# US to become biggest oil producer before 2020



## JimH52 (Dec 24, 2013)

U.S. to become biggest oil producer and energy independent - Nov. 12, 2012

We had eight years with an oil man in the WH.  But Obama and technology have made the oil a major oil producer.



> The U.S. is experiencing an oil boom, in large part thanks to high world prices and new technologies, including hydraulic fracking, that have made the extraction of oil and gas from shale rock commercially viable.
> 
> From 2008 to 2011, U.S. crude oil production jumped 14%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas production is up by about 10% over the same period.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 24, 2013)

Obama?


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 24, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> U.S. to become biggest oil producer and energy independent - Nov. 12, 2012
> 
> We had eight years with an oil man in the WH.  But Obama and technology have made the oil a major oil producer.
> 
> ...



Or it would have happened anyway.
Either way, O ain't stopping it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 24, 2013)

It will go to Asia, and were we wise, we would be keeping it in reserve. But the 1% will gain even more wealth.


----------



## RGR (Dec 24, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> U.S. to become biggest oil producer and energy independent - Nov. 12, 2012
> 
> We had eight years with an oil man in the WH.  But Obama and technology have made the oil a major oil producer.



Obama had nothing to do with it, otherwise that increased production would be coming from federal lands. It isn't, it comes from private property mostly. As far as technology, do you mean the 90 year old horizontal drilling or the 60 year old hydraulic fracturing? They weren't invented, researched, subsidized or encouraged by him either.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 24, 2013)

Eastern Gulf of Mexico - off limits.
Atlantic OCS - ditto.
Pacific OCS - likewise.
ANWR - fergeddaboudit.


----------



## elektra (Dec 24, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Eastern Gulf of Mexico - off limits.
> Atlantic OCS - ditto.
> Pacific OCS - likewise.
> ANWR - fergeddaboudit.



Billions given to the Brazilian Government owned Petrobras


----------



## Publius1787 (Dec 24, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> U.S. to become biggest oil producer and energy independent - Nov. 12, 2012
> 
> We had eight years with an oil man in the WH.  But Obama and technology have made the oil a major oil producer.
> 
> ...





Seems to be happening in spite of his policies. 

Fact check: Oil and natural gas production under Obama - CNN.com
One Thing Obama Can Do: Decide The Fate Of The Keystone Pipeline : NPR
GreenLaw » Blog Archive » Deepwater drilling moratorium ruled unconstitutional by District Court Judge


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 25, 2013)

What the fuck did Obama do?  Or Bush for that matter?

Jim, ever the tool.


----------



## rdean (Dec 25, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> What the fuck did Obama do?  Or Bush for that matter?
> 
> Jim, ever the tool.



Bush was leasing land to oil companies whether they actually drilled for oil or not.  In fact, not drilling keeps oil prices artificially high.  Remember Obama's "use it or lose it"?

*25 percent of the oil currently produced in the Gulf of Mexico is not subject to royalty payments. It says more than 100 oil and gas companies fully or partially own more than 200 royalty-free leases for deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And they could pump enough oil and gas from those wells over the next 10 years to generate $15.5 billion more in royalties &#8212; if they owed them.*

Lawmaker attacks oil companies, "free" drilling in gulf

You know you people sit in front of the Internet.  You could look up what happened under Bush using Google.  Bush was an oil man.  All his friends were in oil.  He did everything he could to help them.  Whether oil Sheikhs he was kissing or oil men here.

Bush fucked up everything he touched.  No one can name anything he did right.  I can't.


----------



## Shaarona (Dec 25, 2013)

elektra said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Eastern Gulf of Mexico - off limits.
> ...



Billions were NOT given to Petrobras.. They were given a line of credit to be spent  in the US for goods, technologies and services provided by US companies.

This negotiation began under the Bush Administration ... and the members were Bush appointees.


----------



## Politico (Dec 25, 2013)

Obama had shit to do with it. All this push started under Bush who also had shit to do with it.  Even if we do become the largest it won't do a damn thing for our prices because they'll keep selling it offshore just like now. But go on living that pipe dream.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 25, 2013)

If you want an uninterrupted supply of domestic hydrocarbons, you better not hope for low prices.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 25, 2013)

hydrocarbobs = co2 = warmer planet


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Dec 25, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> U.S. to become biggest oil producer and energy independent - Nov. 12, 2012
> 
> We had eight years with an oil man in the WH.  But Obama and technology have made the oil a major oil producer.
> 
> ...



Energy independent? Ya right. What a load of...Crude.  But since the USA has been the world's leader in consumption of energy at about 25% (despite just 4 or 5% of the population,) seems sensible to ramp up production. But energy independent, no more imports? Not in our lifetime.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 25, 2013)

Energy "independence" isn't necessarily a good thing. Just like we'll never be "food independent".


----------



## RGR (Dec 25, 2013)

I wonder what the authors mean by "biggest oil producer". It seems to me that even at the volumes projected by the EIA, Russia and Saudi Arabia will still be making more&#8230;are doing so today.

What does appear to be happening is that the EIA is signaling that the US might be able to achieve the same levels of oil production they once did in the early 70's.

This actually does have its own importance. Such increased production is currently negating the value of Hubbert's bell shaped curve profile in its entirety, in such a way that even the moronic peak oilers would understand, and should US production achieve the levels last seen in the early 70's it would take down his last standing prediction from his 1956 paper (the others having already been dispatched by reality).

Those who have noted that a commodity like oil, sold on a global market, will not change the prices Americans pay for their products manufactured from crude oil, are probably right. America could produce 15 million a day, and as long as the global demand was there, the price probably wouldn't move much at all for anyone. 

The US and Canada produce the marginal barrels of oil on the planet, and therefore the cost of that production will set the global price for as long as they are needed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 25, 2013)

Good for the industry and for the administration: keep it up.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 25, 2013)

RGR said:


> I wonder what the authors mean by "biggest oil producer". It seems to me that even at the volumes projected by the EIA, Russia and Saudi Arabia will still be making moreare doing so today.
> 
> What does appear to be happening is that the EIA is signaling that the US might be able to achieve the same levels of oil production they once did in the early 70's.
> 
> ...



But unless more mid-stream infrastructure is built out to accommodate, the spread between WTI and Brent could only worsen. 

Americans have been paying a discount for crudes for some time now. Upwards to $25/barrel discount to Brent. It's a shame as industry could be reinvesting even more capital here at home.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 25, 2013)

Does this hurt our attempt to limit co2 emissions? Or is the moving to natural gas from coal more then make room for it.


----------



## william the wie (Dec 25, 2013)

RGR said:


> I wonder what the authors mean by "biggest oil producer". It seems to me that even at the volumes projected by the EIA, Russia and Saudi Arabia will still be making moreare doing so today.
> 
> What does appear to be happening is that the EIA is signaling that the US might be able to achieve the same levels of oil production they once did in the early 70's.
> 
> ...


Actually the US has been the largest or second largest oil and NG producer pretty much from the start of the transition away from coal. Russia and KSA combined produce 6% more than the US.


----------



## Politico (Dec 25, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Does this hurt our attempt to limit co2 emissions? Or is the moving to natural gas from coal more then make room for it.



Who cares. Drill baby drill.


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 25, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Does this hurt our attempt to limit co2 emissions? Or is the moving to natural gas from coal more then make room for it.



It certainly won't stop the EPA from their witch hunt on all things carbon. 

Nor the Leftie-Loonies in their campaign to "green up" America.


----------



## RGR (Dec 25, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Good for the industry and for the administration: keep it up.



The administration has nothing to do with it. But the current price of oil certainly does.


----------



## RGR (Dec 25, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> But unless more mid-stream infrastructure is built out to accommodate, the spread between WTI and Brent could only worsen.



Only if volumes continue to increase. To date they have been able to get oil out of the Bakken and Eagleford fine, sooner or later they will run out of railcars and pipelines and whatnot, and then they will have to take a break, allow come decline to run its course, and then continue at a reduced pace.

However, unlike building out an electrical distribution infrastructure to handle a occasional peak load, the oil industry doesn't like doing this because of the aforementioned natural decline. They will want enough..but not too much.

It will be interesting to see what they deem is "enough" for the continued development of these resources.



			
				Mr H. said:
			
		

> Americans have been paying a discount for crudes for some time now. Upwards to $25/barrel discount to Brent. It's a shame as industry could be reinvesting even more capital here at home.



They could, assuming they have the upstream infrastructure such as rigs and crews and whatnot. The oil industry in the US being about as free market as any industry on the planet, they'll sort it out in one logical way or another.


----------



## RGR (Dec 25, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Does this hurt our attempt to limit co2 emissions?



The US currently has no limit on CO2 emissions, so the question is irrelevant. Certainly as of late the US has been emitting less, but this is more because of the transition to cheap and plentiful natural gas rather than any legal, moral, or dreamed up by Greenpeace "limit" on emissions.



			
				Matthew said:
			
		

> Or is the moving to natural gas from coal more then make room for it.



I agree, drill baby drill for natural gas. And oil too because on a BTU basis it is worth quite a bit more.


----------



## RGR (Dec 25, 2013)

william the wie said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...


----------



## SteadyMercury (Dec 25, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Obama?



Seriously, I don't know what is more pathetic the people who blame him for shit he didn't do or people who credit him for shit he didn't do.


----------



## william the wie (Dec 25, 2013)

RGR said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 25, 2013)

RGR said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Good for the industry and for the administration: keep it up.
> ...



