private sector through gov't suppliers, it could be a real concern. Gasoline prices would continue to drop, and that might seem like a good thing, until employers move from furloughs to layoffs.

BTW, the market price of oil hasn't been dropping because despite the US reducing demand and producing more, worldwide demand continues to rise. China and India are huge markets and have a long way to go to reach parities with 1st world economies. Just wait until their consumers demand products and services on the same the level as US and Europe. Those 2 countries have approximately 1/3 of the world's population.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

The main goals of an oil company are to stabilize and optimize its profit. Consumer protection is not a priority unless the profit becomes problematic.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. By definition, oil extracted from shale formations (aka, Tight Oil) is not the easily accessible stuff. They call it an "unconventional oil"source because it's not the easy stuff, which the industry terms, "conventional. Because it requires unconventional means of extraction (hydrofracturing), it is a more complicated process and therefore more expensive to produce (more steel, lots of water and exotic fluids, lots of re-fracturing, well workovers and wastewater remediation and handling). The price floor for a barrel of Tight Oil is much higher than a barrel of oil conventionally extracted. If the price drops below that floor, the extraction stops. These new, more expensive, unconventional extraction techniques RAISE the price of oil. That higher floor price creates an ongoing drag on the economy, which hinders demand. Unlike natural gas, oil is easily transported, so petroleum products can be refined and shipped to growing markets (hello, Asia) used to paying higher prices because they use it more efficiently in the first place, which will help keep the high priced Shale production going, but do nothing for countries like the US with an infrastructure designed for a much lower oil-products price. As for the natural gas boom and its glut-induced price drop, it really amounts to an ongoing land-lease Ponzi scheme. Every company in that business is losing money. Selling off land leases and building hype to gain more suckers/investors is keeping things going while the industry desperately pushes to export the stuff to higher priced markets; which will simultaneously clear domestic inventory and drive up US prices.

Re:Well, there we have it

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is why we have to switch to something else. Like Tesla electric cars and other EVs. If I don't use oil along with millions of others, then the demand falls and they don't have an economic incentive to drill since they can't make money. Or they will have to charge the remaining addicts spending a lot of money for their gas fix.

Re:Well, there we have it

[SleazyRidr]

It's why I'm not freaking out as much about climate change as I used to. Eventually we'll get to a point where electric cars etc. will just make the most economic sense. Gasoline will still be available for the niche uses, but it will get more and more expensive so eventually alternatives will be found for everything. Drilling for oil is unlikely to completely die out, but it will get to such a low level that no one will really care.

Re:Well, there we have it

[volmtech]

My sister in Colorado has an oil well on family owned land. She gets one fifth of TWO BARRELS a day. At today's prices that's still almost $15000 a year.

Only Republicans can take credit for this boom

[Overzeetop]

And, in the process, tell us how it would have been so much better if the Democrats would just get the fuck out of the way.

The opportunities created

[sl4shd0rk]

If you don't descend from Political/Capitalist Royalty "opportunities created by these conditions" was not in reference to your family.

Re:The opportunities created

[phantomfive]

Or you live in North Dakota and saw your salary double as part of the oil boom

Domestic refineries

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't much of the foreign oil refined in the US anyway? Strategically that still gives some control over the commodity.

Anyway the article linked to in the summary is short on details. It looks like the oil+natural gas mentioned in the summary really consists mostly of natural gas.

Why am I still paying more than $3 a gallon then..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why am I still paying more than $3 a gallon then...

More importantly

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the joint output of natural gas of Iran and their Ally, Russia. Biggest projected production and supplier to Europe.
Secondly, the projected impact of natural gas on climate change and the long term impact of fracking on groundwater throughout the US. Of course "we're winning" so we don't care, we plan on dying before suffering any consequences, good luck with that...

Master Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

1-Attack competition alleging Freedom implementation
2-Leave the target in a state of rebuilding
3-????
4-MURICA!

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

I have no problem with that as long as it applies to ALL presidents, not just the ones you don't like...

Not about supply / demand, about taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Demand for gas has been going down, thanks to the recession. It is not about demand going up, and now it is not about supply going down, it is about governments raising taxes to get more out of the population.

Republicans are irritated

[Anonymous Coward]

That their free market is bailing out yet another Democrat.

Yet....

[Lumpy]

Prices are still high and fluctuate like crazy...

They need to STOP speculation trading on it to stabilize the prices.

Re:Yet....

[Anonymous Coward]

Prices are, and will continue to be, high because the current increase in production can only be sustained by a record high rate of drilling and fracking, which barely breaks even at current prices. Note that Shell announced less than a week ago that they were getting out of the Eagle Ford play (which accounts for the largest part of the recent increase in U.S. oil production), presumably because they aren't making any money from it.

Most fracked wells produce more gas than oil, which accounts for the current low market price for gas. The fluctuations in price of oil (and gasoline) occur because small drops in demand lower the price, making new drilling unprofitable. The drilling rate drops, so the production drops: these new wells decline in production very rapidly, so most of the oil is produced in the first year, unlike traditional oil wells which might decline at only 5% per year. When production drops, or demand increases due to lower prices, the price jumps up again.

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina

[sureshot007]

Nobody drinks water anymore. That's what's in toilets. It doesn't have electrolytes. It doesn't have what plants crave.

Bubble?

[Savage-Rabbit]

I have read several articles and reports by economists and geologists claiming this fracking boom is a bubble. The estimate of 100 years worth of gas is overstated. It seems 25 years worth of gas is more likely, less if gas exports are allowed. Then the bubble bursts. The shale oil bubble is worse, 80% of shale oil comes from two rapidly declining deposits, so unless replacements deposits are found that bubble bursts in ten years or so,. Also, we haven't even started talking about limiting factors like environmental issues and the increasing cost of maintaining production levels as the best deposits are used up. As usual everybody is so busy dancing to the buzz they don't stop to think.

Re:Bubble?

[swillden]

I have read several articles and reports by economists and geologists claiming this fracking boom is a bubble. The estimate of 100 years worth of gas is overstated. It seems 25 years worth of gas is more likely, less if gas exports are allowed.

I don't really have an opinion on the issue as a whole, but it's worth pointing out that similar reports have been telling us for decades that the end was nigh, and yet we continue finding new deposits and/or new ways to exploit known deposits. Obviously that can't continue forever, and it seems pretty clear that there are other issues that have to be considered (e.g. climate change), but I'm pretty skeptical of anyone projecting near-term resource exhaustion.

It's always possible, of course, that this time the wolf really is here, but...

Besides that, I think anyone predicting a sudden collapse of supply is silly. That's not how the world works; you don't see all of the fields simultaneously ceasing production, instead many fields begin to decline at differing rates. The result -- when we near exhaustion -- will be that available supply gradually tapers off, which will cause prices to gradually rise in order to limit demand to available supply. Rising prices will eventually move us off of fossil fuels, if we haven't already done it for other reasons.

Re:Bubble?

[Savage-Rabbit]

I have read several articles and reports by economists and geologists claiming this fracking boom is a bubble. The estimate of 100 years worth of gas is overstated. It seems 25 years worth of gas is more likely, less if gas exports are allowed.

I don't really have an opinion on the issue as a whole, but it's worth pointing out that similar reports have been telling us for decades that the end was nigh, and yet we continue finding new deposits and/or new ways to exploit known deposits. Obviously that can't continue forever, and it seems pretty clear that there are other issues that have to be considered (e.g. climate change), but I'm pretty skeptical of anyone projecting near-term resource exhaustion.

It's always possible, of course, that this time the wolf really is here, but...

Besides that, I think anyone predicting a sudden collapse of supply is silly. That's not how the world works; you don't see all of the fields simultaneously ceasing production, instead many fields begin to decline at differing rates. The result -- when we near exhaustion -- will be that available supply gradually tapers off, which will cause prices to gradually rise in order to limit demand to available supply. Rising prices will eventually move us off of fossil fuels, if we haven't already done it for other reasons.

