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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Bartles]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[Assmasher]

LOL...

That sumbitch is destroying the country!

Re:In Related News...

[Assmasher]

Canyonero!

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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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...

Yet....

[Lumpy]

Prices are still high and fluctuate like crazy...

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

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: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?

[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?

[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.

Aye...

[GarethIwanFairclough]

but for how long?

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.

[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.

[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.

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

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.

Re:In Soviet USA

[Entropius]

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

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?

[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: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: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?

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:Environmentalists...

[Salgak1]

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

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: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:Environmentalists...

[Hoi Polloi]

It is ok, we have a backup planet.

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.

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.

Once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity

[xtal]

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

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:Environmentalists...

[geekoid]

Not 'someone else'. Areas that can.

There is a difference.

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.

Re:Environmentalists...

[i kan reed]

Sure, but shale oil is far from uncommon.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re:In Soviet USA

[geekoid]

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

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

[Assmasher]

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

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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: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: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: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:Breaking News!

[ebno-10db]

That justifies the NSA's actions.

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: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.

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.

Re:Environmentalists...

[i kan reed]

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

'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..

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...

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.

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: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

[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?

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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 :)

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]

:-) 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...

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.

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.

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.