You truly do not understand if you believe that, but it's your ticket: punch it.


----------



## elektra (Dec 26, 2013)

Obama describes the use of oil as an addiction.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 26, 2013)

elektra said:


> Obama describes the use of oil as an addiction.



And that is what it is.  I suppose it galls all the pro W people out there when during the Obama administration, US oil production is at the heights that it is.  I am sorry that upsets you...


----------



## RGR (Dec 26, 2013)

william the wie said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > william the wie said:
> ...


----------



## RGR (Dec 26, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It is always possible I do not understand a topic. 10+ years in industry as a petroleum engineer, 15 years as a staff scientist and subject matter expert on upstream petroleum resource and development issues and my third career as an analyst and modeler on domestic and international oil and gas resource volumes and costs means my economic training on this issues is not as complete as I'd like.

You might suffer from ignorance when it comes to the practical application of a cost curve, I do not.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 26, 2013)

RGR said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...



None of that matters, for I was writing petro tech manuals almost 35 years ago in Alaska for the military, so peddle it elsewhere.  If you think that admin policy does not matter, then you should not be working in the field.  Peddle that nonsense elsewhere, because it does not float here.  It's your ticket, and you just punched it.


----------



## RGR (Dec 26, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Yes...petro tech manuals, that is exactly the kind of career that leads to running oil and gas development projects stretching into a capital budget measured in billions of dollars. Silly me, if I had only known that writing a petro manual for the military would imbue me with these talents, I would have ever had to do the actual training and work to learn how!



			
				JakeStarkey said:
			
		

> If you think that admin policy does not matter, then you should not be working in the field.  Peddle that nonsense elsewhere, because it does not float here.  It's your ticket, and you just punched it.



If you think that administration policy on federal lands where most of the new oil and gas ISN'T coming from is more relevant than price, stick to writing petro manuals for those huge producers of natural gas and oil, the military. Anyone stupid enough to not understand that $100 oil changes the point along the cost curve where spending $10M per well becomes suddenly wildly profitable compared to $50 oil deserves exactly the experience you've just outlined.


----------



## elektra (Dec 26, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Obama describes the use of oil as an addiction.
> ...



The price of gas is the highest its ever been for the longest time. 

If you increase the rate at which you build Wind Turbines and Solar Power plants you must increase oil production to provide the massive increase in demand for raw materials that only heavy industry can provided. 

The USA is not being allowed to prosper at our full potential, at best we are all living off the crumbs that the baby boomers drop to us. We are draining that massive amount of wealth from the baby boomers, our economy is now their Health Care and Government controlled housing. 

The USA can be much more than it is today, we should lead the world in research and development off all industries, from textiles to nuclear power. 

We should produce so much we export to Canada, not import, both Oil and Electricity.

As it is the states like Michigan and Ohio depend on Canada for electricity. States like California which claims to be the number 6 or 7 economy in the world must import electricity.

Cities like Detroit that were the Heavy Industry leader of the world, the sixth largest economy, a city, is now dead and gone. 

Your claim of Obama's accomplishments is at best a sad disappointment in comparison to the potential of our Great Country.


----------



## william the wie (Dec 26, 2013)

RGR said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...


----------



## Jughead (Dec 26, 2013)

Speaking of oil, there is also the Keystone XL pipeline project. The Obama administration appears to not want to get involved with this due to greenhouse gas emissions concerns. The project would consist of a 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline which would transport oil from Hardisty, Alberta (Canadian oil Sands), south through five U.S. states to oil refineries on the Gulf Coast in Texas. The project would create a significant number of well paying jobs for Americans.

Obama comments on Keystone spark ire, more concerns about project?s future | Fox News



> The Republican National Committee said in a statement Monday: President Obama joked about the potential job creating power of the Keystone XL pipeline. With our economy lagging, the president should be jumping at any opportunity to create jobs instead of bending to the will of special (interests) at the expense of out of work Americans.


----------



## elektra (Dec 26, 2013)

US to become biggest Oil Producer is the topic, pure speculation based on what, making Obama look good. Well, during Obama's rule as a tyrannical President;

We are not the World's Largest Producer of Oil

Speculation as to what happens to U.S. Oil Production years from now and who gets political credit is a Fool's Debate


----------



## RGR (Dec 26, 2013)

william the wie said:


> Assuming GOR means Gas, Oil, Reserves then you read me right.



GOR stands for Gas-Oil-Ratio. It quantifies the amount of natural gas contained within oil under in-situ conditions. When pressure is released and the temperatures changes, the gas comes out of solution and results in an amount of gas for a given amount of oil. Oils in the reservoir are named as undersaturated and saturated depending on whether or not they contain as much gas as they can, or not. Once an oil is saturated under a given set of conditions, buoyancy allows "free gas" to form a cap on top of the oil column, the oil no longer able to absorb any more.



			
				william the wie said:
			
		

> Coal seams that are too expensive to mine for coal generally are cheap enough to drill for natural gas. In Russia as in the US too expensive to mine coal fields have been used as gas fields for a long time. But in Russia because of latitude, size and poorer logistical endowment a much higher percentage of coal fields fall into to the too expensive to mine but not too expensive to use as gas fields category. Australia for example uses the same technique, primarily to make coal mining cheaper and safer and then found that it had a lot of NG and other gases that they need a market for.



China does it as well. Quite extensively as a matter of fact. But gas in coal seams isn't the issue when discussing where most of the natural gas from Russia comes from (conventional gas fields).


----------



## RGR (Dec 26, 2013)

elektra said:


> US to become biggest Oil Producer is the topic, pure speculation based on what, making Obama look good. Well, during Obama's rule as a tyrannical President;
> 
> We are not the World's Largest Producer of Oil
> 
> Speculation as to what happens to U.S. Oil Production years from now and who gets political credit is a Fool's Debate



The EIA has approximately a $100M budget and 350 people who try and answer just this question. Economists and the government obviously do not consider it a fool's debate.


----------



## elektra (Dec 27, 2013)

RGR said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > US to become biggest Oil Producer is the topic, pure speculation based on what, making Obama look good. Well, during Obama's rule as a tyrannical President;
> ...



Your right, it can not be a fool's debate if the Government spends hundreds of millions yearly on that question while passing thousands of laws completely changing how the government controls the oil industry.

A fool's debate indeed.


----------



## JimH52 (Dec 27, 2013)

elektra said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Galls you don't it?


----------



## Mr. H. (Dec 27, 2013)

JimH52 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Obama describes the use of oil as an addiction.
> ...



Record US oil production figures are a fantastic thing. 

Correlating it to Obama's reign is the height of stupidity. 

Doing so mocks the very industry and its peoples who's own ingenuity, investment, and risk brought it about in the first place. 

You're a mindless rube.


----------



## RGR (Dec 27, 2013)

elektra said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



The government changes thousands of laws completely changing all sorts of things in all sorts of industries, if you object then vote for someone to change that particular aspect of government, or move somewhere with one more to your liking.

And mostly, the government doesn't control the oil industry. It would be obvious if they did, it would suddenly become half as efficient, lackadaisical as a rule, wells would take 3X longer to drill and the price for oil would be probably $30/bbl higher.


----------



## elektra (Dec 27, 2013)

RGR said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...



Your kind of all over the board with your response, almost like you forgot what your responding to.

Thousands of new energy regulations every year and Government does not control the Oil Industry?



> it would suddenly become half as efficient, lackadaisical as a rule, wells would take 3X longer to drill and the price for oil would be probably $30/bbl higher



I have kind of a news flash for you, while you were sleeping the Oil Industry has become half as efficient and the government agencies they must go through to conduct there business are lackadaisical. 

Wells do take 3X as longer, with all the Lawyers that have to answer to Government Agencies, Permits, Environmental Impact Studies, frivilous lawsuits by Environmentalists, etc., etc..

And the price of gas is 30$, actually a lot more per barrel, last time I checked the price at the pump is still extremely high, highest in my life for the longest time.

Further, Governments around the World claim ownership of 95% of all Oil reserves. Governments are getting so rich the literally build islands and paradise in the desert.

So, I do not know if you were being funny, sarcastic, or actually were serious, either way thanks for pointing out the obvious to those of us who are informed.


----------



## RGR (Dec 27, 2013)

elektra said:


> Thousands of new energy regulations every year and Government does not control the Oil Industry?



Depends on what you mean by "control", and what you think an energy regulation of relevance is. 



			
				elektra said:
			
		

> > it would suddenly become half as efficient, lackadaisical as a rule, wells would take 3X longer to drill and the price for oil would be probably $30/bbl higher
> 
> 
> 
> I have kind of a news flash for you, while you were sleeping the Oil Industry has become half as efficient and the government agencies they must go through to conduct there business are lackadaisical.



The government issues have been built into oil company business models since the day Rockefeller decided to start building them. You don't get to pretend they are a new thing, and no, the wells I am familiar with are quite a bit MORE efficient, not half as efficient. Feel free to provide your own examples of course, mine come from the Utica and Bakken.



			
				electra said:
			
		

> Wells do take 3X as longer, with all the Lawyers that have to answer to Government Agencies, Permits, Environmental Impact Studies, frivilous lawsuits by Environmentalists, etc., etc..



Drill times in the Utica are down under 10 days, having started at around 25. That isn't 3X longer.



			
				electra said:
			
		

> And the price of gas is 30$, actually a lot more per barrel, last time I checked the price at the pump is still extremely high, highest in my life for the longest time.



