Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Reuters: U.S. to overtake Saudi as top oil producer: IEA


visionary

Recommended Posts

Wouldn't it still be sky high because oil is traded with the dollar on the open commodity markets?

Not as sky high w/o it , and there is always the option of forbidding export if needed

options are nice

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh BS. It is one of the few things President Bush can take credit for (Heck and not even much credit). President Obama has, is, and will continue to do everything he can to throw chairs in front of this. And don't bother denying it, everyone on this board including his backers know this (including you), yet you'll bend yourselves into pretzels saying it isn't so.

Bush can certainly take credit for it. However, the idea that Obama has done everything possible to obstruct it is not even close to true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ANYBODY that thinks that we need to go back to a Bush-like era of "approval' of drilling is just dumb.

You might as well as not even pretend to be making the oil companies go through an approval process.

AND if we are going to give Bush credit, I'm curious as to what he did OTHER than allow the approval process to be completely corrupted and run in a completely incompetent manner (and Obama wasn't any better when he first took over).

Obama HAS put in a robust system of review that is STILL able to approve applications relatively quickly:

"(Bloomberg) The Obama administration has issued this year the most deep-water oil-drilling permits for the Gulf of Mexico since 2007 as high crude prices revive exploration slowed by the 2010 BP Oil spill."

http://gcaptain.com/update-gulf-mexico-deepwater-drilling/

---------- Post added November-13th-2012 at 07:19 PM ----------

Not as sky high w/o it , and there is always the option of forbidding export if needed

options are nice

Is there any reason that will do any good. When we used price controls before, they simply quit drilling here. They took the long view.

I also recently heard there is actually substantial oppostion to the Keystone pipeline from the smaller drillers in the US. They see it as essentially a US subsidy to foreign competition, even if its Canadian.

Have you heard that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any reason that will do any good. When we used price controls before, they simply quit drilling here. They took the long view.

I also recently heard there is actually substantial oppostion to the Keystone pipeline from the smaller drillers in the US. They see it as essentially a US subsidy to foreign competition, even if its Canadian.

Have you heard that?

You betcha...it removes the need for most of the strategic reserve which is a nice chunk of change

I did not mention price controls, simply export control if needed

I'm rather familiar with the opposition to Canadian oil and agree that we would be better served developing our own....AND expanding refinery capacity somewhere other than my backyard(we are putting too many eggs in one basket)

but to do more domestic drilling and refining(other than Texas) the feds and other states are going (to have to )change

the deepwater and other concessions tend to be too high priced for smaller drillers ,and we hurt ourselves(while creating Big Oil monopolies) by our own foolishness

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/11/09/anti-drilling-obama-shuts-down-1-6-million-acres-of-federal-land-for-oil-shale-development/

Just two days after President Obama’s re-election, the Obama Interior Department announced a plan to shut down 1.6 million acres of federal land to oil shale development. The land had originally been slated for drilling under President George W. Bush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You betcha...it removes the need for most of the strategic reserve which is a nice chunk of change

I did not mention price controls, simply export control if needed

Your logic leads to the same net affect though.

If they can't export it, prices will come down because there will more oil here.

Maybe they will do the samething they did when we put in price controls. They'll simply not drill as much here so that supply from here drops.

Put their resources into drilling other places, import the oil, and then charge us more becuase internal supply has dropped.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANYBODY that thinks that we need to go back to a Bush-like era of "approval' of drilling is just dumb.

You might as well as not even pretend to be making the oil companies go through an approval process.

AND if we are going to give Bush credit, I'm curious as to what he did OTHER than allow the approval process to be completely corrupted and run in a completely incompetent manner (and Obama wasn't any better when he first took over).

Obama HAS put in a robust system of review that is STILL able to approve applications relatively quickly:

"(Bloomberg) The Obama administration has issued this year the most deep-water oil-drilling permits for the Gulf of Mexico since 2007 as high crude prices revive exploration slowed by the 2010 BP Oil spill."

http://gcaptain.com/update-gulf-mexico-deepwater-drilling/

---------- Post added November-13th-2012 at 07:19 PM ----------

Is there any reason that will do any good. When we used price controls before, they simply quit drilling here. They took the long view.

I also recently heard there is actually substantial oppostion to the Keystone pipeline from the smaller drillers in the US. They see it as essentially a US subsidy to foreign competition, even if its Canadian.