I was in the.skeptic camp in 2007/8 well before the mortgage crisis and I used to get got same kind of speeches you just gave. Nobody believed you could have a mortgage crisis on that scale, they didn't even think that there was anything wrong with putting people on bonuses handing out loans. You can have a fracking bubble without resource exhaustion just like you can have a real estate bubble without that being the end of real estate. Secondly, when it comes to shale oil and gas, resource exhaustion is a pretty rapid process. Regular oil wells last for multiple decades, shale deposits are exhausted in years and the drop in yields is very rapid so you frack your way through deposits very rapidly. You should read that last article linked to in the summary, it is a good place to start and it also mentions the 10 year shelf life of the shale oil boom (I got that figure elsewhere). I suppose we'll see what happens next, I just hope it isn't a rerun of the mortgage crisis.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not understand the concept of peak oil, it is not about the whole world stopping production at once. It is about what happens when supply begins to fall below demand by even 5 or 10%. The answer is that chaos ensues, rationing, economic collapse etc, all happen even while the world is producing the most oil that we ever have in history, that's where the name peak oil comes from.

Re:Bubble?

[Hatta]

Besides that, I think anyone predicting a sudden collapse of supply is silly.

A sudden collapse of supply is not the problem. The problem is that even maintaining todays output is insufficient. Energy use grows exponentially. It doubles in about 30 years. So 30 years from now we're going to need twice as much output, and 60 years from now we're going to need 4 times as much output and after 90 years, 16 times the output. Even a steady linear increase in production capacity will be outpaced in a few doubling times.

But we don't get a steady linear increase in production. We get an exponential growth at the beginning, that levels off, and then tapers downwards. There is no sudden collapse of supply, but there is a sudden disparity between supply and demand.

Re:Bubble?

[Alioth]

Well, the thing is that oil from shale is economical only because the cheap oil has pretty much run out. We find new deposits but they are increasingly harder and more expensive to extract from with poorer energy-return-on-energy-invested ratios. The other issue is not quantity but *rate* - as an extreme example, imagine an infinite oil reserve was found but the fastest rate at which you could draw it was one barrel per second. It wouldn't matter that the capacity is good to keep our current consumption going forever if you can't actually extract it at a sufficient rate to satisfy demand. The "unconventional oils" as they are known are not just harder and more expensive to extract, but the rate of extraction is much slower than a conventional oil field of a similar size.

For instance, compare Canada's tar sands reserves with Mexico's Cantarell field. After decades of investment, Canada's tar sands, which are over 1000 times larger than Cantarell field, can only just match the rate of extraction that was obtained from Cantarell at its peak.

Re:Bubble?

[the eric conspiracy]

The problem is the dismal science - the economic returns of alternatives are not as good as what we have now.

Eventually this will cause a dramatic decline in standard of living. The dire end of this range is a die back of the human species.

Re:Bubble?

[dj245]

Besides that, I think anyone predicting a sudden collapse of supply is silly. That's not how the world works; you don't see all of the fields simultaneously ceasing production, instead many fields begin to decline at differing rates. The result -- when we near exhaustion -- will be that available supply gradually tapers off, which will cause prices to gradually rise in order to limit demand to available supply. Rising prices will eventually move us off of fossil fuels, if we haven't already done it for other reasons.

A lot of hydrocarbon consumption is inelastic. I can trim unnecessary driving trips, fiddle with my thermostat at home, and try to reduce my use of plastics. But I still need to get to and from work every day, and buy groceries at least once every 2 weeks. Some of my usage is "want" and some of it is "need". When there is not enough hydrocarbons to support peoples "needs" then the price will skyrocket. Right now hydrocarbons are somewhere in the middle of "perfectly elastic" and "perfectly inelastic", but we are moving closer and closer towards inelasticity.

This has little to do with oifields tapering off slowly vs suddenly running dry.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got the right idea, but there are some subtle points in there. Yes, the idea of a *sudden* collapse is unlikely. The supply:demand relationship is too tightly woven for the tipping point to unfold as a "sudden" change unless there is a major political disturbance (e.g., a whole oil-producing area somewhere having its supply shut off), because a few years of sustained high prices will accomplish one of two things: 1) demand destruction by stifling the economy (demand goes down), or 2) supply increase as marginal deposits that were previously too expensive are brought on-line to take advantage of the higher prices (supply goes up). There has to be a limit eventually, because as you approach the point where the energy cost of getting it out of the ground doesn't greatly exceed the value of what you get out, it's game over.

What people often neglect is the fact that oil companies wouldn't be exploring and producing from these *very* expensive deposits if the easy stuff was still out there for the taking. They're producing from places that were (formerly) crazy, like hydraulically fractured oil shales and gas shales that wouldn't even be considered reservoirs 20 or 30 years ago, mining and using steam-assisted gravity drainage for tar sands, and they're producing in water depths offshore exceeding 2000m. This is not because there is plenty out there to find, it's because the supply of cheap stuff is dwindling. Prices will wiggle around thanks to fluctuations in the economy and technological improvements, but the overall trend is not a "boy who cried wolf" situation. It's more like "night is coming, and we can already see the sun going down on cheap fossil fuels". Occasionally a cloud will move out of the way and things will brighten a little, but it's temporary (maybe 10 years or so), and all the signs of the long-term trend are there and have been for quite some time. It's pretty clear the peak production will happen in the first half of this century rather than the second.

Re:Bubble?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Besides that, I think anyone predicting a sudden collapse of supply is silly.

A sudden collapse of supply is not the problem. The problem is that even maintaining todays output is insufficient. Energy use grows exponentially. It doubles in about 30 years. So 30 years from now we're going to need twice as much output, and 60 years from now we're going to need 4 times as much output and after 90 years, 16 times the output. Even a steady linear increase in production capacity will be outpaced in a few doubling times.

But we don't get a steady linear increase in production. We get an exponential growth at the beginning, that levels off, and then tapers downwards. There is no sudden collapse of supply, but there is a sudden disparity between supply and demand.

That isn't the only problem. They (Wall Street) have begun to bundle shale leases like they did with their mortgage backed securities. Basically they are bundling shale leases into packages and there are allegations that crappy shale 'claims' (for lack of a better word), that are basically equivalent to subprime mortgages, are being rated as prime quality extraction areas and sold off to unsuspecting suckers. Anybody who remembers 2008 will have a fair idea where that can lead unless somebody hits the breaks and given that everybody from the shale boom areas to Washington is busy dancing to the shale-fracking-will-give-us-energy-independence buzz that seems unlikely. The mentality of people caught up in this shale 'goldrush' is scarily similar to what I experienced leading up to the mortgage crisis.

Re:Bubble?

[TheSync]

The estimate of 100 years worth of gas is overstated. It seems 25 years worth of gas is more likely, less if gas exports are allowed.

Fracking has only really been done well in the US to date. There are a lot of good places in the world (for example, Europe and China) that have shale that might work for gas and oil as well. So yes, I would be unsurprised if the US easily-frackable stuff runs low in 25-50 years, but the rest of the world is just starting to look into this.

Re:Bubble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody believed you could have a mortgage crisis on that scale

"Nobody" believes you can have a currency crises, despite the fact that Helicopter Ben can't turn off the $1.02e+12/year money cannon without tanking effectively everything. "Nobody" believes you can have a sovereign debt crises, despite the fact that a 2% raise on the short end of the interest rate curve will put an Pentagon size debt service hole in the middle of the budget.

Fracking? The US could double the energy reserves of the planet tomorrow drilling off East and West coasts. Our energy problems are purely self inflicted, just like our spending problems, our currency problems and our mortgage problems.

in soviet russia

[Joe_Dragon]

in soviet russia we GAS YOU!

Re:in soviet russia

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean Nazi Germany?

Aye...

[GarethIwanFairclough]

but for how long?

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw what you did there. Good reference.

Anti-energy president.

[PopeRatzo]

the US will end 2013 as the world's largest producer of petroleum and natural gas

This is what happens when you put an anti-energy president and his horrible EPA regulations in charge.

Disaster, I tell you!

Funny how the additional domestic supply hasn't produced any drop in prices at the pump, eh? And how would a pipeline carrying that supply to ports for export lower prices?

Re:Anti-energy president.

[melikamp]

Now switching to green energy will result in USA residents loosing jobs (nevermind that more jobs will be created in the green sector), and so it will be easier to mount a political opposition to giving up fossil fuels, which is exactly what oil barons want. Indeed, it looks like the planet will warm up by 4-6 degrees and the see will go up by a few meters before the major players start doing ANYTHING. As an individual, I am getting extremely concerned with being in the right place when this shit hits the fan: in the US it means a state with plenty of elevated ground far away from the coast, plenty of water, and good social safety net.

Re:Anti-energy president.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> This is what happens when you put an anti-energy president and his horrible EPA regulations in charge

The increases are in spite of the current Administration, not because of them. It's private enterprise using new technology on private property or existing wells.

