American Energy Boom

[G8trGr8t]

Good read here introducing a series that will delve a little deeper into the subject for anybody that might be intereseted. If this administration would embrace this instead of trying to muffle it with additional taxes and regulations our economy would be soaring

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/power-shift-energy-boom-dawning-america-1C8830306?ocid=msnhp&pos=3

In a four-part series starting Monday and continuing over the next three weeks, NBC News and CNBC will examine how this boom occurred almost overnight and look at the implications that U.S. energy independence would have for the U.S. economy, other types of energy, foreign policy and the environment.


“There’s a great expression in the oil business: ‘Oil’s been found where it’s been found before,’” said Scott Tinker, director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas. “These big oil- and gas-rich basins already are producing from the conventional reservoirs that leaked off of the shale. Most of these big basins … have rich source rocks."
"The source rocks are the kitchen where the oil and gas are cooked before they leaked out into the conventional reservoir," he added. "We’ve drilled the conventional reservoir. There’s still some to be drilled, but the kitchen is what we’re drilling now, and it contains a lot more oil and gas than what was leaked.”


Thanks to the new drilling techniques, an estimated 2,200 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the U.S. – or a century’s worth -- and billions of barrels of oil are now believed to be locked in rock formations, spanning from California to Pennsylvania, according to the EIA.
The U.S. government estimated in 2010 that the U.S. had proven reserves of just 25.2 billion barrels of oil – or about four years’ worth at recent consumption rates. The “tight oil,” or unconventional oil supply, is believed to be double that amount, or about 58 billion barrels, according to John Staub, an analyst with the EIA.
That means the U.S. now is estimated to have total technically recoverable resources equaling 223 billion barrels when all potential offshore oil and in tight oil zones are taken into account, he said.


Stark, like others in the industry, said it's difficult for drillers to know just what they’re going to find. But in many cases, he said, wells are producing more than anticipated. For example, Stark noted, he estimated last year that the Three Forks area in the northern Bakken Shale had one reservoir. “Now it looks like an additional two or [three] lower reservoirs are also yielding commercial production,” he said, noting that could mean an additional 5 billion or 6 billion barrels.

[ACCecil]

Interesting stuff.

I'm not sure what "fracking" is but as long as it doesn't pollute the air or water it is fien by me. I am not a geologist, scientest or engineer. I am ignorant, for the most part, of what they are talking about but it seems we humans just keep getting smarter and smarter when it comes to exploiting the erath's resources.

I'm hoping by the time we use up the known reserves we develop greener energy as replacements for the finite energy.

I'll be quite dead by then it would appear so carry on.

I think the Pres is trying to quell some of this because it is dirty, on th eother hand, until we use up the dirty fuels the clean fuels are not economically viable so, what the hell, we might as well burn up the dirty stuff and get it over with.

It really is a complicated issue.

[gatorev12]

I severely doubt this Administration will be the one to reap the rewards from the energy boom with as radical as most of them are.

Ironic, given that the energy boom literally has the potential for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing/industrial sector, commercial and services sector (you'll always need lawyers and contract administrators for these types of operations), and the engineering sector too.

Certain states are capitalizing already (North Dakota and Texas are notable examples)--others won't be too far behind. I think Midwestern states like Ohio, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania are other natural areas for expansion too...most of the industrial base to make the pipes and drilling equipment is still there, just need to rebuild the labor force.

[geauxgator1]

This administration would rather see the economy flail and flounder rather than encourage energy exploration in this country. The economic rewards could be huge, but it won't happen under Obama's watch. He's more interested in stifling energy production than seeing the economy rebound.

[g8orbill]

This administration would rather see the economy flail and flounder rather than encourage energy exploration in this country. The economic rewards could be huge, but it won't happen under Obama's watch. He's more interested in stifling energy production than seeing the economy rebound.

this^^^^^

[gator1986]

This administration would rather see the economy flail and flounder rather than encourage energy exploration in this country. The economic rewards could be huge, but it won't happen under Obama's watch. He's more interested in stifling energy production than seeing the economy rebound.

