Oil, Gas carry economy- preventing recession.

[there4eyeM]

"Tar sand oil is kinda like Ethanol takes about as much energy to extract it as it provides."

Not very good, no, but it isn't taking the food out of the mouth of starving people.

 

[flacaltenn]

Every heterodoxical view is 'liberal' to certain very limited minds.

The math of energy consumption is inexorable.

If we really wanted to do something audacious for the country, its children and the future (if one believes in 'the future'), then there would be serious work on developing the alternatives to fosil fuel dependence.

left...liberal...tossed around as if they were defined terms and that they were necessarily evil...

It is a deformed fist than cannot unfold to an open palm.

THat was even more eloquent.. However my patience with folks suggesting "alternatives" had plum run out.. You like Geothermal? How about Biomass? Maybe some more Hydro?

Whatchagot besides prose??

 

[there4eyeM]

"my patience with folks suggesting "alternatives" had plum run out.. You like Geothermal? How about Biomass? Maybe some more Hydro?"

Yes, these hold promise.

There are many exciting possibilities on large and small scales. I've seen a proposal to build vast solar arrays in the Sahara to store energy and ship it to Europe, enough to supply all the electricity. There are projects to use circulation of seawater to generate electricity by thermal differences. Solar panels already work well (despite the propaganda to the contrary) and provide good local alternatives. Economy of energy use alone would contribute enormously. America uses fifty percent more electricity than Europe. Can that be necessary?

Today, there is too much dependence on one solution (fossil fuels) being used everywhere and to an unsafe extent. Many solutions in many areas, as appropriate, would make us less dependent and vulnerable. But, Exxon would not be making over a thousand dollars net per second.

 

[oldernwiser]

We have had high gasoline prices in the past, but not with the concurrent flurry of exploration and drilling activity that we see today. New technologies and innovations have spurred the Bakken and Marecllus plays in particular, and to a lesser extent dozens of other projects across the country.

Industry is spending hard dollars on manpower and materials, employing tens of thousands of otherwise unemployed people, and increasing domestic supplies of gas and liquids. Why do you think North Dakota's unemployment is at a measley 3%?

Obama's response? Pull over $40 billion dollars from the people who are keeping his sad-ass economy from collapse. It's the way of the Liberal- punish success, reward lathargy.

Obama budget eliminates $40 billion in oil tax breaks

The Obama administration's fiscal 2013 budget proposal strips away nearly $40 billion in tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies, saying the incentives cost taxpayers too much money and do little to spur energy development, a report said.

Obama budget eliminates $40 billion in oil tax breaks

And, the oil producers are raking in record annual profits at the same time - simply because domestic oil is about the same price as the foreign market. This isn't an industry which will close and go somewhere else if they don't get good tax breaks. Let the consumers pay for the oil and not the government.

 

[Mr. H.]

We have had high gasoline prices in the past, but not with the concurrent flurry of exploration and drilling activity that we see today. New technologies and innovations have spurred the Bakken and Marecllus plays in particular, and to a lesser extent dozens of other projects across the country.

Industry is spending hard dollars on manpower and materials, employing tens of thousands of otherwise unemployed people, and increasing domestic supplies of gas and liquids. Why do you think North Dakota's unemployment is at a measley 3%?

Obama's response? Pull over $40 billion dollars from the people who are keeping his sad-ass economy from collapse. It's the way of the Liberal- punish success, reward lathargy.

Obama budget eliminates $40 billion in oil tax breaks

The Obama administration's fiscal 2013 budget proposal strips away nearly $40 billion in tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies, saying the incentives cost taxpayers too much money and do little to spur energy development, a report said.

Obama budget eliminates $40 billion in oil tax breaks

And, the oil producers are raking in record annual profits at the same time - simply because domestic oil is about the same price as the foreign market. This isn't an industry which will close and go somewhere else if they don't get good tax breaks. Let the consumers pay for the oil and not the government.

Au contraire, mon frere. Domestic crudes are priced according to localized market conditions. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) is a "benchmark" price for most of the nation's oil, yet for example- Illinois Basin crude is priced $8.40 below WTI. Additionally, WTI is priced about $15 below Brent (a world "benchmark" price). So you see U.S. oil is priced almost $25 below world crudes.

Regarding profits- oil and gas companies reinvest nearly 100% of their revenues right back into exploration, development, and production. And these are independent companies- not the multinational conglomerates. Over 90% of O&G E&P is performed by Independents.

And yes, these smaller independent companies have survived numerous downturns in the market (remember $10 oil in 1999?) because of tax provisions that are afforded every other manufacturing industry.

 

[flacaltenn]

"my patience with folks suggesting "alternatives" had plum run out.. You like Geothermal? How about Biomass? Maybe some more Hydro?"