The price of gas isn't $30. And yes, current prices are much higher than they were in 1970 or so when the US was the world's swing producer. We haven't been the world's swing producer for 40+ years now, so things are different. This isn't a surprise.



			
				electra said:
			
		

> Further, Governments around the World claim ownership of 95% of all Oil reserves. Governments are getting so rich the literally build islands and paradise in the desert.



Complain to them then. I have been referring to the topic, which is about US oil production, and by extension, the US companies doing most of the work to increase that production.



			
				electra said:
			
		

> So, I do not know if you were being funny, sarcastic, or actually were serious, either way thanks for pointing out the obvious to those of us who are informed.



I'm not even sure what part of "obvious" you understand when you confuse decreases in drilling time with increases....perhaps you would care to explain WHICH wells are now taking 3X longer as a starting point.


----------



## elektra (Dec 27, 2013)

RGR said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Thousands of new energy regulations every year and Government does not control the Oil Industry?
> ...



Boy, you come up with a lot of assumptions, I said thousands of new regulations have an effect on Oil Production, you start talking about Rockefeller and telling me off the top of your head the history of regulations in a sentence as if you lost your way.

Your response literally ignores what is said and is a response to something not in my post. 

The government is a hindrance to Oil Production and thousands of new Energy Regulations every year is a huge burden to consumer and the industry.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 27, 2013)

The good news is Obama is moving forward with producing this oil with co2 from our coal plants.  Putting that shit deep under the ground.


----------



## RGR (Dec 27, 2013)

elektra said:


> Boy, you come up with a lot of assumptions, I said thousands of new regulations have an effect on Oil Production,.



You said "control", not effect. Of course plenty of regulations "effect" oil production, such as changes in requirements for, say Class II injection well pressures. It is a change, but how does it effect oil production? Maybe not at all.

How about regulations related to SERC filings in Ohio? It causes oil companies to spend more time doing paperwork, certainly this doesn't slow down drilling rigs.



			
				elektra said:
			
		

> The government is a hindrance to Oil Production and thousands of new Energy Regulations every year is a huge burden to consumer and the industry.



The government is a hindrance to everything, the oil industry is  not special in this regard. thousands of new energy regulations may, or may not, effect operations, but some folks certainly wouldn't be happy about things going back to the "good ol' days".

Nowadays this would be considered a failure of containment, and would send idiots like Matthew into a tizzy as proof that the oil companies are incompetent and trying to pollute everything and kill everyone.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 1, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > :
> ...



Record oil production is only a good thing if you cannot perceive long term. Obama released his Weekly Address on Nov 16 on the topic of this thread and it surprised me. As usual only one side is given. Can't post the link but its called "Taking Control of America's Energy Future." It doesn't matter if Obama had anything to do with this surge or not. The fact is  we are reaping short term benefits: stable gas prices. What are some other results we tend to pay little attention to?

Faster depletion of the oil supply (assuming natural gas is not at the heart of this new US energy production). This leads fewer domestic jobs in the long run as well as the US relying on foreign oil sooner. What has that brought us? Untold causalities as if human life is treated as secondary to our energy dependence. Uh, humanity is the whole point of civilization! This is nothing new though.

Probably the most galvanizing point this surge in production will mean in the long run the price of oil will be higher since there is less of it!!!

Also wanna reiterate a point made earlier: whether oil or natural gas, they're all hydrocarbons and are not an energy solution. Too bad methane is seen as only cash rather than its ugly side: long-term damage to the environment through hydraulic fracturing and "produced water." Why are so many folks paid to sign nondisclosure agreements? hmmm

Lastly, methane ends up being a poor ratio of energy output when natural gas rigs run on sometimes hundreds of gallons of diesel a day plus the millions of gallons of water trucked in that is rendered poisonous as well as aquifers and streams.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jan 1, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



Seems I've heard this argument before. Oh yeah, it was back in the '70s. 

Regarding hydraulic fracturing- please share some relevant sources to back up your bullshit.


----------



## RGR (Jan 2, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Also wanna reiterate a point made earlier: whether oil or natural gas, they're all hydrocarbons and are not an energy solution.



Then the point made earlier was wrong. You, me, probably everyone posting on this board has been using oil and natural gas as an energy solution...hard to claim they aren't in the future when the past contradicts you the instant you write such a thing.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Too bad methane is seen as only cash rather than its ugly side: long-term damage to the environment through hydraulic fracturing and "produced water."



Produced water is handled in legal fashion and if your state handles it poorly, blame the politicians who wrote the rules, not the folks who follow them to give the consumer what they are demanding. As far as long term damage give me a break, you would prefer to alternative of sitting around in the dark waiting for daddy to bring home a saber tooth cat, contemplating your navel and thinking about drawing a picture using charcoal on the cave wall?



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Why are so many folks paid to sign nondisclosure agreements? hmmm



For civil settlements? Its SOP. 



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Lastly, methane ends up being a poor ratio of energy output when natural gas rigs run on sometimes hundreds of gallons of diesel a day plus the millions of gallons of water trucked in that is rendered poisonous as well as aquifers and streams.



Nobody, least of all the oil and gas companies drilling for oil and gas to sell to YOU, cares about the poor ratio of energy input, such a consideration is irrelevant. And stupid to even mention, what matters is not the energy ratio but the $$$$$ in and the $$$$ out. And no, aquifers aren't rendered poisonous while drilling, those same regulations requiring Class II injection wells for produced waters (and other legal methods) also require this thing called "casing", otherwise known as a bunch of steel to make sure that producing reservoirs don't mingle with freshwater zones. This has been going on since before you were born, so lets try and not stir up another round of delusion on the part of the oil-ignorant, shall we?


----------



## RGR (Jan 2, 2014)

Matthew said:


> The good news is Obama is moving forward with producing this oil with co2 from our coal plants.  Putting that shit deep under the ground.



You know as little about geologic sequestration of CO2 as you do about energy in general. Go back to whatever it is you do know something about, nose picking, poor lifestyle choices, lamenting never finishing the 9th grade, whatever, but go do that rather than pretend you can say "energy" with a straight face and have a clue.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 2, 2014)

I posted a length reply. Can I ask why it was taken down or did it post on my computer only and somehow neglect being posted on the server? Whatever happened it fucking sucks


----------



## Desperado (Jan 2, 2014)

Great, than we can tell the Mid East to go eat sand.
The sooner the better!


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 2, 2014)

Mr. H, you think there is no such thing as peak oil? In other words is there an endless supply of oil or is there a time when oil production will necessarily slow and eventually cease because of it's finite nature.

Fracking source recommendation is Gasland 1 & 2. It's imperative to at least acknowledge fracking does carry harmful consequences to man and nature. One's which would be avoided in an ideal society.

I think the real problem here is Mr. H and RGR are not here to participate in a discussion but rather to minimize challenging ideas. What I mean is your well-being (including mental satisfaction) depends on holding certain beliefs regardless of facts. In today's world however, critical thinking is the last priority. The real priority and even virtue is to maintain your committed beliefs despite contrary evidence. If this discussion was truly intelligent I wouldn't need to explain that oil is a limited resource.

As for RGR you have mastered the use of fallacious reasoning. Too bad its just that, fallacious.

My point about hydrocarbons being spewed is that CO2, which naturally exists in the atmosphere, increases. So natural gas oil and coal all produce this as well as benzene, cadmium and other harmful chemicals known to cause cancer and brain disorders.

When CO2 is emitted in excessive levels into the atmosphere it alters the climate. As the climate changes it brings about known and unknown effects. As we continue to neglect our emissions and increase it by 3% each year then we are coming closer to serious climate change that displaces millions along the coasts. in 2005 a professor from the Caribean I knew spoke how the place she called "home" for decades was underwater and gone forever. Such instances are on the rise.

As we draw closer to 350-450 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere we will see the oceans become too acidic for coral life to exist thereby killing the life that depended on coral (1/4 the ocean's entire population).

So if you think its ok for 1% of the world's population (America) to consume a quarter of the worlds energy supply and to neglect displacing millions of people just like you and kill a large chunk of oceanic biodiversity then hydrocarbons are you solution

But if you value life then we must demand better alternatives. Solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal, nuclear and conservation is the long term solution. Natural gas is some intermediate thing that we should just skip altogether so we don't risk ruining biodiversity. In fact, 390 of 400 major glaciers are in retreat. Many are about to cease to exist in the next 5-10 years. Just like glaciers, once biodiversity is snuffed out it isn't simple to recover it. We are dealing with very serious issues that come on slow but accelerate rapidly with runaway variables that increase exponentially with time.

Produced water is harmful, right? I mean would you drink it? It is just one of the many hazards that comes along with natural gas industry. Why take millions of gallons of clean water and turn it into poison when many regions in the world are noticing how valuable and in short supply clean drinking water is and how important an issue it will be in the coming years and decades. It's just poor use of water for energy that we could get elsewhere (like solar) and use the water for sustaining life by drinking it.

If we neglect to develop the industries that are sustainable we are adding to the potential crisis that we are feeling the effects of now with unusual and severe weather patterns.

I can't help but think business do care about ratio of input to output. The easiest way to save money and increase profits is to become more efficient and to simply use less. If companies said fuey to efficiency that's like saying come devour me in the capitalist marketplace. They won't make nearly as much as a competitor company that considers these issues.