What!! He said himself he's going to create jobs in energy because that's the future! He said it himself, he's the president he doesn't lie! None of them ever do!

[G8trGr8t]

can you imagine if Clinton would have tried to use regulation and taxes to stifle the internet revolution? 0 has been handed the golden goose to solve our economic problems and is trying to keep it locked in the cellar so his muscovy duck won't look ugly out on the front lawn.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Kansas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming are all prospering from the energy boom. This is in addition to ND, Louisiana, and Texas. Heck, even New Mexico is producing oil now and NY would be sharing in the riches if htye had not put a moratorium on fracking. Ironic that without the energy boom in Ohio, the unemployment and economic condition of that state would probably had given it to the pubs. Steel plants, ethylene plants, chemical plants all built or being built in Ohio/WV

and the monterrey shale in California holds more oil than all other known shales in the us combined and they haven't even started tapping that yet.

good set of videos here for anybody that shows the process in laymans terms

http://www.contres.com/operations/technologies/hydraulic-fracturing

[gator1986]

^^^^ thank god! Layman's terms! =)

[gatorev12]

can you imagine if Clinton would have tried to use regulation and taxes to stifle the internet revolution? 0 has been handed the golden goose to solve our economic problems and is trying to keep it locked in the cellar so his muscovy duck won't look ugly out on the front lawn.


An extremely apt analogy--and fitting question.

Part of why America became a global superpower at the turn of the 20th century was that we were blessed with rich (and abundant) natural resources and married that with a productive population. Many countries aren't (or weren't) nearly as fortunate.

I really do see the energy revolution as being the spark to reignite the American economy--if we take advantage of it and play our cards right, as our historical leaders usually did.

"Made in America" is making a comeback as Chinese manufacturing is starting to grow more expensive (wages have been rising there over the last decade...and the cost to transport it here has gone up) and American consumers are becoming more conscious of supporting American manufacturing. American workers might still be more expensive than others, but if that's balanced out by US companies having low energy bills at the end of the month, you'd start to see many companies start to shift more production back home.

And I've never seen why Obama (or any politician for that matter) has to make energy production/policy a zero-sum game. Why not allocate part of the tax royalties from expanding natural gas and oil production to funding renewables? The potential is there...but the technology is not--and it needs significant investment to get going. Get the best of all worlds and take advantage of our 100+ year supply now..while ensuring sufficient funding goes to making renewables the future. We secure our short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term energy future.

[G8trGr8t]

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2013/03/18/north-dakotas-oil-production-reaches-record/

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/MWimages/MW-BA498_nd_oil_MG_20130318155115.jpg

North Dakota’s crude-oil production reached a record 770,000 barrels a day on average in December, the Energy Information Administration said Monday.

Annual production in the home of the Bakken formation more than doubled between 2010 and 2012 through the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling. Almost 95%

North Dakota is the No. 2 crude producing state after Texas. It accounted for 10% of the U.S. production.

Much of the oil leaves the state by trucks to rail. Bakken oil trades at a discount in relation to “Texas tea” West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark oil traded in the New York Mercantile Exchange, due at least in part to transportation hiccups.

Some 75% of production in the four counties where oil production concentrates is transported by truck — which can become dicey very quickly. A blizzard warning is in effect for southeast North Dakota on Monday, the National Weather Service said


that is 770,000 bopd we do not have to import that is generating tens of thousands of jobs, making a lot of property owners with mineral rights very wealthy, and keeping around $77 Million a day here in the US instead of being exported. And it is only going to get better. Too bad we don't have a pipeline to get it to market and it has to travel by truck, rail, and barge to get to market.

and they are just getting started...