Re:Anti-energy president.

[sjames]

Nor has the natural gas bill dropped.

let me guess, there is still expensive gas in the pipeline. It takes time to get all that gas all the way here from the Middle E ur, erm, from Kansas! Yeah, that's the ticket, we had to wait for a twister!

Re:Anti-energy president.

[PopeRatzo]

The increases are in spite of the current Administration, not because of them. It's private enterprise using new technology on private property or existing wells.

But I thought all the new EPA regulations were going to make the energy companies stop exploring or taking risks or drilling or something.

In spite of or not, the energy companies are doing just fine under Black Caesar.

Re:Anti-energy president.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when you put an anti-energy president and his horrible EPA regulations in charge.

Disaster, I tell you!

Maybe. What is clear is you have fallen for Red-v-Blue/Right-v-Left political rhetoric (whether you believe the rhetoric or just parrot it, I don't know).

Maybe also because coal restrictions naturally lead to the obvious alternatives of oil and gas.

Doubtfully though because most of the projects are many, many years in planning and do not hinge on your choice or anti-choice of President.

Frankly, I'm not sure why you aren't mod'd down as off-topic or troll. This is about markets more than red-v-blue politics. It *IS* a political issue as is everything in life, but not as you framed it. High volume and high frequency posters ought to be held to a more stringent standard.

Re:Anti-energy president.

[PopeRatzo]

What is clear is you have fallen for Red-v-Blue/Right-v-Left political rhetoric

Nossir. I'm mocking Red v Blue rhetoric.

My point is that whichever caretakers we have in government really don't make much difference. The government's not running things in the US, hasn't for at least 30 years. No matter what the people in Washington do, the biggest corporations, the top 1% are going to increase their holdings, their wealth by leaps and bounds and the people who work for a living will lose ground.

We are living in a post-social contract age.

Wow, really? oh.... wait....

[HeckRuler]

Oil production in Texas has more than doubled since 2010

Huh, that's interesting because I thought that it was more or less established that the lower 48 states hit peak oil a while ago. The price went up, but production didn't, because they couldn't, because it wasn't there.

Oh, wait, yeah, here we go:
It doubled from almost nothing. (linked like it's hot) And here's the larger picture.

Now, the main thrust of the article could be right on the money because it lumps natural gas in with oil and we've got a new way of squeezing gas out of the ground. WOO! Let's here it for technological innovation making the world a better place! But pointing out how Texas has doubled production from 300 to 600 million of barrels per year when it used to produce over 1200, and other than the last few years has been in decline since the 70's.... it's a little disingenuous.

But it's interesting that Texas has indeed ramped up oil production. There's probably a pretty serious story about why they're doing it NOW as opposed to during the massive scare that preceded the econopocalypse cica 2006.

nope, production is just some barrels each day

[pereric]

Congratulations on your relatively better energy independance. But alas, I have to correct the article : Fossil fuel *production* (which as far as we know is a biological / geological process) is probably just a few barrels each day (given current reserves and the time it needed to form; conditions favoring formation probably varies with geological epochs). Fossil fuel *extraction* is what the article talks about, and is at an all time high.

You usually don't celebrate that much that your rate of withdrawing funds from your bank account is at record high. Maybe quitting using this euphemism would help a tiny bit getting away from the damaging fossil fuel dependency ...

Re:nope, production is just some barrels each day

[iggymanz]

just need the stuff until we get on smarter energy sources, the world has two that are essentially limitless and can power civilization. but we have centuries supply of fossil fuels were we silly to pollute for so long

Oil company profits will rise ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... and little else will change.

Nonsense

[argStyopa]

"...even optimists in the US concede that the shale boom's longevity could hinge on commodity prices, government regulations and public support..."

Whatever unicorns & rainbows legislation against current recovery methods will either be
- obsolesced by technology which will allow recovery without using those methods, or
- overturned by a petro-starving public when the prices get high enough.

Difficult-to-recover petro resources are never too far away; more accurately they're just banked for future generations to reach.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[nschubach]

How long have you been on the planet? I can't think of any president in recent history that wasn't given a hard time. At least, not while I've been alive and I know it went further back than that.

And yet

[Lawrence_Bird]

I'm still paying $3.99/gallon for regular.

Re:And yet

[iggymanz]

prices are set by a global cartel. we should withdraw and let them go to hell.

How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[EMG at MU]

Russia: $2.10 / gallon
Saudi Arabia: $0.91 / gallon

How many billions of dollars per year do we give the oil and natural gas industry in tax breaks every year? That savings is passed on to the consumer, right? It's not like oil companies are still raking in record profits.

Since the U.S. doesn't have a state run oil company, U.S. consumers get no special benefit from oil and natural gas production in the US being at an all time high. The oil companies sell it on the open market, it doesn't matter where it came out of the ground. Furthermore, production increases in the US will not outweigh demand increases across the rest of the world.

Net result: U.S. consumers still pay the same, the U.S. Government still gives oil companies tax breaks while they laugh their ass to the bank, a lot of people's groundwater is being contaminated, and in the end we will have nothing to show for it.

Re:How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[gtall]

"How many billions of dollars per year do we give the oil and natural gas industry in tax breaks every year?" Last figure I heard was about $4-5 Billion. They claimed they needed it for research. It's a dumb subsidy that should be removed. That was the overt subsidies. It turns out to be difficult to nail down hidden subsidies. The low end there is about $10 Billion. The high end, probably produced by Greenpeace or some similar organization, is around $52 Billion.

So, no naughy thinking you will balance the federal budget by taking away their subsidies...but they should be taken away anyhow since last we checked the industry was self-funded.

Re:How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[EMG at MU]

So, no naughy thinking you will balance the federal budget by taking away their subsidies...but they should be taken away anyhow since last we checked the industry was self-funded.

Yeah I'm not sure who thinks that we can balance the budget or anything by cutting the benefits to oil companies. That is quite silly.

I was trying to highlight that in a lot of oil producing nations, the government makes sure to use some of the oil revenue (especially in the case of a state owned oil operation) towards social programs and inexpensive gas. Then on the other hand we give give oil companies tax subsidies because we (the U.S.) are champions of the free market.

I'm also irked by the misleading narrative around domestic oil production, the average American thinks that if we produce more oil domestically somehow that's our oil and we will have cheap oil like Saudi Arabia. What is left out is that the oil companies will profit handsomely off the domestic production but the consumer will see very little relief if any since oil is a commodity and is sold on the open market.

Re:How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has gone to Russia and seen the fuel prices they are not $2.10. Russians would be quite happy if that were the case. Russia stopped subsidizing its fuel awhile ago.

The prices is about 32 - 33 rubles a liter which is about $1 dollar a liter. Or about ~$3.70 a US gallon. Mind you prices have come down since i was there last. So its nearly identical to our gas prices.

Re:How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[dj245]

Saudi Arabia has some Pretty enormous subsidies on oil. According to this link, they are domestically selling oil at $5 to $15 a barrel when international buyers pay more than $100. If that doesn't distort a market, I don't know what would.

Re:How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[Megane]

For what it's worth, gasoline in the US is sold with about 50 cents a gallon in taxes, from 25 cents a gallon in Alaska to 75 cents a gallon in California. Another factor in the price is "anti pollution" fuel additives, especially for summer blends. To make things worse, many states mandate different blends, making gasoline a less fungible product. If a refinery has a problem making a specific blend, prices in that area will go up.

Re:How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[evilviper]

Since the U.S. doesn't have a state run oil company, U.S. consumers get no special benefit from oil and natural gas production in the US being at an all time high.

You are quite wrong.

"In 1975, the U.S. government banned crude oil exports with only some limited exceptions".

See: "The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-163, EPCA)"

Re:How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[EMG at MU]

Since the U.S. doesn't have a state run oil company, U.S. consumers get no special benefit from oil and natural gas production in the US being at an all time high.

You are quite wrong.

"In 1975, the U.S. government banned crude oil exports with only some limited exceptions".

See: "The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-163, EPCA)"

While that's interesting I'm not sure what I'm wrong about.

The U.S. does not have a state owned oil company. Venezuela has a state owned oil company, Saudi Arabia has a state owned oil company.

U.S. citizens don't receive special benefits like steeply discounted domestic oil or oil revenues funding government programs like in Venezuela or other nations where there is a state owned oil company.

Re:How much is gas in Russia and SA?

[evilviper]

While that's interesting I'm not sure what I'm wrong about.