But I can't help also thinking you don't really care that you make little sense. Indeed, in the current political environment the victor is the one who maintains their commitment regardless of weather it fits with reality. I mean you can't possibly think I mean for us to return to caves? My intention is to note how ignoring such issues or name-calling ideas doesn't make them go away.

I'd hope with America's huge desire for savings and cash that we could investigate ways to reduce our demand for oil etc. while increasing our wallets. For example, instead of 75-80 degrees, turn the thermostat to 72 or even 68 for the most efficient, according to my heating company. 40% of all trips in the US are 2 miles or less and we drive them. I'd suggest save gas money, improve your health, feel the wind. Unless of course your trip isn't so easy, then don't worry. All I'm saying is this issue won't be going away if we plan to become leading producer by 2020.

In the hope of not straying from a productive discussion I challenge RGR and Mr. H to use the following questions to guide their response:

Does more CO2 lead to a change in the global climate?
Does it matter if excessive CO2 leads to a different climate that causes a loss of biodiversity and displace millions of humans?
Is oil or natural gas or even coal contributing to CO2 levels? Are CO2 levels declining or rising?
Is peak oil real? Or is there an unending supply? Akin to what Nixon said "we have enough oil supply to meet America's demand into the next century and beyond."


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 2, 2014)

Sublet County had air quality worse than Los Angeles and there is only 6 thousand people in that county--one person for square mile. Google Sublet and Los Angelos and air. A local paper comes up. Natural Gas is not clean, plain and simple.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 2, 2014)

Loosing a big post sucks. Can drag and copy before hitting send just in case, or cut n paste it to a notepad file so it network gremlins eat it, you can resend.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 2, 2014)

yeah my last one was horse shit comparatively. it's been so long since I've used message boards i forgot how crappy it is to forget to save it. I even had it copied but never pasted it into notepad  oh well wasn't the first time by far! lol


----------



## Samson (Jan 2, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Sublet County had air quality worse than Los Angeles and there is only 6 thousand people in that county--one person for square mile. Google Sublet and Los Angelos and air. A local paper comes up. Natural Gas is not clean, plain and simple.



Good thing it legal to smoke pot there.


----------



## initforme (Jan 2, 2014)

If we are producing so much oil then why are my gas prices steadily increasing?   Robbery as they say.  Oil companies go it made.


----------



## RGR (Jan 2, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Mr. H, you think there is no such thing as peak oil? In other words is there an endless supply of oil or is there a time when oil production will necessarily slow and eventually cease because of it's finite nature.



Peak oil is a fear meme generated by those without experience in resource economics. It has happened before, it will undoubtedly happen again, and will make no more difference next time then it did last time.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Fracking source recommendation is Gasland 1 & 2. It's imperative to at least acknowledge fracking does carry harmful consequences to man and nature. One's which would be avoided in an ideal society.



Gasland movies are jokes. Fraudulent representation of what frack jobs do. Propaganda for the oil-ignorant or NIMBYs.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I think the real problem here is Mr. H and RGR are not here to participate in a discussion but rather to minimize challenging ideas.



Thinking that Gasland is a source indicates a lack of ability to participate in any discussion involving challenging ideas.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> My point about hydrocarbons being spewed is that CO2, which naturally exists in the atmosphere, increases. So natural gas oil and coal all produce this as well as benzene, cadmium and other harmful chemicals known to cause cancer and brain disorders.



I recommend you stop using them, and their derivative products, immediately. If you feel that strongly about them of course.  And as far as CO2, you should stop emitting that immediately as well. Let us know how it goes. If you can.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> But if you value life then we must demand better alternatives. Solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal, nuclear and conservation is the long term solution.



None of that will stop even YOU from emitting CO2. How do you plan on curing that little problem, let alone for yourself, but for 7 billion others?



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Produced water is harmful, right? I mean would you drink it?



Of course not. I dispose of it, as required by law in the states where I've worked. 



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> It is just one of the many hazards that comes along with natural gas industry. Why take millions of gallons of clean water and turn it into poison when many regions in the world are noticing how valuable and in short supply clean drinking water is and how important an issue it will be in the coming years and decades.



Because people like you, and me, require fossil fuels and their derivative products. The good news being, there is plenty of water around, it can be created or piped if the economics of using it are better than the non-water alternatives, and water is a poison BEFORE it goes into the ground, you make it sound as though it doesn't kill people already.

I recommend being careful drinking the stuff.

Strange but True: Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill: Scientific American



			
				garnlylove said:
			
		

> If we neglect to develop the industries that are sustainable we are adding to the potential crisis that we are feeling the effects of now with unusual and severe weather patterns.



This isn't a all warming, all the time thread. And unusual and severe are relative to what? PETM? The Holocene A warming? 



			
				garnlylove said:
			
		

> I can't help but think business do care about ratio of input to output. The easiest way to save money and increase profits is to become more efficient and to simply use less.



That is measured in $$, as I said. Not energy. I can easily become more less efficient by using MASSIVE amounts of new energy should I choose, while making more money. The two are not linked as you appear to imply.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> But I can't help also thinking you don't really care that you make little sense. Indeed, in the current political environment the victor is the one who maintains their commitment regardless of weather it fits with reality. I mean you can't possibly think I mean for us to return to caves? My intention is to note how ignoring such issues or name-calling ideas doesn't make them go away.



Neither does the refusal to understand that you are sitting there at your keyboard, emitting CO2, using the derivative products of fossil fuels, lecturing others without a clue as to HOW. It is as though to you say "Gasland" and "fracking" and "renewables" enough, the problem will cure itself.

Crap, pretending that peak oil has something to do with this is just a dead giveaway for crying out loud. Sell fear elsewhere, please.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> In the hope of not straying from a productive discussion I challenge RGR and Mr. H to use the following questions to guide their response:
> 
> Does more CO2 lead to a change in the global climate?



Hard to say. Increases in temperature cause CO2 to rise, and when the timing of the end of the LIA happens right at the same moment that humans hit the industrial revolution and begin emitting yet MORE CO2wellyou know the hysteria that happens next, you appear to have already fallen for it.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Does it matter if excessive CO2 leads to a different climate that causes a loss of biodiversity and displace millions of humans?



Do you only know how to ask questions without a basis in reality? Does it MATTER? Everything MATTERS, and we've already lost biodiversity, do you realize the number of species that probably vanished as humans warmed the world and the ice sheets melted from New England? How many millions of humans now enjoy living in the warming world as evidenced by their homes in Canada and New England? Think of all those pale-Americans, forced to move to follow the retreating ice sheets, it must have been horrifying! And they didn't even need to build coal fired power plants to warm the world, apparently all their breathing (and temperatures going up first) did it for them!



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Is oil or natural gas or even coal contributing to CO2 levels? Are CO2 levels declining or rising?



Humans breathing is contributing to CO2 levels. There are more of us now, and obviously we therefore emit more CO2. Of course CO2 levels have been increasing, as the world warmed out of the LIA the usual thing happenedCO2 levels rose as well. You are aware of CO2 as a lagging indicator going back  hundreds of thousands of years, right? What, you think it should be any different today just because humans are involved?



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Is peak oil real? Or is there an unending supply? Akin to what Nixon said "we have enough oil supply to meet America's demand into the next century and beyond."



No one denies peak oil, only peak oilers pretend that everyone else denies it, them usually only knowing how to construct straw men to fight because they can't take on actual thinking people.


----------



## RGR (Jan 2, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Sublet County had air quality worse than Los Angeles and there is only 6 thousand people in that county--one person for square mile. Google Sublet and Los Angelos and air. A local paper comes up. Natural Gas is not clean, plain and simple.



So what? The CO2 you emit isn't "clean" either, clean water can be deadly in the right dose, you have more dangerous cleaning liquids under your sink than that which is contained in frack water, and you certainly don't appear to mind the derivative products of natural gas, but just want to complain about it from a position afforded by it.

To an engineer, something isn't a problem until there is a solution. Without a solution, the problem is otherwise known as "this is how things are done". 

Don't like natural gas? Fine. Tell us how you would deliver 120 mW at 10PM at night to the grid next Thursday night and the price you can sell it for. Get it wrong and the power contract you just broke takes your house as a punishmentbetter hope the sun is shining or the wind is blowingwant to bet that you won't even make such a bet?

What you like, while benefitting from it, or what I like (prefer solar myself) is irrelevant to providing the necessary power to the folks demanding it.

Come up with a viable solution and we can talk, otherwiseit's not a problem.


----------



## RGR (Jan 2, 2014)

initforme said:


> If we are producing so much oil then why are my gas prices steadily increasing?   Robbery as they say.  Oil companies go it made.



They charge what the market will bear. I recommend using less if you don't like the prices involved.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 2, 2014)

RGR, how clear to you is it that you have nothing to contribute but contrarianism? Saying red herrings like the air we expel is CO2 is just totally irrelevant. I painstaking noted how CO2 exists naturally and asked if there can be too much CO2. Your reply betrays any hopes of actually having a fruitful discussion. 

You say "I recommend you stop using them, and their derivative products, immediately. If you feel that strongly about them of course. And as far as CO2, you should stop emitting that immediately as well. Let us know how it goes. If you can."