[G8trGr8t]

The Shenandoah-2 well, which spud on September 16, 2012 and drilled in approximately 5,800 feet of water to a total depth of 31,405 feet, encountered net oil pay in excess of 1,000 feet. The well is approximately 1,700 feet structurally down-dip from the Shenandoah-1 discovery, which was drilled in Walker Ridge Block 52 in 2009 and encountered net pay approaching 300 feet. Venari holds a 10% working interest in Shenandoah. Venari and its co-owners Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (NYSE: APC), as operator (30%), ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) (30%), Cobalt International Energy (NYSE: CIE) (20%) and Marathon Oil Corporation (NYSE: MRO) (10%) are evaluating the Shenandoah well results and assessing the next steps toward future appraisal activity.

"The Shenandoah appraisal well has confirmed the field to be a major discovery with excellent-quality reservoir and fluid properties, and significant resource potential," said Brian Reinsborough, Chief Executive Officer and President of Venari Resources. "This well has the potential of becoming one of the largest oil discoveries ever made in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico and demonstrates Venari's capability to explore for significant resources in the emerging areas of the deepwater Gulf."

Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/03/19/4706280/venari-resources-announces-major.html#storylink=cpy


1000 feet of oil pay in high porosity sand with no water is going to be a monster well

[T3goalie]

Watch out for "Wyat's Torch"

[108]

label me as one who is worried about the environmental implications of fracking

[G8trGr8t]

label me as one who is worried about the environmental implications of fracking

Do you realize they have been fracking for 50 plus years on vertical wells? Fracking is even used on water supply Wells to stimulate aquifers that have lost production due to migration of fines.

[G8trGr8t]

new record bakken well released this week. a year ago, a 2000 bopd was a big well

Tuesday, Hess reported a 8683 bopd well and 2500 bopd wells are common

$1.2 Billion in GOM leases sold today

[jdrgator]

label me as one who is worried about the environmental implications of fracking

Do you realize they have been fracking for 50 plus years on vertical wells? Fracking is even used on water supply Wells to stimulate aquifers that have lost production due to migration of fines.

Me too 108. There are always consequences, which too often get covered up in the name of money...unsurprisingly. At the same time, I have doubts about how justified some of the claims against fracking are, and am tired of the extremes on either side which either sow fear or pump sunshine, or just smear each other.

In any case, here's (http://www.acfan.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/truth-casings.pdf) a decent article in Scientific American that I read a few years ago. The author, Chris Mooney is pretty fair minded. Also, here's a short piece (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/new-petro-state/what-fracking-means-manufacturing-and-environment-bs-detector) from marketplace.org. Raises some interesting points.

Since you seem to have some expertise on these issues, g8rgr8t, I would like to know your thoughts.

[G8trGr8t]

First, I am a civil engineer with no background or expertise other than what I have garnered through research related to investing and a sincere belief that the energy revolution is what will help the US economy recover long term if we take advantage of it rather than try and demonize, over tax it, and over regulate it in an effort to suppress it so that politically favored alternatives become more attractive.

The linked paper is a fairly accurate depiction of the major issues facing the industry wrt the drilling and fracking part of it. What he failed to really address is the challenges in trucking chemicals to the site and getting the oil to market. It is here that real environmental issues can present themselves. Issues that could/should be minimized with the use of pipelines instead of trucks, trains, and barges. The conjecture about the possibility of fracking causing cracks to allow deep gas to rise to the surface is a joke though. The typical "crack" generated by a very good frack doesn't travel more than a 1000 feet or so and would never cause a crack the 5 - 8 thousand feet that would be required to allow methane to migrate upwards. The companies are now downspacing their wells because they realize that the fracks are not large enough to drain the rock when wells are 1000 feet + apart. It should be noted that the geological properties of the source rock vary from formation to formation and sometimes even with the same formation. Existing fault lines or uplift fractures within a formation can also change the geological properties and the drilling strategy. It is here that the new 3d seismic technology and software that is being developed is extremely helpful but even with that, drillers often find things that they were not expecting when they get 7000 feet down and then turn sideways in their targeted formation.