The "special benefit" is that the US is closed market, and consumers do NOT have to compete with higher paying consumers on the international market.

There's certainly no denying that natural gas is cheaper in the US than elsewhere.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

Probably longer than you, and I don't recall any President getting more blame for things that had nothing to do with his decisions than Obama.

I'm no Democrat either, they're all different shades of sellout idiots.

This is silly,

[Tifer]

how are we supposed to invade ourselves?

Re:This is silly,

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Find a veteran
2. Storm the nearest "Barrygate". (don't worry, they're everywhere now...besides the Mexican border that is)
3. Profit.

Re:This is silly,

[Anonymous Coward]

We already are
  - in a permanent sate of emergency
  - overthrowing the constitution
  - spying on the whole population

Maybe what you need is to define "invade"

We sold out.

[MarkvW]

Why in the world would the US tap into its reserves when it could purchase oil abroad? Soon enough, oil is going to become scarce. Wouldn't it have been better for the US to save its reserves for that time. Seems to me like we sold out very cheaply to the oil interests at the expense of our long-term security.

Re:We sold out.

[Tifer]

Wouldn't it have been better for the US to save its reserves for that time.

What if this IS that time?

Re:We sold out.

[iggymanz]

we have hydrocarbons sufficient for centuries...if we really want to pollute like there is no tomorrow we could.

Re:We sold out.

[VortexCortex]

So, wait. You're expecting investors and prospectors to give a shit about their kid's and grandkid's futures?

Hahahahaha!

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

Yes, I do, but only while they are in office. After that, they are history, nothing more. Present policy is set/corrected by the guy in power, not by some guy from 100 years ago, or even 10 years ago.

Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidized

[FridayBob]

America may now be the world's biggest oil producer, but in contrast to other oil producing countries around the world, where multinational oil companies must hand over most of their profits (90% in Saudi Arabia), when they pump it out of the ground in the United States they pay zero taxes and are even subsidized with hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Why? Because of political bribery, now legal thanks to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which has created a corrupt Congress that affects both Democrats and Republicans alike.

Luckily there is still hope: it's called Wolf-PAC. This organization was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Constitutional Amendment to end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass an Amendment like this on its own, the idea is to have the State Legislators propose it instead by way of an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, so it's not an easy thing to do, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, Congress should be fixed within one or two election cycles.

an independent confirmation

[Max_W]

It could be just an attempt to lower prices on the oil and gas market.

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina

[Salgak1]

Well, looking at DC today,, I don't see a lot of difference from "Idiocracy". . . .

Now that we've solved our energy problem...

[rnturn]

... we can turn our attention to how we make our water sources potable and how to decontaminate the soil around fracking sites. (Without lobbying the government to increase the maximum allowable levels of [insert name of nasty carcinogenic chemical here] so as to make the need for cleaning up fracking sites neatly go away.)

Cars running natural gas

[sjbe]

You have been able to buy CNG civics for a long time.

And how many people do you personally know that own one?

[/crickets]

That's what I thought.

Re:Cars running natural gas

[h4rr4r]

So?
I don't know anyone who owns a Veyron either, do you doubt they exist?

Re:Cars running natural gas

[sjbe]

I don't know anyone who owns a Veyron either, do you doubt they exist?

Nobody doubts passenger cars running CNG exist but they are about as rare as a Veyron - albeit for a very different reason. The simple reason there are hardly any CNG power passenger cars is that there is very limited refuelling infrastructure in place. Sure I can buy one in theory but since I can't refuel it most places it would be rather stupid to do so. Even electric vehicles have a more readily available infrastructure than CNG powered cars though they suffer from a similar problem. Most CNG powered cars are basically proof of concept vehicles rather than anything else

So the original post was correct if you aren't overly pedantic about things in that for all practical purposes there are no passenger cars that run on CNG. Strictly speaking there are some out there but hardly anyone actually has one because the circumstances required to make one practical apply to virtually no one.

Re:Cars running natural gas

[h4rr4r]

Only if you ignore fleet sales.

Sure in the private market they are rare, but lots of states and especially natural gas utility fleets have loads of these cars.

Re:Cars running natural gas

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well not own, but my uncle and a couple of hunting buddies drive CNG vehicles every day all day for their jobs as do their coworkers.

Re:Cars running natural gas

[sjbe]

Only if you ignore fleet sales.

Even if you include fleet sales the number of CNG cars is miniscule by comparison to the overall market. Less than 0.1% of vehicle sales even including fleet sales. Honda has sold something like 13,000 total of their Civic GX model since 1998. (Compared with 12-16 million vehicles sold per year total) CNG vehicles make a lot of sense for certain niche uses but frankly I just don't see them really taking off. They have most of the drawbacks of gasoline/diesel powered vehicles (fossil fuel emissions) along with the drawbacks of electric vehicles (limited refueling options, range anxiety, high up front cost) and they by and large aren't especially fun to drive. Performance figures on CNG vehicles available today are yawn inducing. I think electric vehicles and gas/electric hybrids are a much more likely bet for most people if the infrastructure trends and technology continue on their current trajectory.

Re:Cars running natural gas

[Dahamma]

Actually, two guys on my block have CNG Civics as commuter cars (both bought used, they aren't much to look at). CNG cars still get to use the carpool lane in CA, so they save 45+ minutes round trip a day on their commute. There aren't huge numbers of them (a lot more Teslas, honestly!) but enough that in the Bay Area you'll see a couple every day if you drive much... unlike a Veyron.

The cost to run them isn't that much less than a regular Civic (well, I suppose it is when you get to drive 65 and not 15-20 stop and go) and they are less useful for long trips than a full range EV like the Tesla (since most of the trunk is taken up with a tank and CNG stations are limited). But an extra 4-5 hours a week with their family was worth it to them...

Re:Cars running natural gas

[Dahamma]

Most CNG powered cars are basically proof of concept vehicles rather than anything else

Actually, most CNG vehicles are fleet vehicles (or former fleet vehicles sold to commuters), where operating your own filling station makes sense. PG&E (of course) and various city departments in CA have THOUSANDS of CNG vehicles around here (and they allow private owners to use those stations).

Re:Cars running natural gas

[HornWumpus]

So how do I badge a regular civic so I can use the carpool lane? A CNG sticker is cheep.

Re:Cars running natural gas

[hguorbray]

my Brother in SoCal had one which was great for commute, but there was no place nearby to fillup and although he did have a home unit that took regular natural gas from the pipes and compressed it, the compressor eventually broke and by then he had put >100k miles on the car, so he got rid of the car and junked the compressor.

-I'm just sayin'

Re:Cars running natural gas

[Dahamma]

It's not some CNG badge that gets you carpool access, it's the carpool sticker. So you have to apply for it with your VIN, license number, etc and sign "under penalty of perjury" that the application is truthful and correct. You're probably better off just violating the carpool law and crossing your fingers...

Re:Cars running natural gas

[GbrDead]

In some European countries (e.g. Bulgaria) methane stations have become quite common in recent years. Running your car only on methane is now feasible - the only problem is the small tank, so you still need to use petrol if you are going at certain neighbouring countries (that don't have enough methane stations, e.g. Greece) or in the woods for a longer period of time.

Re: Cars running natural gas

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Australia we have had LPG cars for over 2 decades. Nearly all taxis are gas driven. It's possible. The taxis in Bangkok are also nearly all CNG.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

Right... I'm sure that's a mighty convenient policy for you considering the previous guy.

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina

[fustakrakich]

Nobody drinks water anymore. That's what's in toilets... It doesn't have what plants crave.

Yeah? Well, for some reason, it seems to have what the dog craves.

Gold

[mynameiskhan]

It is indeed called as the black gold.

revenue stream

[globaljustin]

This is a step back in our evolution as a species...

We could have all the clean energy we would ever need, but humans (oligarchs) who rely upon **centuries-old** capital systems delivering resources...

But they don't like giving up their revenue stream...

Re:revenue stream

[stenvar]

We could have all the clean energy we would ever need, but humans (oligarchs) who rely upon **centuries-old** capital systems delivering resources...

Nobody is keeping you from using "clean energy" if you like.

Most people use the other kind for the simple reason that it's cheaper to produce.

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina

[plopez]

"Idiocracy" was a documentary

Been through this before

[Hoi Polloi]

When oil drilling first started in PA there was a huge boom and bust. There is nothing special about fracking technology, it is only a matter of time before other countries get it going and gas shale deposits are not limited to the US. The price of gas could get pushed down below the cost of the drilling and processing and become a bust. It might also become cheap enough to process natural gas as a substitute for oil in things like plastics depressing oil prices too.