You criticize my like I'm unaware that using a car or a lamp requires energy. I do not drive because I bike everywhere. I live in a carpeted barn with rainwater collection and candle light. My basic energy use is for Wi-Fi and my laptop only--and I live an excellent life by my standards. Let me be super clear: My point isnt to live exactly like me, Im only letting you know that I actually live what I preach. I can give you a hundred tips on how to cut out emissions but that isn't your point: your point is how hard it is to avoid using pollution-laden products and services in a very "gotcha" manner. I agree, it is basically impossible today. But what's the point in pointing fingers at me as if the fact that no clean alternatives exist doesn't matter?


I demand solar development among all sorts of relevant issues every day to congress but with views like yours, it isn't happening. You prefer solar but couldn't fight any harder to promote the blessings of natural gas and oil.

Your tactics are evident: construe opposing views in a negative light so they appear bad and thus are thought to be clearly false. Too bad this is exactly what a strawman argument does: avoids actually discussing the merits of an issue.

Examples:

1. Who cares if Gasland is a joke. Sure, I laughed the whole way though but what's your point? I guess by calling it a joke in one fell swoop you defeats any point about the the harmful effects of natural gas. 

2. "Thinking that Gasland is a source indicates a lack of ability to participate in any discussion involving challenging ideas."

This proves my exact point. Did you discuss anything regarding why Gasland is a fraud? No. I want to be clear I don't care that you think its a fraud or any other names. I want to hear why it's a fraud. But honestly, given your record for contrarianism, I do not care to hear why you think it's a fraud: because you'll most certainly use fraudulent techniques that make it appear false. Maybe you wouldn't: I don't care.

3. Peak oil is a fear meme generated and sell fear elsewhere.

Yeah, youre the one generating fear here. I defined peak oil as a term with one definition: there will come a time when oil production cannot increase. Again, framing peak oil as a scare tactic has no bearing on the fact that oil is finite. Nor did I ever try to make you afraid but sounds like you surely became afraid! Sorry for that!

The fact that oil is limited is my only point here and yet you couldnt help debunking peak oil several times before finally admitting No duh.

4. None of that will stop even YOU from emitting CO2. How do you plan on curing that little problem, let alone for yourself, but for 7 billion others?

This clearly has no bearing in the discussion. It is a trick to make one think I am hypocritical therefore false. This is a clear example of fallacious reasoning (ad hominem) by attacking my livelihood (breathing) as a core problem in CO2 emissons. Are you freaking serious? I regret even addressing this.

5. Same goes for the water. You try to using logic to dispute my link between money and efficiency yet you are trying (Im assuming) to link produced water and water as roughly equivalent or having any similar properties. Drinking some 200-300 ounces of water in a few hours is the same as drinking produced water. Sure but I cant see any meaningful point here.

6. This isn't a all warming, all the time thread. And unusual and severe are relative to what? PETM? The Holocene A warming?

Somehow you prefer solar and yet resist the idea of developing it. That was my point (encourage development of alternative energies). Im never claimed nor does it even matter whether the weather is unusual relative to x. The point is on the whole, CO2 emissions are increasing and this results in known and unknown problems. Thus we should subsidize solar among other long-term solutions.

7. "That is measured in $$, as I said. Not energy. I can easily become more less efficient by using MASSIVE amounts of new energy should I choose, while making more money. The two are not linked as you appear to imply."

So you're saying there is no link between savings and efficiency or just the one I was trying to make (which is the same thing).


Finally, a relatively straightforward answer to a question! 

1 Hard to say. Increases in temperature cause CO2 to rise, and when the timing of the end of the LIA happens right at the same moment that humans hit the industrial revolution and begin emitting yet MORE CO2wellyou know the hysteria that happens next, you appear to have already fallen for it.
Ill just agree because Im so proud you were able to deliver an answer without framing my views as stupid. But immediately you went back to nothing relevant:

2. Do you only know how to ask questions without a basis in reality?...

I am very familiar with people who hold similar values and beliefs to yourself so I was trying to achieve the most basic common ground so we can go from there. Instead you continually dismiss any desire to agree on something by framing a simple question as stupid. I just thought it was worth asking because many people dont care about displacing others, many who hold similar values to you in other areas.

Its relevant to know that you think displacing humans matter. Its great to have found common ground: you think CO2 is increasing but you are unwilling to admit that the last century has been the leading cause of more CO2.

In the past century coal plants have emitted trillions of tons of CO2 and cars driven daily since the 30s contributes to billions and millions of tons each year. Im not saying humans are evil for doing so! My point is trying to get people to realize actions have consequences: after so many trillions of tons, we may reach a potentially disturbing reality brought on largely in part due to our unwillingness to agree. For heavens sake have you ever smelled an exhaust of a car? Ever stood near a coal plant? The amount of people driving daily and global use of coal IS FREAKING ENRMOUS. It should be absolutely no surprise with such MASSIVE OUTPUTs of CO2 that industry is indeed a leading emitter of CO2 into the atmosphere. From there its common sense that continuing such levels and methods of production is simply unsustainable. All that means is eventually we will have to switch energy methods by necessity, not by choice. Especially if we continue with attitudes like the ones your displaying--we will make little to no effort to reduce CO2 and encourage new sustainable energies.

Now I am tired of removing your stawman debris to get to some useful discussion. If you want to waste our time by reframing views as stupid without genuinely addressing their merits, go ahead. As for me, I am through.


----------



## GWV5903 (Jan 2, 2014)

JimH52 said:


> U.S. to become biggest oil producer and energy independent - Nov. 12, 2012
> 
> We had eight years with an oil man in the WH.  *But Obama and technology have made the oil a major oil producer.*
> 
> ...



Hey put the bottle down...

Oblammer had ZERO to do with the Bakken or Eagle Ford Shale plays...

Horizontal drilling was also prior to your messiah...

You do realize the single largest producer in both of these plays is a independent called EOG (Enron Oil & Gas)...


----------



## GWV5903 (Jan 2, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Now I am tired of removing your stawman debris to get to some useful discussion. If you want to waste our time by reframing views as stupid without genuinely addressing their merits, go ahead. *As for me, I am through*.



We can only hope...


----------



## RGR (Jan 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> RGR, how clear to you is it that you have nothing to contribute but contrarianism?



To understand why one side of an argument is inferior to another, it is necessary to understand both. Your posts indicate that this concept is foreign to you.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Saying red herrings like the air we expel is CO2 is just totally irrelevant.



It isn't a red herring. It is a fact, and it is critically relevant if you understand ANYTHING written on climate change by Ruddiman.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> You criticize my like I'm unaware that using a car or a lamp requires energy. I do not drive because I bike everywhere. I live in a carpeted barn with rainwater collection and candle light. My basic energy use is for Wi-Fi and my laptop only--and I live an excellent life by my standards.



Congratulations on using fossil fuels and their derivative products just as I implied, and the excellent life it allows you. None of this is a surprise, certainly I don't know you from Adam, but can predict with reasonable certainty that you use the exact same energy sources that most do.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Let me be super clear: My point isnt to live exactly like me, Im only letting you know that I actually live what I preach.



Using fossils fuels and their derivative products. Just like I do. Got it.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I demand solar development among all sorts of relevant issues every day to congress but with views like yours, it isn't happening. You prefer solar but couldn't fight any harder to promote the blessings of natural gas and oil.



of course I could fight harder to promote oil and gas, because now I don't promote them at all, I only recognize reality, and how those demanding alternatives themselves do it from a position of using those same fuels and derivative products. Even you.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> 2. "Thinking that Gasland is a source indicates a lack of ability to participate in any discussion involving challenging ideas."
> 
> This proves my exact point. Did you discuss anything regarding why Gasland is a fraud? No. I want to be clear I don't care that you think its a fraud or any other names. I want to hear why it's a fraud.



No problem. When a frack job hits the water system of a house, the thousands of pounds of pressure will rip lose every valve, blow up every pipe, literally destroy the house. 

Gasland doesn't show the effects of a frac job getting into a houses water supply, it shows something else, then presented as the consequences of fracking.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> 3. Peak oil is a fear meme generated and sell fear elsewhere.
> 
> Yeah, youre the one generating fear here. I defined peak oil as a term with one definition: there will come a time when oil production cannot increase.



Then you are defining peak oil correctly. And depending on WHEN you used this definition, and how old you are, peak oil has already happened. Like it did in about 1979 or so.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> 4. None of that will stop even YOU from emitting CO2. How do you plan on curing that little problem, let alone for yourself, but for 7 billion others?
> 
> This clearly has no bearing in the discussion. It is a trick to make one think I am hypocritical therefore false.



You are hypocritical. You sit there, emitting CO2 just as enthusiastically as every other human on the planet, complaining about CO2 emissions. And claiming that this particular FACT is irrelevant. Of COURSE it is irrelevant, because you really don't want to talk about what CO2 emissions designed as a problem suggests or implies.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Somehow you prefer solar and yet resist the idea of developing it.



Incorrect. I advocate new building code requiring panels on every roof, of every garage and house built in America. There is me resisting the idea.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I am very familiar with people who hold similar values and beliefs to yourself so I was trying to achieve the most basic common ground so we can go from there.



Really? What are my beliefs and values? I drive an EV charged in part by the panels on my roof, I've been in and around the oil industry my entire adult life, think that oil is obsolete and doesn't know it yet, and understand exactly where it is that this countries energy comes from, and how pipe dreams and hopium are not the solution advocated for quite practical reasons that always seem to disappear in the starry eyed gaze of the dreamers who never in their life have had to deliver a power supply on time and target.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Now I am tired of removing your stawman debris to get to some useful discussion. If you want to waste our time by reframing views as stupid without genuinely addressing their merits, go ahead. As for me, I am through.