Have you heard that?

I'm Dumb. I want the Shale oil and Gas drilled on Federal land and used for 700billion in exports.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your logic leads to the same net affect though.

If they can't export it, prices will come down because there will more oil here.

.

No, I said use export control only in emergencies w/o price controls(other than normal anti-gouging limits),,,doing so ensures domestic supply UNLESS the imports drop the price to undercut it

at least we agree supply reduces price

Link to post
Share on other sites

Denmark hit it's 200 megawatt goal 8 years yearly. Germany gets 1/3 of it's power from solar and is already up 50% in production this year. They'll be 100% wind and sun in no time.

WTF can't America dig in and make the changes to lead the world in this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the Gov't sponsors Green energy companies, but then doesn't buy their equipment and make themselves(Govt) grid efficient and set the example.

And then the Green company fails and we have nothing to show for it but debt. Lose/Lose

though: The United States produced enough electricity from wind in the 12 month period before July 2012 to power over 11 million US households annually[4] or meet the total energy demands of the Netherlands.[5]

There were 10,312 MW across 30 states under construction in the second quarter of 2012 and 8,430 MW across 30 states and territories under construction in the third quarter of 2012, with less than 100 MW of new construction.[1] The U.S. Department of Energy’s report 20% Wind Energy by 2030 envisioned that wind power could supply 20% of all U.S. electricity, which included a contribution of 4% from offshore wind power.

Not too shabby...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-solar-subsidies-to-remain-high-with-consumers-paying-the-price-a-842595.html

Photovoltaics are threatening to become the costliest mistake in the history of German energy policy. Photovoltaic power plant operators and homeowners with solar panels on their rooftops are expected to pocket around €9 billion ($11.3 billion) this year, yet they contribute barely 4 percent of the country's power supply, and only erratically at that.

When night falls, all solar modules go offline in one fell swoop; in the winter, they barely generate power during the daytime. During the summer, meanwhile, they sometimes generate too much power around midday, without enough storage capacity to capture it all. The distribution network is also not laid out in a way that would allow the country's thousands of owners of photovoltaic arrays -- a term used to denote an installation of several panels working together -- to feed into the grid as well as draw power from it.

To keep the lights on, Germany ends up importing nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic. Grid operator Tennet even resorted to tapping an aging fossil fuel-fired power plant in Austria to compensate for shortages in solar power.

,,,

Other green energy technologies have the opposite economics. For the same amount of money, wind power produces about five times more energy than solar power. Hydropower generates six times more, and even biomass power plants are three times as effective as solar power.

This means photovoltaics' contribution to protecting the climate is correspondingly negligible, as calculations by Magdeburg-based environmental economist Joachim Weimann show. To save one ton of CO2, Weimann explains, we could either spend €5 on insulating an old building, €20 as investment in a new gas-fired power plant, or around €500 on photovoltaic arrays. The benefit to the climate is the same in all those scenarios. "From a climate standpoint, every solar plant is a bad investment," Weimann concludes.

add

btw KB Germany does not get a 1/3 of it's power from solar,and not anywhere close to that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn from their mistakes.

http://mashable.com/2012/11/13/obama-solar-power-germany/

Astonishingly, the Germans are ambivalent over whether or not to phase out their “Feed-In Tariff” policy, wherein private citizens can actually make money with their solar power production by feeding it back into the power grid. This appears to be in response to the efforts of the great career contrarian Bjorn Lomborg.

Thanks to the German naysayers and Chinese market dominance, a wave of consolidation is sweeping across Germany’s “solar valley” in Bitterfeld. The solar panel industry is suffering. But a new manufacturing method, referred to as “oven technology,” is set to level the playing field by using fewer raw material.

The German solar industry is a model for those of us in sunnier climes. If they can have success in producing new records for solar power production every year, just imagine what the southern U.S could do. If the federal government follows California’s lead in funding innovation and subsidizing the still fledgling industry, we could abandon the damaging practices of fossil fuel extraction plaguing the countryside.

Instead of swapping one polluting industry (coal mining) for another (gas fracking) we could harness sustainable energy. We could simply take the $46 billion in fossil fuel subsidies that President Obama is promising to get rid of and put them into this domestic industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your logic leads to the same net affect though.

If they can't export it, prices will come down because there will more oil here.

Maybe they will do the samething they did when we put in price controls. They'll simply not drill as much here so that supply from here drops.