fwiw, the case against Range was resolved and the EPA was proven wrong. They lost in state and federal court when Range showed that the gas was chemically proven to be from the shallow degeneration of biological material. The ranchers had overpumped their wells and lowered the aquifer which allowed existing gas that had been trapped by the water pressure to rise and become entraned in the water that they were pumping. Once they decreased their pumping rates, the gas content decreased as the aquifer and related pressures rose. The gas in the wells depicted in the movie Gasland was gas seeping in from coal seems and had nothing to do with drilling and fracking in the area but that wasn't sensational enough so the producers didn't bother to research or document that. Again, the gas is chemically different from gas from down deep but the EPA or the producer was never interested in finding the problem but more interested in depicting the industry as being the villain and them as the hero. EPA is totally out of control and a quick google search will show how many cases they have repeatedly lost since this administration came into office in state, federal, and even at supreme court.

Casing integrity is a problem in any sort of well. We have issues in Florida with water wells that were not properly cased and allow for blending of aquifers which pollutes fresh water aquifers with higher salinity content aquifers. In the oil and gas industry, poorly cemented liners due to bad workmanship can cause problems but the industry is much better now than they were even 5 years ago. This has nothing to do with fracking but is part of any well drilling operation.

Fracking chemical composition has changed considerably in the last couple of years as the science progresses. Many companies now use entirely organic contents and if you do a search, you can find videos of CEO's and others drinking the fracking fluid as it is not harmful going down. When it comes back up is a different story and the industry is like any other industry when it comes to addressing the backflow. There are some that are very good at it and others that are careless. Ideally, it goes directly into a pipeline and is disposed of through a deep injection well that is several miles deep. These same injection wells also dispose of the saltwater that often comes up with the oil.

The use of large tanks to capture the backflow is a much better option than open pits and is becoming more economical as more of the industry incorporates the practice and tank designs and mobility are improved. There is also a whole cottage indsutry growing around using ozone and other processes to treat the backflow and then recycle it for use in the next well. As pad drilling becomes more the norm (multiple wells drilled from one "pad") it becomes even more economical to utilize tanks to capture, treat, and recycle the backflow.

Another good article here that posted yesterday with a good slideshow

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy-firms-environmental-groups-agree-tough-new-fracking-standards-1C8975363

PITTSBURGH -- In an unlikely partnership between longtime adversaries, some of the nation's biggest energy companies and environmental groups have agreed on a voluntary set of standards for gas and oil fracking in the Northeast that appear to go further than existing state and federal pollution regulations.
The program announced Wednesday will work a lot like Underwriters Laboratories, which puts its UL seal of approval on electrical appliances that meet its standards. In this case, drilling and pipeline companies will be encouraged to submit to an independent review of their operations, and if they are found to be taking certain steps to protect the air and water, they will receive the blessing of the brand-new Pittsburgh-based Center for Sustainable Shale Development.
If the project succeeds, it could have far-reaching implications for both the industry and environmental groups. A nationwide boom in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has unleashed huge new energy reserves but also led to fears of pollution and climate change

[kurt_borglum]

How about the old adage,"I'd drill through a polar bear's ass for cheap gas!"

What about the strategic importance. China needs lots of oil and we can reduce our national debt by selling oil to the Chinese. Europe too.

In addition, we could disengage from much of the Middle East if we and our allies are not dependant upon oil from that region.

[G8trGr8t]

we will never produce enough oil to be able to export it. It is actually illegal to export crude oil from the US and even the export of our plentiful nat gas requires a lot of approvals. We may be able to prodcue enough oil to limit our imports to just Canada and Mexico. That would allow us to elimiante the threat of a ME oil embargo crippling our supply source but unfortunately as long as the rest of the world economy is dependent on ME oil it will be in out strategic national interest (economy) to insure that the world supply is not severely interrupted.

China is securing their oil by bribing african leaders to get oil concessions in those countries and staying friendly with Iran while they circumvent the embargo and buy cheap Iranian oil that Iran cannnot sell anywhere else ing rat volumes.