It is best to retreat when the best you can come up with is "FREAKING ENORMOUS" as a way to show that just because a number has a bunch of zeros after it, it scares you, being beyond the number of fingers and toes you own.

How about we start over with something easy.

The thread is about oil production in the US reaching another all time high. Do you think this can happen, or not?


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 3, 2014)

I haven't any reason to argue against a brick wall. It's clear you operate based in a worldview that has no desire to see the blossoming of ideas that lead to better decisions. Many of your points take segments of sentences and compare them to minute trite details (like produced water and drinking water among many others) and then trailing off to show how what only you are talking about is invalid.

I've no reason to keep repeating myself or engage in discussion with out if you refuse to actually address the gist, the meat, the marrow of what I am saying.

I can agree I use fossil fuels. Did I ever say I didn't? No. But yet you continually point out I am "hypocritical" when I've only said yes, I use fossil fuels, never denying it. I only noted my reduction in dependence, nothing more. So what does this and about every example show? You erect cookie cutter views that have nothing to do with my actual point except that you are using the english language and what drives home your fallacious correlations is you use the same terms I do and vice versa and when you remove the context it appears we are talking about the same thing. Of course we are not because the context matters like I do indeed use fossil fuels but my point remains that fossil fuels are finite and eventually will cease. If you affirm the antecedent that fossil fuels are finite, it's a modus tollens (dening the consequent aka logical fallacy) that we need to switch energy sources sometime, inevitably

I'm trying to encourage awareness that we are on an unsustainable track. You take this to mean all sorts of things except what it means: that fossil fuels can not be used indefinitely, ergo sooner than later we need to bring awareness to this issue and discuss alternative energies like solar and wind among many others and perhaps some not yet invented or perfected. And unless we become aware we are going to loose some important things like fossil fuels in the first place, as well as displacing millions much sooner than geological time would have.

I address this in my life by reducing my consumption and encouraging the use of alternative energies. This doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite, it means these issues matter to me personally, not just intellectually. If I made no effort in my own life to reduce energy dependence while lambasting the use of excess fuel then that would be the classic case of hypocrisy. It's not hard to understand yet continuously you've accused me of things that don't really have a bearing on the meat of our discussion. I'm not sure if you're even getting now because you didn't in the last post.

I started from the second post before you wrote anything again encouraging guiding questions so you don't bring up points that detract rather than add to the discussion (I pointed out 7 such examples in my last post alone) so like I said in my last post and early on in this one, what am I getting out of this discussion? That you are not interested in reaching any sort of consensus, your are mostly trying to make ideas appear by association to be something they are not. Text book definition of stawman. 

And I cannot help but laugh when you bring up the air I breathe out as something I think should be restricted. Well, let's go ahead for sake of argument and assume I do think humans should somehow stop breathing out. Well, let's not forget to mention all mammals, not just humans have this problem. Well, let's not stop there: my argument would include ANY AND ALL sources of CO2. I'd have to develop ways to cap underwater vents in the oceans, geysers, elk, lions, the whole gamut! I means I better get on this! There simply isn't enough time in my life to muzzle every animals and all of humanity with a CO2 converting mask (takes expelled CO2 and converts it to mostly oxygen) especially given the fact -that I haven't even invented yet!!!!!! Man I am wasting my time typing when I could be solving one of my most crucial worries (that you helped me understand): that CO2 Is NATURALLY occurring.

Oh wait, no...that's your stawman version of my point: that EXCESS CO2 (as defined by parts per million in the atmosphere) is a problem and has the potential to become a major problem if we don't become aware as a nation and globe and take REASONABLE measures to avoid running out of fossil fuels forever by inventing solar, say. You never really thought that I thought natural CO2 is a problem but in order to distract attention from the real point you keep repeating this. You're right about one thing: I don't know you. And after such blatant misrepresentation of my views (I can't tell if its intentional or not), why would I? EV this and that has private meaning only if you can't have a decent conversation with another human. I don't know what your credentials are but god help us if you were spat out from some university. They do not know how to teach!

I know you'll somehow find someway to make this look convoluted and absurd (when it's really basic). Indeed I won't reply if it happens again. Neither of us are gaining anything from this. I mean this is a positive impediment to decent thought. Let me be clear: I am not drawing the conclusion that your views are false because I think you are bad at argument. I've only maintained my points and have noticed almost no beliefs on your point except sentences that respond negative to mine.

But as I mentioned in an earlier post, critical thought has no value in society anymore. The only values revolve around one's ego maintaining its habit to deny challenges to its authority and beliefs. Now-a-days beliefs are slogan-ized thoughts derived from corporate advertising--i.e. the exact definition of propaganda. So no wonder no one can agree: no one is being feed the truth, it's always being interpreted through market branding.

I'm know Gasland is not pro-corporation. It's agenda is to present an alternative understanding to the massive money backed views that say natural gas is the solution--and you know what? That's a breathe of fresh air. I won't even deny that in some technical way natural gas is a solution because it's being used as we type but that doesn't make a real long-term solution because it also pumps CO2 into the air as evinced by Sublet County report and this is unsustainable barring some other reality where natural gas could be extracted without excess CO2. The problem is that's not this reality so as it stands, natural gas is unsustainable and therefore not as viable long-term solution as presently understood.

Perhaps one thing going on here allowing you to misrepresent my views is that I type too much. If that's the case, don't misrepresent me, just tell me you didn't read it all and don't reply to it. It saves us both time and energy.


----------



## RGR (Jan 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> I haven't any reason to argue against a brick wall. It's clear you operate based in a worldview that has no desire to see the blossoming of ideas that lead to better decisions.



Again incorrect. I drive one of those blossoming ideas. And I use others to fuel it.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I can agree I use fossil fuels. Did I ever say I didn't? No. But yet you continually point out I am "hypocritical" when I've only said yes, I use fossil fuels, never denying it. I only noted my reduction in dependence, nothing more.



And I've noted mine. And yet because we both minimize our dependence, I am someone cheering on the use of fossil fuels? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are a hypocrite for a different reason, the standard one most enthusiasts of their own lifestyle fall into.

You want to make others, in some form or fashion, do what you are doing, in whatever way you are doing it. And those who use CO2 as the mechanism? Are certainly hypocrites, because as it turns out they, like you, happily emit CO2 day and night and THAT emission doesn't bother them, only the ones they can use as a rationalization against Big Oil, or the government, or the poor, or those they don't like, or immigrants, or whoever. That is the core problemCO2 emissions as a path to fascist tendencies.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I'm trying to encourage awareness that we are on an unsustainable track.



I agree with you. But YOU are aware that sustainability is an illusion of time, nothing more, correct? 



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> But as I mentioned in an earlier post, critical thought has no value in society anymore.



You are wrong. Critical thought is rewarded quite well in my world, and in the world I am familiar with. If someone can prove they can do so as well I've got positions available for the right combination of education, experience, and proof of ability. 



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I'm know Gasland is not pro-corporation. It's agenda is to present an alternative understanding to the massive money backed views that say natural gas is the solution--and you know what? That's a breathe of fresh air.



A breath of fresh air otherwise known as propaganda. No thanks. When they can understand even the most basic consequences of a frack job showing up in a landowners water supply, they will then understand what to go looking for. But they didn't do that. Instead, they made up something that sounded good and those who know nothing about hydraulic fracturing think it is a breath of fresh air.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Perhaps one thing going on here allowing you to misrepresent my views is that I type too much. If that's the case, don't misrepresent me, just tell me you didn't read it all and don't reply to it. It saves us both time and energy.



How about you answer the question related to the topic I actually asked? Or does sticking to the topic not come with those who mistake propaganda for a breath of fresh air.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 3, 2014)

I know a hypocrite is someone who tries to encourages others to live their life. Did I ever say move to a cave? No but you concluded that was my point. I said you misrepresented me and made it abundantly clear: I am encouraging the viewpoint that says fossil fuels can not sustain us. Then you draw attention away from the fact that we agree on something by saying sustainability is an illusion. What the hell does physics revelation that time and space are potentially illusions (or are or whatever!)? Nothing except to undermines the whole point that we agree and therefore need to go ahead and develop alternative energies. You posts are exercises in wordplay and nothing more.

It's like you calling Gasland as 100% propaganda with nothing to tell us about reality (Gasland is not simply about "hydraulic fracking" but a litany of issues such as nondisclosure agreements, human suffering linked to leaks even though they've owned that property long before the nascent of the natural gas company, as well as environmental CO2 harm and a host of other issues that cannot be addressed by calling it names or propaganda. You simply reversed what I said about corporate advertising on natural gas and applied it to the independent film Gasland. That's not helpful to the discussion, it's just rearranging words so you come out ahead. This isn't about winning a debate for me, it's about a dialogue leading to greater enlightenment for us all.

It's also not helpful to rigidly stick to the topic that has been rehashed the first 3 pages. Sure I could answer it but since I didn't its a way for you to attack my character (I'm so dumb that I cannot tell the difference between fresh air and propoganda) thereby being able to make a statement that makes you look like you came out ahead WHEN IT HAS NO POINT BUT TO DRAW ATTENTION AWAY FROM POINTS I RAISED. Just like pointing out critical thought has value when that has nothing to do with our main points. Good job in diverting attention to intelligent thought yet again. In fact, you've already agreed with the entire main set of points I made but you wouldn't gather that if you were reading your replies. Is there something stopping you from being able to carry a discussion that isn't muddled with a hundred unnecessary wordplays and strawmen? Oh right, you aren't here to participate in a nonaggressive, meaningful discussion where nonsense has no place. You're here to assert your views over mine even if we agree!