Once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity

[xtal]

Take advantage of the low prices to invest in energy producers..

Its obvious!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the goverment shutdown! We had to attack the country with the oil! Ourselves!

Brilliant!

Oh and... http://xkcd.com/1274/

Now, we need to switch our vehicles

[WindBourne]

America and Canada need to work together to get our vehicles switched over to electric and nat. gas. If we do this, then we can export even more oil.

Re:Now, we need to switch our vehicles

[the eric conspiracy]

Switching is fine.

Oil though is too valuable to export in raw form. It should be exported in the form of finished goods. Say like Viagra.

Re:Now, we need to switch our vehicles

[VortexCortex]

As the last drop of fossil fuel is drained from the earth your ancestors will look back to the time you lived in and say, "All that useful material for making things with, and they fucking burned it all. What Morons!"

Re:Now, we need to switch our vehicles

[WindBourne]

I agree. And the best way to make use of it, is to get the price lower. By moving our transportation to electric/Nat. Gas, the nat gas gives us time to get 100% of our transportation to electricity. In the meantime, oil becomes cheap for manufacturing with. :)

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[Attila Dimedici]

OK, the last report I saw indicated that, unlike GE, the oil companies all pay significant taxes. So, unless you can produce some citation from a credible source to back up your claim, I am going to have to consider you part of the nutjob fringe.

world demand is close to world supply

[peter303]

Gasoline is rather fungible, i.e. transportable all around the world. Shortfalls in one part of the worl affect the whole world. thank China and India fro rising demand.

initially more expensive

[peter303]

Like hybrids and EVs, natural gas Civic are several thousand more expensive than mass-produced gasoline vehicles. Plus you need to shell out another several thousand for safety-certified home NG compressor to fuel it. Depending on the city there may be several dozen commercial NG filling stations around.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

Already you are playing the same blame game as everybody else. Fuck the previous guy! What the hell does he have to do with the price of rice? The present guy can end it with the stroke of a pen. He's the ONLY guy that matters. If he doesn't, then it's OUR fault for voting for him, twice, I might add. If you crave for somebody to blame, then look in the mirror boy.

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[gtall]

"publicly finance all elections" is not a credible idea because it will never stop outside contributions which are protected as part of free speech. And PACs can always be started to launder more funds. In short, the pols will simply say, "Thank you very much, I'll just add to my PAC pile." And if you think shutting down PACs will help, it won't because they are protected by free speech as well and will just switch to running exclusively their own campaigns for or against "issues" which some of their favored candidates support.

Pols are oily characters.

from your link

[geekoid]

" Based on a non-peer-reviewed survey of the five states that systematically report incidents at wells "
ah, so not really all that great.

Also, methane is found naturally in groundwater, especially in areas that are also going to be used for horizontal fracking.

I can go to places that have no fracking withing 200 miles that have methane in the water.

Methane in the water s not evidence of 'contamination' from fracking.

Aras of the US that have the right geology for shale will ALSO have methane in the water supply.
Or do you think fracking is so evil it send methane into ground water back in tie form before fracking started?

I ccan'tr believe you reason is a report based on other studies and non peer reviewed information.

This type of thing pisses me off:
"Flammable levels of natural gas are common in water supplies, and explosions—even reports of flammable drinking water—have occurred near fracking sites"

And? AND? it also happen where fracking isn't. appalling..

There is a reason the focus is moving from groundwater, where nothing has been found, to waste spillover; which is actually something worth being concerned with. However it's an engineering issue and can be done right.

Re:from your link

[budgenator]

Where I grew up, we had both an oil-seep and enough methane in the water for it to fizz like soda-pop! Sometimes a gas bubble in the water lines would knock the water glass right out of your hand, glass glasses didn't live long.

about 90% energy self-sufficent now

[peter303]

Counting all uses of power like electricity. Transportation is in the worst stae, with the US importing about 40% of petroleum even have a 50% increase in petroleum production since 2005.

And still, it will not be enough

[Anonymous Coward]

The graph (http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2013.10.04/production.png) shows a production of around 12.5 million barrels of petroleum per day.

Multiplying by 365, that's about 4.6 billion barrels per year. That will not be enough, as the US consumes around 7 billion barrels per year (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6).

Even being the biggest producer in the world does not provide to the US oil independence. Per my own calculations, that means that around 1/3 of the oil consumed in the US will have to be imported.

So much for oil independence.

Re:And still, it will not be enough

[WindBourne]

No, but, if America will actually push hard to move our vehicles to electric and nat. gas, we can become energy independent. The problem is that oil companies do not want this. They make money in differentials, not in the actual costs.

Re:And still, it will not be enough

[HornWumpus]

Your not counting the 51st state. Canadian oil is _ours_, not like the brits can stop us this time.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[geekoid]

FALSE. Why are you people so god damn stupid about this? A president can do many things that impact the country for GENERATIONS.
  We are still being impacted by the fucktwad Reagan.

" Present policy is set/corrected by the guy in power"
No. Congress might have a thing or two with that. President, not King.

So much for energy independence

[Anonymous Coward]

The US consumes 7 billion barrels of oil per year (around 19 million barrels per day). Way more than the 12~13 million barrels produced in the US (according to the graph).

Reference: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

Re:So much for energy independence

[HuguesT]

Look at the right of the graph, That's 12-15 million barrels *per day* or about 5 billion per year produced every year, i.e. quite a significant proportion.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

Already you are playing the same blame game as everybody else. Fuck the previous guy! What the hell does he have to do with the price of rice?

You seriously believe that? You're dangerously naive.

Ignoring the morality/immorality of specific actions, let's imagine a President is handed over a strong economy, and is handed a budget surplus. That President, whether for the right or wrong reasons, presides over a huge reversal in the economy, and also engages in enormous deficit spending.

You're arguing that the sitting President can simply

...end it with the stroke of a pen.

That's laughable. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[FridayBob]

Your skepticism is admirable, but Google is (mostly) your friend. For example, Fossil Fuel Subsidies in the U.S., or America's Most Obvious Tax Reform Idea: Kill the Oil and Gas Subsidies, or Happy 100th Birthday, Big Oil Tax Breaks. From the last article:

...The percentage depletion subsidy also increases when prices are high, at the same time that oil companies enjoy greater profit. It can even eliminate all federal taxes for independent producers.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

Why are you people so goddamned obsessed with the past??

We are still being impacted by the fucktwad Reagan.

Only because the government you all elected chooses to uphold his policies.

And the president still has the power of the executive order, many of which are entirely secret, like his kill list.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

...let's imagine a President is handed over a strong economy, and is handed a budget surplus.

:-) Who's being naive?

Methan

[ProudParanoid]

I doubt methane is the worst ground water contaminant. Methane, being a non-polar hydrocarbon, is not soluble in water. Methanol (and a thousand other possible compounds), different story, Now under pressure methane can be dissolved in water, somewhat like carbon dioxide, but when you open the tap away the methane goes. Admittedly it goes into your kitchen and when you turn on your gas stove you crisp your face but that is another story. Releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere would not good, but tell that to cows.

Re:In Related News...

[theshowmecanuck]

Hell, I forgot about the suburbanite moderators with monster SUVs. You know, I actually had one woman (without asking while at a car display) justify her SUV because she said, 'I live in the suburbs'. That was in Saint Louis.

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, the last report I saw indicated that, unlike GE, the oil companies all pay significant taxes. So, unless you can produce some citation from a credible source to back up your claim, I am going to have to consider you part of the nutjob fringe.

Yet for some reason you do not have to produce the report you saw. I think I am going to have to consider you a shill. Also love the use of the vague term significant taxes. Like 5 billion dollars is significant on an absolute level, but relative to the enormous profits might be a pittance.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

Which part would you like to, really stupidly, dispute? LOL.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[poity]

Of course you can't blame it on Obama. But, you have to admit that only a Democratic President could preside over things like massive fracking, the arming of Syrian rebels, an individual insurance mandate that was viewed with great suspicion by liberals decades ago, bank and industry bailouts, drone program, and so on and so forth without great public resistance. Were it a Republican President, there would be many more marches and protests against those same things.

So maybe the charming donkey is the better figurehead, as it can pacify the idealists while still doing the pragmatic things.

can we get out of the Middle East now?