Canada will build a pipeline to the west coast (Kitimat) and export their oil to China if 0 keeps screwing around with the keystone. Right now, Canada loses billions every year due to the depressed price they get because we are their only customer and the shipping costs via rail reduce the amount they make in production.

[108]

I like what Germany has done with solar energy

Could never happen here though with the fossil fuel industry's boot on the neck of our government

[G8trGr8t]

if/when solar or any other form of energy production can compete economically with fossil fuels or coal it will replace them. until then it will remain a waste of money that is better allocated elsewhere. since nat gas is almost $16 in Europe for what we pay $3.5 to $4 and they have to pay a carbon tax that is then shipped to fraudulent chinese firms, it might make sense there but it is stupid to place that kind of a headwind on our economy

do you want the cost of electricity to go up 35 - 40% so we can have solar?

and you might want to check out the current condition of solar in Germany...seems like it is failing and on the verge of collapse as the German gubmnt has realized that the cost to the economy is not sustainable in a global economy. after the gubmnt started to discuss cutting the subsidies, the people that are collecting those subsidies have begun to loudly protest. imagine that, another gubmnt subsidy program that the people getting the cash can't fathom having to live without. nothing so permanent as a temp gubmnt program

http://www.solarfeeds.com/german-solar-industry-on-the-decline/


However, this growth came at a cost. The country’s solar policy differed markedly from the U.S., where solar incentives have largely entailed subsidies for manufacturers and end-users through tax relief or renewable portfolio standards, which require a certain degree of investment in solar power. These policies tend to prove less expensive for the government, by shifting costs onto utilities, or at least more palatable because they involve lower taxes.

Germany instead made use of feed-in tariffs that pay a premium rate for electricity produced from renewable sources, and particularly solar power, a policy that has been slow to gain traction in the U.S., though has recently been implemented in Hawaii.

While these tariffs led to a surge in solar development, it also allowed for strong competition from solar manufacturers in Asia and elsewhere, which has forced down prices and made it difficult for German manufacturers to compete. Meanwhile, as costs grew, the government has scaled down the feed-in tariffs for solar electricity in recent years, pushing down demand and leading solar installers to cut jobs to keep down costs.

Now legislators have called for further cuts to this program, limiting access to these feed-in tariffs to only a portion of new solar installations. Bloomberg reports that Philipp Roseler, Germany’s economy minister and a member of the junior coalition member Free Democratic Party, has called on the government to limit these crucial incentives to only 1,000 megawatts of new capacity. That amounts to less than 13 percent of the added solar capacity in 2010

[jdrgator]

First, I am a civil engineer with no background or expertise other than what I have garnered through research related to investing and a sincere belief that the energy revolution is what will help the US economy recover long term if we take advantage of it rather than try and demonize, over tax it, and over regulate it in an effort to suppress it so that politically favored alternatives become more attractive.

The linked paper is a fairly accurate depiction of the major issues facing the industry wrt the drilling and fracking part of it. What he failed to really address is the challenges in trucking chemicals to the site and getting the oil to market. It is here that real environmental issues can present themselves. Issues that could/should be minimized with the use of pipelines instead of trucks, trains, and barges. The conjecture about the possibility of fracking causing cracks to allow deep gas to rise to the surface is a joke though. The typical "crack" generated by a very good frack doesn't travel more than a 1000 feet or so and would never cause a crack the 5 - 8 thousand feet that would be required to allow methane to migrate upwards. The companies are now downspacing their wells because they realize that the fracks are not large enough to drain the rock when wells are 1000 feet + apart. It should be noted that the geological properties of the source rock vary from formation to formation and sometimes even with the same formation. Existing fault lines or uplift fractures within a formation can also change the geological properties and the drilling strategy. It is here that the new 3d seismic technology and software that is being developed is extremely helpful but even with that, drillers often find things that they were not expecting when they get 7000 feet down and then turn sideways in their targeted formation.