Put their resources into drilling other places, import the oil, and then charge us more becuase internal supply has dropped.

You mean, the oil companies might manipulate the market, to maximize their profits?

---------- Post added November-14th-2012 at 09:11 AM ----------

so you want the highest electricity bill in the world?

If you would actually quote somebody, it would make it easier for people to tell which post you're trying to avoid discussing by ignoring the post and making things up, instead.

Just a suggestion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would actually quote somebody, it would make it easier for people to tell which post you're trying to avoid discussing by ignoring the post and making things up, instead.

Just a suggestion.

KB seemed to have no trouble following....and Germany has one of the highest elect rates in the world...Google it if you wish

that's a suggestion...while you are at it look up what % solar generates in Germany(hint, ALL renewables there are only about 25% of generation)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm Dumb. I want the Shale oil and Gas drilled on Federal land and used for 700billion in exports.

Shale oil is DRILLED now.

Extraction isn't, BUT extraction hasn't been done anywhere commercially yet, and Obama is talking about opening up federal lands to allow people to try.

---------- Post added November-14th-2012 at 12:08 PM ----------

No, I said use export control only in emergencies w/o price controls(other than normal anti-gouging limits),,,doing so ensures domestic supply UNLESS the imports drop the price to undercut it

at least we agree supply reduces price

Or the people that are doing the US production stop doing the production causing domestic supply to go up and the imports to become cost comptitive or even advantagous even at higher prices.

Which is EXACTLY what happened during the OPEC embargo when people tried to institute price controls on US produced oil. The oil companies simply drastically cut back US production.

Locally (in time and space), I think demand and supply can be an issue because of issues with ease/cost of transprotation and things like that. I think on the global market they are essentially irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shale oil is DRILLED now.

Extraction isn't, BUT extraction hasn't been done anywhere commercially yet, and Obama is talking about opening up federal lands to allow people to try.

---------- Post added November-14th-2012 at 12:08 PM ----------

Or the people that are doing the US production stop doing the production causing domestic supply to go up and the imports to become cost comptitive or even advantagous even at higher prices.

Which is EXACTLY what happened during the OPEC embargo when people tried to institute price controls on US produced oil. The oil companies simply drastically cut back US production.

Locally (in time and space), I think demand and supply can be an issue because of issues with ease/cost of transprotation and things like that. I think on the global market they are essentially irrelevant.

There are different types of shale oil, we certainly are extracting it right now,what you are likely referring to is oil shale which used to require mining to extract(as canada does with oil sands)

The “in situ” mining will allow oil extraction w/o traditional mining

as to the other, how would stopping production here cause supply to go up?

I in no way support price controls other than gouging in emergencies

Link to post
Share on other sites
as to the other, how would stopping production here cause supply to go up?

I in no way support price controls other than gouging in emergencies

Sorry, typo DOWN not up.

Can't export it so that local prices are lower than international prices. Stop domestic production causing local supply to decrease and prices to go up, making it imports economically feasiable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems pretty obvious to me that he's referring to the price of domestic supply to go up, . . .

But I agree, he didn't say that.

that is logical, but you counter that with expanded opportunity( shallowwater and land based drilling allows smaller operators to get in the game)

if you allow it to be profitable ,and increase potential suppliers,true market forces work

If foreign countries can sell it to us cheaper I have no objection.

add

Peter , both price controls and limiting export are bad Ideas except for short term emergencies

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

I assume that is the same as this one discussed?

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay677672_20130624_Contaminated_Home_Wells_Found_Near_Pa__Fracking_Site__Study.html

 

no fracking fluid,just elevated gas levels .....it is a interesting question why those are different despite strict regs

perhaps along a natural fault?

 

 

Jackson argues that flaws in the concrete seal would allow gas to migrate while still preventing leakage of fracking fluid. He also noted that his team has researched potential well contamination from fracking in five states, most recently from the Fayetteville shale formation in Arkansas. His team believes faulty well construction is involved in Pennsylvania because other locations have revealed no contamination at all. "We don't see any evidence of contamination in the homes there," he said of the Arkansas study. "We don't see the same problems everywhere we look." 
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/health/HealthDay677672_20130624_Contaminated_Home_Wells_Found_Near_Pa__Fracking_Site__Study.html#yv8xcmV9kCumtq5W.99

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...