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 3, 2014)

I know a hypocrite is someone who tries to encourages others to live their life.

That's not very clear, allow me to elucidate: I merely suggested ways of reducing fossil fuel dependence and yet you take that as I'm trying to get people to live my life. Uh I specifically stated 1 page ago:

I'd hope with America's huge desire for savings and cash that we could investigate ways to reduce our demand for oil etc. while increasing our wallets. For example, instead of 75-80 degrees, turn the thermostat to 72 or even 68 for the most efficient, according to my heating company. 40% of all trips in the US are 2 miles or less and we drive them. I'd suggest save gas money, improve your health, feel the wind. Unless of course your trip isn't so easy, then don't worry. All I'm saying is this issue won't be going away if we plan to become leading producer by 2020.

Does this sound like I am making others live my life? No. Clearly I suggest "don't worry" but you couldn't care less about what I'm saying or the context over making the point that I am wrong and you're right. Even if I was a hypocrite,  it doesn't undermine the truth value of my views: that's again an ad hominem, attacking my beliefs based on allegations against my character, which avoids addressing the merits of the point. Once again you demonstrate your obvious goal: avoid agreeing with the idea of me (rather than the actual me and my points) and to remain contentious.


----------



## RGR (Jan 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> I know a hypocrite is someone who tries to encourages others to live their life.



No. A hypocrite is someone who says and advocates one thing, but does not adhere themselves to what they say or advocate.

Thinkthose who demand or advocate a cessation or reduction in use of fossil fuelswhile using fossil fuels themselves to do so.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Then you draw attention away from the fact that we agree on something by saying sustainability is an illusion.



A particular type of illusion..let us be specific now, I do try and be literal. An illusion of TIME.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> What the hell does physics revelation that time and space are potentially illusions (or are or whatever!)? Nothing except to undermines the whole point that we agree and therefore need to go ahead and develop alternative energies. You posts are exercises in wordplay and nothing more.



I specialize in facts. To an ant with a 5 pound bag of sugar, whatever lifestyle he/she chooses is completely sustainable, the sugar out lasting his lifespan. Regardless of your lifestyle, or mine, or the entire species', when the hydrogen fuel runs low in the local nuclear furnace, the planet is toast. No semantic psycho babble needed, just good ol' resource scarcity of the most important kind.

Build your wet dream eco-topia.and it isn't sustainable except in timeframes smaller than that of the most important local resource known to the "sustainability" of the solar system.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> This isn't about winning a debate for me, it's about a dialogue leading to greater enlightenment for us all.



Then start by understanding the subject. Including the frequency of non-disclosure agreements used between employers and employees in the oil field, let alone those used upon closure of some civil dispute or another.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> In fact, you've already agreed with the entire main set of points I made but you wouldn't gather that if you were reading your replies.



If you honestly think this, I recommend you reread what I wrote. Not your interpretation of what you think I wrote, but what I actually wrote. I am a wee bit literal.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Is there something stopping you from being able to carry a discussion that isn't muddled with a hundred unnecessary wordplays and strawmen? Oh right, you aren't here to participate in a nonaggressive, meaningful discussion where nonsense has no place. You're here to assert your views over mine even if we agree!



Is there something stopping you from recognizing that you can have your own conclusions, but not your own facts? And your half baked generalizations of someone's beliefs is actually doing the muddling?

You prefer non-muddling? Sure. How about a single point you've raised.

How is it that you confuse non-disclosure agreements with an admission of guilt? I have used non-disclosure agreements to keep one landowner from being able to reveal to other oil companies the particulars of the financial deal for their mineral rights, you appear to imply that my very requirement for such a document somehow admits liability or guilt.rather than being a competitive advantage. Please explain your use or experience with the use of non-disclosure agreements to hide guilt, because certainly I am not familiar with using them for that purpose.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 3, 2014)

From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...fracking-claims-with-sealed-settlements.html:

I merely mentioned nondisclosures and yet again you misrepresent me as claiming far more than I said. But surely we can agree such demands for confidentiality for sums of money is tantamount to legal gag-orders. Now why would the company wish to pay so much and silence people unless it promoted their cause. They aren't paying these people out of the kindness of their hearts. It ties back to money and the fact is most cases had pure pristine water prior to the drilling on a nearby shale.


----------



## RGR (Jan 3, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...fracking-claims-with-sealed-settlements.html:



File not found. 



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I merely mentioned nondisclosures and yet again you misrepresent me as claiming far more than I said.



I don't think so. You certainly implied that non-disclosure agreements somehow lend validity to claims of those against the 60+ year old practice of hydraulic fracturing. I simply pointed out that I have used them in the past and it had nothing to do with being guilty of anything. And then I asked about your experience using them.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> But surely we can agree such demands for confidentiality for sums of money is tantamount to legal gag-orders.



Of course we can agree on this. Except for the money part anyway, sometimes non-disclosures are designed for when someone is trading something for something else, certainly an exchange of funds is not required in the least. But not talking about what the settlement is, is what non-disclosure agreements are DESIGNED for. Your statement is analogous to saying that surely we can agree the sun will rise in the east. Sure. No problem. And so what? It doesn't make the sun guilty of anything by then doing what we expect. And what do we expect from non-disclosure agreements? That everyone agreed to the terms and walks away with something they want, and promises not to talk to others about it. A quid pro quo and nothing more.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Now why would the company wish to pay so much and silence people unless it promoted their cause.



Competitive advantage. So the morons down the road from the first folks don't try the same stunt, waiting until someone fracks a well in the next township and trying to get themselves a new water well drilled. So that the lawyers who sued for millions and then settled for hundreds aren't embarrassed by the results and lose all the rest of their clients trying to find the deepest pockets possible. 

Your one dimensional view of non-disclosure agreements doesn't make them one dimensional, I promise. But please, feel free to discuss your use of them in the oil and gas business, we don't have to generalize the issue, undoubtedly you have some experience to be so confident in why they are used because you yourself used them this way?



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> They aren't paying these people out of the kindness of their hearts. It ties back to money and the fact is most cases had pure pristine water prior to the drilling on a nearby shale.



Bullshit. Oil companies do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and endearing themselves to the populace through generosity and giving back to the community is one of those reasons.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation Makes $1 Million Cash Donation to Aid Tornado Relief Efforts in Moore, Oklahoma - Yahoo Finance


And certainly some might have CLAIMED they had pristine water, but that is a totally different animal. And as I explained before, gasland doesn't have video of a frack job coming through into a homeowners house...not because they wouldn't have video taped it and trumpeted it from the nearest bell tower, but because they couldn't find even ONE.


----------



## gnarlylove (Jan 3, 2014)

Drillers Silence Fracking Claims With Sealed Settlements - Bloomberg

Regarding paying people in settlements, it's just that, paying homeowners for something the natural gas industry did. Likely because the family has been harmed but that's what we don't know because they are required by law to remain silent even to neighbors in some cases. Of course you misrepresent my position by assuming I think Big Oil is staffed by demons who never give charitably. What? Am I so dumb that I don't know that Big Oil makes enough money to donate some of it or that indeed charitable donations are on the rise.

In fact, Shell and BP profits are 3.3 million dollars every hour. The 5 biggest make 375 million a day. I think it's a good PR move in a capitalist economy to donate to relief aid. It certainly makes them appear personable regardless that the amounts donated are precisely calculated as to maintain desirable profits--which doesn't sound like a very charitable donation but rather an investment that has returns not in money but loyalty. I admit it's great and I thank them but a few million dollars is shit in a bucket compared to their unlimited multi-billion dollar annual treasuries. It's like if I donated 100 dollars this month and my monthly income was a few million. At first that may seem good but once you realize percents, you are less inclined to be shocked--although not less inclined to still be thankful--of which I am.

I've spoken with some oil reps in Denver and I know some are very courteous, even donating personal income to green organizations. Though on the whole very few said hello and one well dressed oil rep punched a greenpeace worker in the face, pushed him to the ground and ran away on 16th street mall. The only point here is oil employees may or may not be generous. 

Below is a link to less generous business practices of oil. 

Shell Oil?s Profits Rise To US$3 Million Dollars PER HOUR ? Barbados Farmers Still Get Nothing For A Decade Of Pollution And A Deadly Future | Barbados Free Press

Don't forget the catastrophe of the 90s with lingering health effects today: Chevron fucked Ecuador over by neglecting to clean up their mess and sold it to Petro-ecuador, which they knew was woefully incapable of meeting the demand in clean up. Thus the Ecuadorians suffer the consequences of polluted land and water were children once played while in court Chevron is able to deny any culpability. Sounds a little less charitable than we'd hope.

Point being is sure they donate but they could also do a lot better at preventing or reducing costly events by investing the proper time and money but it comes down to the bottom line. So in donating isn't just donating: it might just be a move to distract from industry problems and buy loyalty.


----------



## RGR (Jan 4, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Drillers Silence Fracking Claims With Sealed Settlements - Bloomberg



Sure sounds like non-disclosure is being used to keep everyone quiet&#8230;just as expected. From the article&#8230;and verifying what I've already told you.