fwiw, the case against Range was resolved and the EPA was proven wrong. They lost in state and federal court when Range showed that the gas was chemically proven to be from the shallow degeneration of biological material. The ranchers had overpumped their wells and lowered the aquifer which allowed existing gas that had been trapped by the water pressure to rise and become entraned in the water that they were pumping. Once they decreased their pumping rates, the gas content decreased as the aquifer and related pressures rose. The gas in the wells depicted in the movie Gasland was gas seeping in from coal seems and had nothing to do with drilling and fracking in the area but that wasn't sensational enough so the producers didn't bother to research or document that. Again, the gas is chemically different from gas from down deep but the EPA or the producer was never interested in finding the problem but more interested in depicting the industry as being the villain and them as the hero. EPA is totally out of control and a quick google search will show how many cases they have repeatedly lost since this administration came into office in state, federal, and even at supreme court.

Casing integrity is a problem in any sort of well. We have issues in Florida with water wells that were not properly cased and allow for blending of aquifers which pollutes fresh water aquifers with higher salinity content aquifers. In the oil and gas industry, poorly cemented liners due to bad workmanship can cause problems but the industry is much better now than they were even 5 years ago. This has nothing to do with fracking but is part of any well drilling operation.

Fracking chemical composition has changed considerably in the last couple of years as the science progresses. Many companies now use entirely organic contents and if you do a search, you can find videos of CEO's and others drinking the fracking fluid as it is not harmful going down. When it comes back up is a different story and the industry is like any other industry when it comes to addressing the backflow. There are some that are very good at it and others that are careless. Ideally, it goes directly into a pipeline and is disposed of through a deep injection well that is several miles deep. These same injection wells also dispose of the saltwater that often comes up with the oil.

The use of large tanks to capture the backflow is a much better option than open pits and is becoming more economical as more of the industry incorporates the practice and tank designs and mobility are improved. There is also a whole cottage indsutry growing around using ozone and other processes to treat the backflow and then recycle it for use in the next well. As pad drilling becomes more the norm (multiple wells drilled from one "pad") it becomes even more economical to utilize tanks to capture, treat, and recycle the backflow.

Another good article here that posted yesterday with a good slideshow

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/energy-firms-environmental-groups-agree-tough-new-fracking-standards-1C8975363

Thanks, g8rgr8t. I appreciate your response. It's quite informative. Being a civil engineer and an investor in energy still puts you much closer to it than me--or let me state it differently, I am admittedly not as well informed on this issue as I am on others outside my own areas of expertise. I am not convinced, however, that the picture is as rosy over the long term as some make it seem--though I'll admit this sort of energy renaissance has some merit,

You make a compelling argument, at least in terms of not being so reflexively against fracking or investing in it. The upside to fracking might be terrific, so I'll gladly be wrong if the negative environmental consequences don't materialize. But past is prologue and we are messing with things that may really cause environmental problems, or in some cases, have already. Regardless, I will still worry about the problems; both real and potential. If we learned anything from the BP spill it's that even just one accident can have catastrophic effects and I don't think we've even measured the full extent of that problem.

I didn't see gasland, in fact, I refuse to see it until I am better informed. I am finding that until I read more on an issue, watching documentaries is almost as bad as watching cable news given the one-sidedness of them. That's not to say gasland or any other documentary are just full of lies, but it has a perspective--one that I might eventually share--but I have to do a lot more homework first.

As far as investing and where we go in the future regarding energy, I think one of the best speeches I've heard actually came from Tom Farrell, CEO of Dominion Power. Although this (https://www.dom.com/about/executive-perspective/013111.jsp) isn't exactly the same sppech, he makes quite a few of the same points.

[rpmGator]

Can't put an oil well on the roof and tell Opec to shove it. Energy isn't oil only. If some of you shills had your way, the Hoover Dam would never had been built.

Oil is for transport in this nation, yet they fight like hell to keep alternatives from production of electricity for some odd reason. We are an electric giant if all the tools in our box are used but as you see, some only look at the same solution.