Yes, these hold promise.

There are many exciting possibilities on large and small scales. I've seen a proposal to build vast solar arrays in the Sahara to store energy and ship it to Europe, enough to supply all the electricity. There are projects to use circulation of seawater to generate electricity by thermal differences. Solar panels already work well (despite the propaganda to the contrary) and provide good local alternatives. Economy of energy use alone would contribute enormously. America uses fifty percent more electricity than Europe. Can that be necessary?

Today, there is too much dependence on one solution (fossil fuels) being used everywhere and to an unsafe extent. Many solutions in many areas, as appropriate, would make us less dependent and vulnerable. But, Exxon would not be making over a thousand dollars net per second.

Whoa whoa whoa -- before we get on to wind & solar -- You LIKE Geothermal, Biomass, and Hydro?????

Geothermal is a dirty mining operation with FAR MORE enviro negatives than fracking or drilling.. Not recommended by the Sierra Club and others..

Biomass is burning crap. Literally an incinerator... How come this is CLean and coal is not? Lots of hype and lies here..

Hydro has been ditched by most reputable enviro groups for the obvious reasons of interfering with water life, destroying habitat and GENERATING CO2.

Think you need to check your premises on these 3 before we go into your other misconceptions..

 

[there4eyeM]

Premises checked and re-affirmed.
It did not say, "repeat the mistake we made with fossil fuels by doing the same thing everywhere regardless of whether it is appropriate or not."
It said promise. These sources of energy may well have their place.
Wood burning for heat can be ecologically very sound and improve forests in certain instances. Not L.A.
There are appropriate ways to use the others, of course.
The really interesting thing is that despite how much it would be in the nation's interest to seriously pursue safe alternatives, it isn't being seriously done (meaning, like how serious the US was about getting to the Moon, only this time much more important) except by 'little' people.
You know, the ones who invented steam engines and such.

 

[flacaltenn]

Premises checked and re-affirmed.
It did not say, "repeat the mistake we made with fossil fuels by doing the same thing everywhere regardless of whether it is appropriate or not."
It said promise. These sources of energy may well have their place.
Wood burning for heat can be ecologically very sound and improve forests in certain instances. Not L.A.
There are appropriate ways to use the others, of course.
The really interesting thing is that despite how much it would be in the nation's interest to seriously pursue safe alternatives, it isn't being seriously done (meaning, like how serious the US was about getting to the Moon, only this time much more important) except by 'little' people.
You know, the ones who invented steam engines and such.

And like I said -- My patience with energy policy based on hope and fairy dust has plum run out. MOST of your list of solutions are hype and enviromental fraud. Like Geothermal and Biomass for instance. I have complete threads on these in the Enviro Forum..

Please correct me in those threads if think I missed the "promise" parts...

 

[there4eyeM]

That's how America lost WWII, by not gearing up and producing what was necessary to a brighter future.

Oops, no, my mistake. It didn't lose!

 

[flacaltenn]

That's how America lost WWII, by not gearing up and producing what was necessary to a brighter future.

Oops, no, my mistake. It didn't lose!

Thought you wanted to discuss energy, not history.. And really what you're selling in that last post is more fairy dust and magic. Not an energy plan.. THe list of so-called Green Alternatives is a LONG TERM failure. And many of those on the list are refuted by many enviros like myself. I'm not lacking spirit.. I'm mad about the waste of time and deceptions that have been perpetrated. Time to get on to real engineering and development..

Tell me how great and useful Biomass, Geothermal and Hydro are.. And how they are so clean and will heal the Earth.. Give me a plan. They are MATURE technologies, we've spent BILLIONS on development. How much more HYDRO should we build out tomorrow?

 

[there4eyeM]

Hydro is in place and has a place. Are you not reading what I said?
Nukes are what are in place that pose enormous problems, but short term certain of those could be used for a while.
It is way past time to turn to new energies. There is enough for everyone at reasonable levels. American consumption rates are totally unrealistic and can not be used as a standard.
Standard of living itself has become a nearly useless term, as what Americans have and how much they consume has little to do with what they would need to have a happy, peaceful, healthy life.

 

[flacaltenn]

I HAVE been reading what you say. You had a post alluding to WWII, a post alledging that hydro, biomass and geothermal were promising, and now you want to "turn to new energies"..

Are you uncertain as to why I'm confused about your plan?

If we're gonna charge 4Mill EVehicles from the grid -- we need MORE energy -- not less thru conservation. Hydro being "in place" doesn't answer the question of where future energy are gonna come from..

YOU -- might want to live like an explorer in Antarctica -- I don't. And the purpose of this thread was to demonstrate one way to reduce our dependency on foreign energy and create domestic jobs.