			
				Article said:
			
		

> &#8220;The practice is common in every type of litigation in every industry,&#8221; Dan Whitten, spokesman for America&#8217;s Natural Gas Alliance, a Washington-based industry group, said in an e-mail. &#8220;It is often the case that it is less burdensome to settle -- even on claims that have no merit -- than to go into a protracted court battle.&#8221;





			
				Gnarlylove said:
			
		

> What? Am I so dumb that I don't know that Big Oil makes enough money to donate some of it or that indeed charitable donations are on the rise.



I don't know how dumb you are. Those who fall for peak oil aren't necessarily stupid, usually just ignorant, or zealots of some sort. Using words like "Big Oil" might indicate you are more in one camp than the other, certainly.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I admit it's great and I thank them but a few million dollars is shit in a bucket compared to their unlimited multi-billion dollar annual treasuries.



Their income is generated doing one of the most difficult industries in the world, very, very well. America, and the market in general, rewards such efforts, you are allowed to object to it of course, or even be jealous of it (in a collective sense), but it was built to deliver what you, and nearly all Americans desire.

When you stop using the products derived from these activities, you will perhaps understand better why most others choose to use those products.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> I've spoken with some oil reps in Denver and I know some are very courteous, even donating personal income to green organizations. Though on the whole very few said hello and one well dressed oil rep punched a greenpeace worker in the face, pushed him to the ground and ran away on 16th street mall. The only point here is oil employees may or may not be generous.



Just as in the general population at large. Fortunately, America is not so fascist yet that those who are generous can demand it from others.



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Don't forget the catastrophe of the 90s with lingering health effects today: Chevron fucked Ecuador over by neglecting to clean up their mess and sold it to Petro-ecuador, which they knew was woefully incapable of meeting the demand in clean up. Thus the Ecuadorians suffer the consequences of polluted land and water were children once played while in court Chevron is able to deny any culpability. Sounds a little less charitable than we'd hope.



I recommend you boycott using their products then. A fine American tradition for how the little guy can fight back against what are perceived as the wrongs of corporations. And if you have a beef with oil companies, I can't imagine how much you hate the US government for not only using those products themselves (like you) but defending their distribution, supply lines, etc etc.

So do you have a hard on only for the companies doing a hard job well, or does your disdain extend all the way up and down the hydrocarbon chain, upstream to the engineers and geologists estimating how much is still in the ground and where it is, the folks who refine it and distribute it, maybe even the consumers who don't like bicycling around and enjoy their Corvettes and monster trucks?



			
				gnarlylove said:
			
		

> Point being is sure they donate but they could also do a lot better at preventing or reducing costly events by investing the proper time and money but it comes down to the bottom line. So in donating isn't just donating: it might just be a move to distract from industry problems and buy loyalty.



All industry have problems. The oil and gas industry is a big one, like the nuclear industry. Little industries can't make big mistakes because they are little. So is your beef with only one industry for some reason?

Also, I would note that you, with apparently zero experience in the industry, don't know anything about how to reduce costly events while surviving the curse that does not sleep in this industry, let alone make a profit doing it. It is quite easy for the untalented, inexperienced and intellectually bereft to point at the successful, profitable and capable and say "if I were in charge things would be different, and I would show everyone how much better it could be done...."

Easy to say. But if you actually want to be DO it, I recommend starting here, getting involved, and proving the point rather than just performing the lament of those who wish, and dream, and confuse that with being qualified to actually DO.

http://www.bestpetroleumengineeringschools.com/

When I graduated from high school, and made the fateful decision that never again would I wear a suit and tie, I applied, and was accepted, to 3 schools on that list. I matriculated from one of them. Throw in some decades of experience and maybe you too can save costs, as some of us already have. Minimize events, as those of us directly responsible for the lives of others have done repeatedly. You can hardly even begin to understand the issues involved in doing these things except as some sort of mantra, perhaps learned from the same quality of folks who convinced you that a frack job's consequences inside a house is a gentle whiff of methane in the well water? A breath of fresh air you called it....when it reality it was simply a clue that those manufacturing the propaganda aren't any more familiar with frack jobs than you are with HOW to save costs or HOW to minimize industrial accidents. Of any kind. All you can do is demand it happen, without a clue as to the reality of what it takes to make it happen in its existing form, let alone an improvement of the system.


----------



## initforme (Jan 4, 2014)

We are producing more and more oil yet my gas prices just went up 15 cents.  The demand excuse is just that, an excuse.   Man I shoulda started an oil business.   I could have done whatever I wanted with no check.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 4, 2014)

Why would an "oil man" like Barry Hussein prevent the Keystone pipeline from being a reality? The problem for the radical left is that they can't identify left wing hypocrisy. Hussein is the biggest hypocrite in American history and he would have been laughed out of the White House if the liberal media didn't defend him every chance they had. Barry Hussein supports American energy but he also supports nut case left wing global warmers so he lies to everyone.When big issues come up he escapes on a vacation or on a election tour. Basic energy problems are left to stupid (majority) democrat politicians and gigantic federal bureaucracies who couldn't tie their shoes without a hundred page blueprint.


----------



## Samson (Jan 5, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Why would an "oil man" like Barry Hussein prevent the Keystone pipeline from being a reality? The problem for the radical left is that they can't identify left wing hypocrisy. Hussein is the biggest hypocrite in American history and he would have been laughed out of the White House if the liberal media didn't defend him every chance they had. Barry Hussein supports American energy but he also supports nut case left wing global warmers so he lies to everyone.When big issues come up he escapes on a vacation or on a election tour. Basic energy problems are left to stupid (majority) democrat politicians and gigantic federal bureaucracies who couldn't tie their shoes without a hundred page blueprint.



Regardless whatever political partisan group is in power, I don't see much support for Keystone.

Why should US oil companies want imported Canadian crude while they are producing in the US at profit?

If anyone should be grateful for the Eco-Wackos, and their "Peak Oil" Chant, it should be US oil producers.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jan 5, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Why would an "oil man" like Barry Hussein prevent the Keystone pipeline from being a reality? The problem for the radical left is that they can't identify left wing hypocrisy. Hussein is the biggest hypocrite in American history and he would have been laughed out of the White House if the liberal media didn't defend him every chance they had. Barry Hussein supports American energy but he also supports nut case left wing global warmers so he lies to everyone.When big issues come up he escapes on a vacation or on a election tour. Basic energy problems are left to stupid (majority) democrat politicians and gigantic federal bureaucracies who couldn't tie their shoes without a hundred page blueprint.



Hear! Hear!


----------



## Samson (Jan 5, 2014)

initforme said:


> We are producing more and more oil yet my gas prices just went up 15 cents.  The demand excuse is just that, an excuse.   Man I shoulda started an oil business.   I could have done whatever I wanted with no check.




Most of what you pay at the pump are state and federal excise/sales taxes.


Go to work for the gubmint, or become a gubmint contractor if you really want to take advantage of that $0.15/gal increase.


----------



## RGR (Jan 5, 2014)

Samson said:


> Go to work for the gubmint, or become a gubmint contractor if you really want to take advantage of that $0.15/gal increase.



How does a GovCo employee benefit from an increase in the price of gasoline? The taxes you mention are NOT percentage based, they are fixed. So the fluctuation in price is related to the real cost of the inputs and distribution, the taxes themselves don't change in the least with the price at the pump. So if you pay $2.00/gal for gasoline, and $0.70/gal are taxes, if the price of gasoline goes to $3.00/gal for the consumer, $0.70/gal are still the taxes.


----------



## Samson (Jan 5, 2014)

RGR said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Go to work for the gubmint, or become a gubmint contractor if you really want to take advantage of that $0.15/gal increase.
> ...



I did not say taxes depended on the price per gallon.

I said the price/gallon depended on the tax.

The higher the tax is fixed, the higher the price of gas. I'll conceed the tax may not be % of the sale, only because I'll assume, regardless of how far-fetched, you have evidence that no state in the entire nation places a sales tax on gasoline.

At any rate, you are correct: the average government employee is not directly rewarded through gasoline tax increases any more than are the average oil producer employee rewarded because gasoline prices rise.

However, the tax is often used to fund government expenditures, and contractors often benefit from these.


----------



## RGR (Jan 5, 2014)

Samson said:


> At any rate, you are correct: the average government employee is not directly rewarded through gasoline tax increases any more than are the average oil producer employee rewarded because gasoline prices rise.
> 
> However, the tax is often used to fund government expenditures, and contractors often benefit from these.



Oh, I can certainly see how government contractors profit from government expenditures, every day of the week and twice on Sundays. The hiccup that caught my eye was the GovCo bureaucrats, many of whom haven't received a raise in a few years now, are somehow living it large because of normal swings in total gas price. 

One of the interesting side effects of Americans driving less, is that fewer taxes are collected, and those who claim they want more eco-friendly citizens, one component of which is driving less, now have to find new ways to hammer said citizens because heaven forbid someone actually find a way to do what they do more efficiently.

Punish those who do what we tell them to do! Gotta love GovCo in action.

States Target Hybrids As Gas Tax Revenues Ebb : NPR


----------



## 1ArizonaMan (Jan 8, 2014)

*A boom in new fossil fuel production is one of the few bright spots in our economy right now.
Things will really take off when we have Admin that is actually friendly to the fossil fuel industry.
Solar and wind are hopelessly inadequate and cannot at this time be used for large scale base power generation.*


----------