It won't matter if we find the great lakes are made of oil, the industry will still find a way to sell it too us for over three bucks a gallon colluding with our great friends in OPEC.

While fighting like hell to keep competition at bay. What are they afraid of...

[G8trGr8t]

Can't put an oil well on the roof and tell Opec to shove it.



you do realize the electricity isn't being gnerated by oil? Not sure how a solar power system on a roof has anything at all to do with an oil well or opec.

nobody except this administrtion is fighting against coal electricity or nat gas production to power electrical generators.

and you do realize that oil company profits are some of the smallest in the world as a percentage of dollars invested in the company don't you? but please, don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly emotional arguement

[Gatorrick22]

Can't put an oil well on the roof and tell Opec to shove it. Energy isn't oil only. If some of you shills had your way, the Hoover Dam would never had been built.

It the leftists that would never allow for such a magnificent structure to be built today, but why remind you of your obvious projecting.


Oil is for transport in this nation, yet they fight like hell to keep alternatives from production of electricity for some odd reason. We are an electric giant if all the tools in our box are used but as you see, some only look at the same solution.

This is totally untrue.... We fight to keep all of our energy costs as low as possible. We also fight against higher taxes.


It won't matter if we find the great lakes are made of oil, the industry will still find a way to sell it too us for over three bucks a gallon colluding with our great friends in OPEC.

It's our refining capacity that needs updating... More refineries will ultimately bring the price of gas down again.


While fighting like hell to keep competition at bay. What are they afraid of..

What competition? If it weren't for Bo and the liberals we'd have cheap and affordable fuel (gas) right now. But again you project, It's BO that doing all the "killing". His man Chu and the EPA are the ones trying like hell to kill oil, but it's not working. :laugh:

[rpmGator]

I got my views during the Nixon admin thank you. We have bounced from one OPEC meeting to the next OPEC meeting and prices are colluded.
For decades.

Doing things the same way and expeding a different result is what the oil guys tells us to keep doing.

So giving wind power which is a American made growth leader in energy systems keeps oil prices high. How?

No one is trying to kill oil as this nation helps that industry more than any other and your words are dumb at best. Obama is in office DURING this oil glut. To me, Obama is slowing down alternatives and in fact...is YOUR guy as the oil numbers prove.

Natural gas is killing coal, not elected officials. Cheaper is cheaper and why wind is also right behind NG as a growth leader. I was for NG on this board, before you were even on this board. You must have missed my constant point of still no Alaskan natural gas pipeline that was fought against by big oil who has still kept it from happening.

The industry has closed or moved production to export of fuels, yet you think somehow it is the fault of the oil hating fairy that keeps prices high. It is called a business decision for those who have no clue.

The cave man burned anything he could find and now we have those who only support things that burn today in order to make electric. Our water resources can't handle that waste in many parts of our nation and much of our nation is in drought right this minute. So solar and wind that uses no fuel from the commies in Venezuala or your buddy the Arab is a solution, a damn good one.

If an oil well blows up it is a disaster. If a coal mine caves in it is even worse. If a nuke plant breaks it takes years to stop the bleeding. If we have a day with lots of sunshine, it is a great day at the beach whi;e producing clean energy and using none of our water supply.

Maybe solar has its own set of virtues including being one of the few ways a person can make his home independent of government and the wire that controls you.

In fact you use solar energy every day Einstein. You phone when you call out of nation and Direct tv are powered in space with solar. Invented by Nasa in this nation long before you it remains an increasing option to oil only.

Oil is doing quite well right now, as always, yet those that want only oil are fools who place all of us at risk of another meeting of OPEC. If our industry used our oil products here only, that wouldn't be the case but they will drain the gas from their momma's car, to sell it to the highest bidder in other nations.

Those who profit on oil continue to want to rid this nation of any competion that does not come from an oil company. Sorry, but I have had this same argument since the 1970's and you haven't said anything other than what I heard back then.