[stenvar]

Can we please get out of the MIddle East and Europe now? I mean withdraw our troops and let those people deal with their own problems themselves?

Re:can we get out of the Middle East now?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I keep writing my congress critters and they don't want to hear that. I also suggested withdrawing from Asia as well with similar results.

Re:can we get out of the Middle East now?

[stenvar]

Try supporting their opponents or running against them.

Maybe we need a Peace and Disarmament PAC.

Re:can we get out of the Middle East now?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

No one I supported is currently in office despite my best efforts. Unfortunately I am not the person you would ever want in office as I am a take my ball and go home type of person and will go off on a tirade that would make a sailor blush.

Re:can we get out of the Middle East now?

[stenvar]

Well, then at least pay lip service to the problems with current candidates.

Both the unquestioning adoration of Bush and the adoration of Obama by their respective constituencies are probably part of the problem.

Re:can we get out of the Middle East now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please get out of the MIddle East and Europe now? I mean withdraw our troops and let those people deal with their own problems themselves?

Like a fire, turmoil has a way of spreading. Much as I would prefer the Europeans to police their own backyard, they lack the backbone^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcommon unity to do it and couldn't afford to without imploding even if they did. Therefore, noblesse oblige.

Merika, Goddammit!

[mark_reh]

I'm tired of trying to be part of the solution. I want to be part of the problem.

I want to start by getting a Hummer, and not one of those tiny, wimpy, ones. I want one of the originals. I'm going to convert it to burn coal. I want to leave a trail of greasy soot that can be seen from space, everywhere I go.

We are doomed to destroying this planet long before we are capable of leaving it. We might as well go out with a bang!

Re:Merika, Goddammit!

[triffid_98]

"I think you should be allowed to own a Humvee - I just think that when you go to buy it you should be hit on the back of the neck with a roll of quarters in a sock. You would wake up in Iraq with a gun, and they're like, 'Oh yeah, you can drive it. You just have to get the gas yourself.'"

- Patton Oswalt

Re:Merika, Goddammit!

[HornWumpus]

A Unimog or Lamborghini LM002 are both even more awesome and leave the eurotrash with nothing to say.

and yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Gas remains just as high as it has been.

Yes, I understand you folks across the pond pay a lot more for petrol, your ridiculously high government taxes on it and / or refining capabilities are to blame.

In the case of the US, we have plenty of refining and very low tax ( in comparison to the rest of the world ) so I'm curious why the price is still so damn high if we're this major player in Oil production now. :|

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[stenvar]

Wow, what a bizarre chain of arguments. Because in totalitarian nations like Saudi Arabia, oil companies are taxed 90% the US fails to be a democracy by not taxing them the same way? And your proposed solution is to restrict the ability of people to form political associations and engage in political speech.

Well, you're right to a certain degree: imposing the restrictions on free speech that Wolf-PAC proposes would probably give is similar government and similar tax rates to Saudi Arabia. Thankfully, that's not going to happen.

While privately financed elections have lots of problems, publicly financed elections are far worse, because they essentially put government in charge of determining who may engage in significant political speech. That's a total train wreck.

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[Attila Dimedici]

Sorry, I do not see anywhere in there where it says that they do not pay any taxes...for that matter at least one of them implicitly says that they do indeed pay taxes "Exxon's U.S. operations alone earned $7.5 billion after taxes in 2012." (emphasis added). So would you like to try one more time to offer a citation which supports your claim that the oil companies pay no taxes in the U.S.? The citation which you quote conflates small time independent oil producers with the big multinationals. Since it does not actually give us the name of an oil company that pays no federal taxes, there is no way for me to check the veracity of their statement. It is not an actual citation, since it gives no reference. It is merely an article which asserts that such is the case.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

How can I dispute anything with a robot who can't see outside his box? Oops, I'm sorry, my bad, I was supposed to go to Room 12A...

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[FridayBob]

The ability to make financial contributions used to be better regulated by laws such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, that was unfortunately overruled by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission of 2010. The latter ruling is what makes such contributions a First Amendment right for corporations, as if they were also natural persons instead of just legal persons.

Furthermore, at the State level over half of all elections in the United States are already publicly financed, so why would it be so impossible to do at the Federal level? For example, there's the Patriot Dollar idea. Whichever way it's done, it sure would cut back on the corruption we see in Congress today.

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[coolmoose25]

A Constitutional Convention has only been held once. It was done to write the Constitution.

The surest way to destroy the Constitution is to hold an Article V Convention. At such a convention, they can rewrite the entire Constitution.

You are the biggest fool in the world if you think it will yield anything better than "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

The run away ad hominem - nice!

Is that what you always say when you can't back up your egregious assertions? If not, let's hear how Bush wasn't handed a strong economy or a budget surplus.

Re:In Related News...

[Pope]

'I live in the suburbs'. = "Oh my god, I'd never allow myself to be seen by the public in something as sensible as a mini-van."

Why are prices the same?

[Squidlips]

Any saving is not being passed on to the consumer...

Re:Why are prices the same?

[TheSync]

Any saving is not being passed on to the consumer...

Really? Then why are US natural gas prices much lower than prices elsewhere in the world, and have fallen by about 50% since the early 2000's?

Re:In Related News...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That is pretty funny. Usually I hear things like they might want to tow or haul something but have never towed or hauled anything ever in their life. While being a suburbanite with a SUV at least when I use mine it is for things like hauling, going places that require high clearance and 4WD, or being driven in snow storms since I don't care if it gets hit since it is a beater. Most of the time it sits along side my house waiting to be used.

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[the eric conspiracy]

Oil companies pay huge taxes. In fact they pay more taxes than anyone.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/17/companies-paying-highest-income-taxes/1991313/

Exxon and Chevron were the #1 and #2 US taxpayers last year, at 31 and 20 billion respectively.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

The run away ad hominem - nice!

:-) Do tell!

The books were cooked, and besides, like all dirty business of this type, there are two sets. The whole thing is as phony as the proverbial three dollar bill. My homeless friends didn't see any 'surplus'. What the country had was good credit. And maybe you don't recall so well. Things were falling apart during the summer of 2000, a full year and a half before Bush took office. I'll let you in on a little secret, the 'economy' was ruined by Wall Street hacks who put your mortgages and pensions into hedge funds and derivatives. The president has nothing to do with it, aside from assigning said hacks nice, cushy government posts. You can put Bozo the Clown in there and get exactly the same results. He will follow orders just like all the rest. If you are truly interested in a correction to the problem, you will look to the guy who has the power right now, and stop playing your little charade. You are only exposing your own biases...

Please, you're being no different than anybody else. You believe what you saw and heard on the TeeVee, and you do anything you can to protect and fortify your preconceptions, also brought to you by Procter & Gamble's 'Whiter Whites and Brighter Colors', so I understand the anger towards those who might try to enlighten you a little. Don't want to risk what little you have left.

So...

[triffid_98]

...at what point do we either start bombing ourselves to set up a puppet government and/or get gas prices under $4?

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[Anonymous Coward]

Subsidized with hundreds of millions of dollars? I'm sorry, but ExxonMobil paid 31.05 billion (with a "b") dollars in income taxes during 2012. Chevron clocked in at an even 20 billion, and ConocoPhillips paid 7.94 billion. Those are the three largest domestic oil companies (or were in 2012), and let me also point out that those numbers are only for income taxes, not leases, excise taxes, or any other type of tax. If they keep sending checks like that to the Treasury, I think they're more than welcome to a few hundred million dollars in research subsidies.

Also, it's worth noting that overseas, most oil companies are either outright or de facto owned by the government - hence the phrase "state oil company." So of course they hand over their profits to the government - they're already part of the government.

Unlike you, I actually have sources for my claims. Each company lists these expenses in filings to the SEC every year, called a 10-k, and lying on those forms will get the CEO put in jail very quickly even when other types of financial abuse are overlooked. You might find reading them instructive.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

The books were cooked...

Aaah, so it's a conspiracy that has the several departments of the government (including the Congressional Budget Office) acting in collusion despite two differing parties (who don't exactly get along) managing them over the past 20 years?

LOL!

You believe what you saw and heard on the TeeVee...

Actually, I believe the data posted by the Congressional Budget Office (you can grab the data yourself, although you won't because you're not interested in reality, you're interesting in what you already believe.)

Re:I'd rather all the drinking water was contamina

[TWiTfan]

Well, looking at DC today,, I don't see a lot of difference from "Idiocracy". . . .