You got anything to contribute along those lines?

There ARE no true alternatives that can be put on the electrical grid to create reliable energy 24/7/365 AND are environmentally better at the same time. We need engineering and a plan. Not platitudes.

 

[there4eyeM]

"There ARE no true alternatives that can be put on the electrical grid to create reliable energy 24/7/365 AND are environmentally better at the same time. "

Very limited thinking involved here and resembles strongly sheer anti-alternative propaganda.

Gross exaggeration of position and possibility reveal the true intent.

America is too inventive, industrious and original to remain so constricted and dictated to by a literal power élite.

 

[eraser2000]

pretty sad to think but, I could see that. I mean, we don't make anything anymore...

 

[flacaltenn]

"There ARE no true alternatives that can be put on the electrical grid to create reliable energy 24/7/365 AND are environmentally better at the same time. "

Very limited thinking involved here and resembles strongly sheer anti-alternative propaganda.

Gross exaggeration of position and possibility reveal the true intent.

America is too inventive, industrious and original to remain so constricted and dictated to by a literal power élite.

I don't know why you assume I'm the "limited" thinker here. Or that what I'm telling you is "anti-alternative propaganda"?

Let's try to figure out why you're upset with me..

Did you know that Geothermal is a dirty mining operation? Won't repeat all that here.
I've put my notes on USMB several times.. Like http://www.usmessageboard.com/3800739-post25.html

Were you aware that Biomass plants operate almost exactly like coal plants and that in most places where they've been deemed green -- the econauts that helped created them now HATE them? Did a whole THREAD on that one ----- http://www.usmessageboard.com/5381279-post1.html

Please Please read those links and comment if I misrepresented ANYTHING or messed up with an opinion -- rather than facts..

I've been studying "alternatives" for over 15 years.. My favorite board topic. Only problem is they don't exist. There are some interesting "Supplements" for making electricity, but most of that list are actually very very BAD ecological ideas.

Like flooding Millions of acres of China for hydro generation. Thus guaranteeing MASSIVE impact on life and CO2 releases for a couple centuries.. Have you ever seen a daily production chart for a large wind farm? Do you know how spikey and unreliable the output is?


Sorry if I'm the messenger -- but you've been lied to by thousands of parrots repeating the mantra of "alternatives"... Much like when people find out that $Trills have been stolen from the Soc Sec "TrustFund" and unlike what they've been told -- there's nothing of value in there.. The first person they lash out at is the messenger..

There's nothing of REAL tangible value here either.. It's sad -0- but it's true...

 

[Samson]

"There ARE no true alternatives that can be put on the electrical grid to create reliable energy 24/7/365 AND are environmentally better at the same time. "

Very limited thinking involved here and resembles strongly sheer anti-alternative propaganda.

Gross exaggeration of position and possibility reveal the true intent.

America is too inventive, industrious and original to remain so constricted and dictated to by a literal power élite.

So, um......what are the alternatives.....

 

[flacaltenn]

"There ARE no true alternatives that can be put on the electrical grid to create reliable energy 24/7/365 AND are environmentally better at the same time. "

Very limited thinking involved here and resembles strongly sheer anti-alternative propaganda.

Gross exaggeration of position and possibility reveal the true intent.

America is too inventive, industrious and original to remain so constricted and dictated to by a literal power élite.

So, um......what are the alternatives.....

Hey!! PSSSST! You're part of the of the literal power elite.. If they give their plan to a member of the elite -- a unicorn dies...

 

[Mr. H.]

This thread is about crude oil and natural gas, not "alternatives".

 

[Mr. H.]

Premises checked and re-affirmed.
It did not say, "repeat the mistake we made with fossil fuels by doing the same thing everywhere regardless of whether it is appropriate or not."
It said promise. These sources of energy may well have their place.
Wood burning for heat can be ecologically very sound and improve forests in certain instances. Not L.A.
There are appropriate ways to use the others, of course.
The really interesting thing is that despite how much it would be in the nation's interest to seriously pursue safe alternatives, it isn't being seriously done (meaning, like how serious the US was about getting to the Moon, only this time much more important) except by 'little' people.
You know, the ones who invented steam engines and such.

We "made a mistake" with fossil fuels? How so?

 

[Mr. H.]

America's Energy Seen Adding 3.6 Million Jobs Along With 3% GDP - Yahoo! Finance

It's a harbinger of a nationwide investment boom spreading from the oil fields of North Dakota and the Marcellus gas shale in Pennsylvania to power plants in California and chemical refiners in Texas. A surge in U.S. natural gas development has spurred $226 billion in spending plans on pipelines, storage, processing facilities and power plants, most slated for the next five years, according to Industrial Info Resources, a market- intelligence provider in Sugar Land, Texas.