[G8trGr8t]

guys like yourself loving the Arabs and guys like Chavez.





the oil "glut" in the center of the country is due to lack of infrastructure to move it around and antiquidated jones act rules that prevent us from using tankers to move oil from gulf coast to east and west coast refineries. north america still does not produce enough to satisfy our own demand, otherwise we would not still be importing oil from opec. and the oil production ramp up is in spite of, not because of 0 and his overzealous idealistic epa chief jackson

and rpm, we didn't have several hundred trillion cubc feet of nat gas at our disposal in 1970 nor did we have natural gas engines capable of running trains, big rigs, taxis, busses, fire trucks, garbage trucks, etc. in case you haven't noticed a few things have changed.

and coal powered electricity costs are up due to the capital put into the plants to comply with the epa nazis. as nat gas gets t0 $4, coal power becomes cheaper, even when paying the epa nazis their tax

and oil companies have one of the lowest rates of return among any major industry..and oil in the us is among the cheapest oil anywhere that isn't subsidizing it with state coffers. EU pays $120 per barrel while we are paying $95 so apparently our oil companies aren't gouging us so bad after all

[G8trGr8t]

As groundbreaking on these projects gets under way, the dividends from the energy boom will flow even further – to construction companies, engineering firms, materials and equipment suppliers and lenders who help finance the projects.

That, in turn, will help shore up state and federal budgets. The added revenue – from income taxes on new jobs created, corporate taxes on added oil and gas profits and state and federal royalty payments – could top $2.5 trillion through 2035, according to IHS Global Insight.

Though prices at the gas pump have remained stubbornly high -- primarily because stepped-up U.S. production makes up relatively small percentage of the global supply, which drives oil prices -- American households are also getting a big break on the lower cost of natural gas and electricity. Larson, the IHS economist, estimated that the energy “dividend” amounts to about $1,000 a year per household and will double by 2035.

“It’s a fairly substantial return of wealth to the American consumer," he said.

Increased U.S. oil and natural gas production also promises to help rebalance the long-running trade gaps that have weakened the dollar. If the U.S. moves from a net importer to a net exporter of energy over the next decade, as some experts project, oil will flip from being a source of trade deficits to an important contributor on the positive side of the ledger. With China’s energy-hungry economy expected to continue to rely on imported oil, some analysts believe Beijing may soon begin swapping its huge pile of U.S. Treasury bonds for barrels of West Texas crude.


Finally, transportation bottlenecks have already slowed the distribution of new energy supplies and could further slow future expansion. Expanding the existing pipeline network, which was planned and constructed decades ago, long before new drilling techniques rewrote the U.S. energy map, is already raising safety and environmental concerns.

The most visible controversy – construction of the proposed $7 billion Keystone pipeline through the nation’s heartland – could be the opening round of ongoing local battles over the build-out of the network required to get new supplies of oil and natural gas from producer to consumer.

“We imported natural gas this winter to the Northeast because we don’t have the capacity yet to move the gas where we need it,” said Larson. “As a country, we need to address the issue of how we develop the infrastructure we need to enable this energy to flow to where it’s needed.”

Amazing that they paid $16 to import what they could buy for $4 because we do not have the pipelines to get the US nat gas to the NE.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/economywatch/energy-boom-begins-ripple-through-us-economy-1C8877092?ocid=msnhp&pos=1

[gatorev12]

The article mentioning China trading back US Treasuries for future oil shipments would be a win-win for both countries...and demonstrating why we should continue to invest money in renewables too.

A smart, coherent energy policy would develop both renewables and non-renewables. The more energy we get from wind, solar, and tidal energy sources, the more oil and natural gas we can devote to transportation (wherein there still don't exist many great alternatives to oil or natural gas). Obviously, renewables aren't competitive with fossil fuels right now...but with greater investments in technology (and especially in finding reliable and efficient ways of storing energy when generation is high, but usage is low), it could well mean significant national savings down the road.