The problem is that we don't have President Comacho to get people's shit straight.

World War Three propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the greatest problems in getting the sheeple to accept the circumstances that will lead to a third Global War is the issue of oil. Throughout the 1950s through to the present day, the sheeple have been brainwashed into seeing the Middle East as the essential energy centre of the planet, and thus cannot conceive of why their masters would engaged in wars that would threaten the supply of this 'essential' lifeblood. That the sheeple live in mortal terror of wars that would shut down Middle East production of oil is a major factor in the sheeple instinctively opposing greater acts of military adventurism by the US war machine- and THIS is a very big problem.

So, sheeple must be re-educated into seeing wars that set the entire Middle East alight as of no real concern to themselves. The US backing down on its promise to holocaust decent secular civilisation in Syria, and replace it with a nightmare of fragmented hyper-violent islamic extremism, is an unwanted misstep for the monsters that rule you. An exterminated Syria was supposed to be another crucible for violent young men recruited to expend their lives in the US invasion of Iran.

The depravities that pull Obama's strings (or those of the next vile puppet, from either the 'left' or 'right') do NOT want to be limited by the will of the people. They need the people, at worst, to be passive 'supporters' of whatever atrocities they next seek to inflict on the planet. Telling average Americans that they exist independently from the rest of Humanity, and this is what makes them happy and prosperous, is the age old propaganda trick for this new nation.

As each World War approached, the major players had to spend years convincing their respective populations that they would continue to have access to essential resources. The Germans famously made 'oil' from coal to deal with their own issues of having lots of coal, but no good access to oil once a greater conflict was under way. World Wars do not 'accidentally happen'. They are NEVER the consequence of political screw-ups. They are the result of the greatest levels of planning and preparation.

Listening to the 'news' teaches you, the sheeple, exactly nothing. The 'news' is fabricated to gain expected responses from your trained-from-birth minds. Looking at statistics, on the other hand, teaches you EVERYTHING. Look at the recent stats of your economy, banking and finance, war-mongering, and military investment. When a country wants peace, it prepares for peace. When it wants war, it prepares for war. The entire West is preparing for war, to an extent unseen in previous Human History.

Even Seymour Hersh, who swallowed the official lies about the 9/11 false-flag hook-line-and -sinker now loudly attempts to inform the sheeple that EVERYTHING stated by the Obama administration is lies, especially the laughable fantasy of a US death squad killing a target (Osama bin Laden) in Pakistan, long after the actual man had died.

The propaganda of terrible man-made climate change comes from and serves the EXACT same purpose as propaganda about US oil production, and 'Islamic boogie-men' out to get you. Fatalism (we are all doomed), 'confidence' in the government to protect us, and fear of a faceless enemy all serve the same war ends.

Re:Wow, really? oh.... wait....

[phantomfive]

But it's interesting that Texas has indeed ramped up oil production. There's probably a pretty serious story about why they're doing it NOW as opposed to during the massive scare that preceded the econopocalypse cica 2006.

It takes time to drill wells. If you look at the graph, it starts pointing up around 2007-2008. My guess is it took time from the econopocalypse to getting laws changed to getting permits to getting wells drilled and production up.

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[phantomfive]

FYI 'corporate personhood' doesn't mean that corporations are people. The supreme court doesn't think so, lawyers don't think so, anyone with a clue doesn't think so. Corporate personhood doesn't mean what you think it means.

'all the clean energy we want'

[globaljustin]

We could have all the clean energy we would ever need, but humans (oligarchs) who rely upon **centuries-old** capital systems delivering resources...

Nobody is keeping you from using "clean energy" if you like.

Most people use the other kind for the simple reason that it's cheaper to produce.

I thought someone might jump on that statement...it's overly broad but I couldnt think of a better way to say it w/o equivocating

what's surprising is, not your retort itself but the nature of your criticism!

you seem to tacitly agree that 'clean' energy is readily available...

what keeps us from using it, according to you, is the **false** perception that 19th Century energy methods are somehow 'cheaper'!!!

seriously, this discourse is **exactly** what happens in real life...

if we had spent the 20th Century doing R&D to perfect nuke power and make better batteries we'd be there now...

blame the R&D decisions of those Oligarch companies...R&D choices made with a goal of sustaining revenue channels, NOT improving things

Re:'all the clean energy we want'

[stenvar]

what keeps us from using it, according to you, is the **false** perception that 19th Century energy methods are somehow 'cheaper'!!!

No, it's not a "false perception", it's economic fact.

blame the R&D decisions of those Oligarch companies...R&D choices made with a goal of sustaining revenue channels, NOT improving things

There are tens of thousands of people working on better batteries and clean energies, and most of them have nothing to do with big energy companies. There isn't anything better because nobody has been able to come with anything better. And it's not like things haven't been happening either: there has been pretty steady progress in batteries, solar cells, etc., but there are physical and technological limits to what's possible. Sorry, no conspiracy theory at work here.

Re:In Related News...

[lgw]

What's wrong with "I like it" as a justification? That's mine for driving a sedan with an unreasonably large engine.

SUVs are passing out of fashion, however. My generation saw station wagons as "what old people drive", and so adopted the SUV as an alternative. But now we're the "old people", and something else will be next.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

I believe the data posted by the Congressional Budget Office...

So, you swallow. I don't...

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

Wow, so it's a conspiracy by BOTH parties that Bush was given a strong economy. That really makes sense for the Republicans to be a part of - LOL.

Tinfoil hat?

"Con"servatives?

[Vladius]

So where the fuck are those low gas prices we were promised?

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

"strong economy"

You keep on saying that like it's true, or that it matters.. Well, you go ahead and keep on blaming the ghosts from Christmas Past for all your troubles. I'm going to keep on dealing in the present. That's where I will find solutions. You must be after something else.

"BOTH parties"? You actually believe that there is such a thing?

Eh, everybody's a comedian, I guess..

Extract more and consume how much?

[Anonymous Coward]

We extract from the ground (not produce) more petroleum and natural gas than Russia and Saudi Arabia but we consume more than both of them put together. And we still import oil. The math does not favor us yet.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

You keep on saying that like it's true, or that it matters.. Well, you go ahead and keep on blaming the ghosts from Christmas Past for all your troubles. I'm going to keep on dealing in the present. That's where I will find solutions. You must be after something else.

It's both true, and important.

Just like how Obama passing the Affordable Care Act would be important if it ended up seriously derailing the health care industry, even if that doesn't happen until the next President.

You sound ridiculous saying that it wouldn't matter then, because it can only be the fault of the current President.

"BOTH parties"? You actually believe that there is such a thing?

Perhaps you could be clearer what you're trying to say here, because suggesting that there aren't two major political parties that have clear and disparate goals and philosophies makes you sound like a loony...

Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said.

we'll be importing water soon

[SuperBanana]

I imagine the primary change will be around water.

Fraking is destroying aquifers everywhere, rendering water undrinkable in entire counties. It's absurd - despite clear warning signs that fraking is horrible, the industry is screaming "There's no PROOF it's all this crap we're pumping into the ground!" and the government is happy to march lock-step because it delays the energy crisis another day.

You could tip over a barrel of any of the dozens of chemicals in fraking fluid and the EPA would be all over you, but pump it down a well and it's A-OK...idiocy.

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[TheSync]

when they pump it out of the ground in the United States they pay zero taxes

Then how did North Dakota get $1.7 billion in oil tax revenue in 2011?

Each well in the Bakken shale averages payments of $4.4 million in taxes, $7.6 million in royalties, $1.6 million in salaries and wages.

Don't just look at Federal taxes...

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[thetoadwarrior]

Not really. Here, this might help you out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#United_States

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[thetoadwarrior]

It has a lot to do with the present. A president doesn't leave and everything he did just goes away. Obama has been awful, there's not doubt about that, but let's not pretend dubya didn't start this shit storm and can still take a lot of blame for current problems. But likewise a lot of the blame also goes to congress most of which were in office during both presidential terms.

Chicken Little(TM)(C)

[tepples]

A religious fanatic will always find *some* sign that armageddon is coming, no matter what.

And Jehovah's Witnesses will claim that it's been "coming" since the start of WWI in 1914 and rationalize the delay through God's patience with humankind to get the preaching work done.

You can't stop Chicken Little from being Chicken Little.

You can if The Walt Disney Company sues other studios that adapt the same fable on trumped-up allegations of infringement of copyrights and trademarks related to its 1943 and 2005 films.

CAFE created the SUV

[tepples]

Are you sure that the big reason for the SUV's rise isn't that CAFE regulations made it harder to sell stationwagons and minivans in the United States?

Almost every house can refuel a CNG car

[Anonymous Coward]

LOTs of passenger cars here use CNG. Typically taxis.

Where a domestic supply is laid on, all you need is a suitable compressor.

Re:Almost every house can refuel a CNG car

[sjbe]

LOTs of passenger cars here use CNG. Typically taxis.

Nowhere in north america do CNG powered vehicles account for more than a tiny fraction of 1% of the vehicles on the road. Over 90% of the few that are in use are fleet vehicles of various sorts (trucks, busses, cars for the gas company, a few taxis, etc).

Where a domestic supply is laid on, all you need is a suitable compressor.

Great. What do I do when I'm traveling away from home? At least with an electric vehicle I can plug into any outlet even if it takes a long time. CNG compressors aren't exactly a commonplace item. I don't personally know anyone who owns one.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

You know it just came to me... You blame Bush for wrecking Clinton's *good economy*, and you blame Bush for Obama's *bad economy*. So clearly a single president can do an awful lot. I wonder how much more you need me to spell it out for you before I call you a useful idiot for the Party. And if you want to believe the two factions are in some kind of opposition with each other, then I guess you've already confirmed it.

Re:Yet US oil producers pay no taxes, get subsidiz

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily there is still hope: it's called Wolf-PAC. This organization was launched in October 2011 for the purpose of passing a 28th Constitutional Amendment to end corporate personhood and publicly finance all elections. Since Congress won't pass an Amendment like this on its own, the idea is to have the State Legislators propose it instead by way of an Article V Convention. At least 34 States need to cooperate for this to work, so it's not an easy thing to do, but already many have reacted with enthusiasm, notably Texas. If successful, Congress should be fixed within one or two election cycles.

Can this be flagged as SPAM?

BTW, my objection to the amendments are two fold

a) restrictions on corporations - OK - on individuals FUCK NO

b) "public financing" is taxpayer financing. It is bad enough to have to be a bystander to billion dollar campaigns every cycle. Forcing citizens at gun point to pay for them is just adding injury to insult.

If congressmen have to take a vow of poverty (and chastity, LOL), FINE. They don't have a right to rule over my life so any restrictions they accept as a condition of office are not an infringement on the citizens' liberty.

Speaking of America subsidizing Europe

[rmdingler]

AH. It's difficult to believe the Swiss are considering legislation for a "basic income" of 2800 Francs ($2500) for every adult citizen. What might their defense budget be? Yeah right, they're neutral (cough cough)... Is the Eurotypical socialist government viable without subsidized defense through NATO?

evidence/logic

[globaljustin]

two things your arguments lack

I'll just leave this here, not for you (though I hope you read it), but for anyone still reading...just to show that I **can** produce what I"m asking from you:

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

Re:evidence/logic

[stenvar]

Evidence and logic is what your conspiracy theory lacks.

There is no evidence that companies are suppressing technologies that would make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels, and it defies logic. There is simply no way oil companies could do that.

You point to patent encumbrances on using NiMH batteries in cars. NiMH batteries are not efficient. If patent encumbrances were the mechanism by which clean energy is suppressed, show the patents and the evidence that those patents are on something that works. Patents also expire after 20 years, so they are at most a temporary encumbrance.

What about Canada?

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada relies solely on the US as its single export market for tar sands oil. From what I hear, the process is very expensive and it can only be profitable if the price of oil is quite high. Is this development going to destabilize our neighbors to the North?

you can always...

[globaljustin]

look evidence in the face, evidence that proves you wrong...

and just say:

There is no evidence....

that's why i'm not debating you anymore...you're done...stick a fork in you...

you're trolling b/c my view of this situation is *accurate* and it in some way causes you serious cognitive dissonance.

you wouldn't waste time with comebacks if you didn't personally have somethign riding on this, even if it's your ego

you didn't counter my arguments...you **re-stated them** then said "they're wrong"

re-read my comments on this thread...if you decide you can engage in that level of debate, I'll be wating, huckleberry ;)

Re:you can always...

[stenvar]

Your post, like all your previous ones, is still full of ad hominems and devoid of facts or arguments.

Produce?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that really the correct word for it? Maybe "extract" would be better since nothing is "produced"; just a finite resource moved from one place to another.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

So let's get this straight...

You claim that only the sitting President is responsible and to blame for the state of the country, irrespective of what has happened in the past.

You also claim that the President can just "end it with a stroke" - presumably you don't mean magical powers with a wand, you mean magical powers with a pen.

I point out that you're ridiculously naive to think that way (ignoring that you're most likely some right wing nutjob who only thinks this way when it serves them - such as when the President is from the left wing) and that the actions of previous Presidents actually does have an impact on the state of the country at this point in time.

I give you an example, a clear cut and obvious to just about everyone including most Republicans, of a President who has had a lasting impact on the country outside of his term in office, and you tell me that I'm naive by disputing things that even most Republicans acknowledge. Hell, you even claim straight out that someone "cooked the books" - LOL.

You then, and here's the cherry on the cake of your idiocy, try to assert that the Republicans and Democrats are not in opposition to each other - despite the fact that we're actually, currently, at this time, experiencing a government shutdown due to the fact that Republicans and Democrats are in direct opposition to each other...

You're special :)

How much do we consume?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that we extract (not produce) now more petroleum and natural gas than Russia and Saudi Arabia but don't we consume more than both of them put together? I think the math does not favor us yet.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

:-) Enjoy your fantasy while you can... I have the best seat in the theater.. Here's looking at you, kid...

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

Yeah, I agree, giving up is your best option at this point.

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[fustakrakich]

I have nothing to give up. I merely observe. And you are quite the sight...

thankyou.. thankyouverymuch

Re:Wait... How are we going to blame this on Obama

[Assmasher]

Last word! lol

further down the troll hole

[globaljustin]

this conversation is over...

you are trolling...you didn't advance the debate at all...you just said "your post is wrong"

i'm wondering what you'll say next...after this:

Your post, like all your previous ones, is still full of ad hominems and devoid of facts or arguments.

you can only go so far down from there...

try something like this:

you are the troll...i'm not the one who keeps needing to prove something

that accuses *me* of the the thing *you* are doing (trolling) and then has a juvenile-level accusation that sort of sounds like something rational (prove something)

that's my suggestion for how you troll me next...

Re:further down the troll hole

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you are trolling.

And yes, the conversation is over.

apology accepted

[globaljustin]

And yes, the conversation is over.

glad you agree....i accept your apology

Economics, bah humbug!

[bbsalem]

This is a good example of how economics stunts our thinking processes. Relying on a whole host of questions on short term market conditions while there are much bigger issues to consider is rubbish. We need to find out if carbon burning is poisoning the biosphere, the way it has possibly done in many of the mass extinction events of geologic time. This also entails the whole carbon cycle and the process by which we even have these carbon fuels in the first place.

Dealing with this is a major political impact since many of the producers are very partisan and have huge cash reserves to buy off elections. Many of the people who run energy companies are hardbitten, greedy and cynical, I know I have met some of them early in my career and they caused me to avoid a career that would have taken me into the oil exploration business. I wish that we were running out of carbon fuels rather than producing more of it.

I just saw a piece on frakking the Marcellus Shale in Pa., and the detection of radionuclides and heavy metals, all for greed.

we should wait til everyone else runs out

[Anonymous Coward]

This is retarded. We're pumping out all our reserves while the oil is still cheap instead of letting everyone else do it, so when they run out and acquisition price goes through the roof we still have ours. When the global economy starts to feel the heat of reduced oil output and high prices, that's when we should be tapping our strategic reserves. Not now to make a quick buck. Right now we're keeping price down by flooding the market. Good for short term. Bad long term, we're all going to run out at the same time.

You are welcome!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are welcome!

View Finder Trading

Online Shopping Store Amazon Product

http://viewfindertrade.blogspot.com/

Online shopping from the amazon store, Computers, Laptop, software, Electronics, CellPhone, smartphone, accessories, Jewelry, Watches, Office Products, Apparel, music, Books, DVDs, Tools, Hardware just any

Most production means most consumption - not resel

[lsatenstein]

So we are to read the headlines as "The USA consumes the most oil/gas compared to it's suppliers.

Actually, the USA produces these products, and imports more, for consumption. This signals waste to me.

Time to reconsider global polution, never mind global warming.