US energy production growing, consumption down

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your link doesn't have data for 2012 and again production means the rate of production. Do you think the EIA only makes annual reports or production has to mean annual production? I gave you the right link and all you had to do is switch to monthly:

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)

Crude oil production is at an 18 year high, so get use to it. Natural gas production is the highest it's been and the prices are very low.

Obama has been better for the oil and gas industry than Bush was and that's a fact.

Now, consider all the bitching about coal! There are regulations in the future that are going to shutdown some power plants that have bad emissions. A coal fired boiler can be changed to natural gas without that much difficulty. That means we don't have to continue having mercury and arsenic pollution. Have you ever checked how much sulfur some of those power plants emit? The reductions in coal fired power plants have been going on for sometime, but during that time coal production has been at it's historic highs, with minor fluctuation based on exports.

You wingnuts might see a President against the energy industry, but the evidence doesn't show it and since when have you ever gotten something right?

Coal exports seem to be doing fine

Your link doesn't have data for 2012 and again production means the rate of production. Do you think the EIA only makes annual reports or production has to mean annual production?

It does have the 2012 data, you just have to click on the monthly button, instead of the annual button.
When you compare less than 4 years of production to 8 years of production, what are you discussing? I understood that to mean 4 years of totals versus 8 years of totals.

If you want to change your claim to say we produce more now than we did during Bush's presidency, on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis, you should leave off the word years.

Crude oil production is at an 18 year high, so get use to it.

That's a good thing. It would be higher if he stopped hindering production.

Obama has been better for the oil and gas industry than Bush was and that's a fact.

LOL! How do you figure that?

You wingnuts might see a President against the energy industry

He's only against energy that makes sense, like oil and natural gas. When it come to budget busting subsidies for losers like solar and wind, he's on board!

and since when have you ever gotten something right?

Plenty, starting when I predicted Obama would be as big a failure in DC as he was here in Chicago.

You don't understand anything or you would have the sense to know anything you say is suspect. The monthly figures for crude production end in Oct 2012 and you have to go back to Dec 1993 to find higher production. Natural gas is at record production and coal is near record production and fluctuates with exports. It's been that way even though coal fired electricity production has been declining for a long time.

You wingnuts act like someone not giving away public resources to the rich is against the industries, when he has done more than you clowns.

I've pointed out twice how as we were importing bitumen from Canada with the Keystone Pipeline, we have been exporting gasoline that matches the amount of barrels. That all happened recently with Obama, so the fact is the Keystone Pipeline hasn't lowered our gasoline prices, but it's allowed Texas refineries to export gasoline. Cushing Oklahoma has had an oil glut and the Keystone project to connect it to the Texas refineries was approved. The only pipeline that wasn't approved was that shortcut across the Ogallala Aquifer. If they were so interested in getting their project approved, why didn't they just follow the original pipeline, where they have already used eminent domain to take the land?

I also noticed you didn't say anything about that pipeline crossing ANWR and speaking of ANWR, why is it smart for us to hand over about a trillion and a half dollars of crude oil to the oil companies? If you owned it on your private land, would you hand it over to them?

There is nothing about Obama that makes him appear to be against the fossil fuel industries, except the crap you right-wingers spew. Obama is very pro-business and you right-wingers are delusional. Obama throughs crumbs to the environmentalists and those projects you have complained about are very important for California electricity production, because of the advances in technology. On wind, Obama and Bush are about the same in their approach. The fact is I don't think Obama had much choice in his pro-business stance, because he inherited an economy you right-wingers trashed.

You don't understand anything or you would have the sense to know anything you say is suspect. The monthly figures for crude production end in Oct 2012

Duh, that's why my post of the annual production figures said,
"The first 10 months of 2012, 1,934,093"

The only pipeline that wasn't approved was that shortcut across the Ogallala Aquifer.

Yeah, because all the other pipelines that criss cross the country have polluted how many aquifers? LOL!

speaking of ANWR, why is it smart for us to hand over about a trillion and a half dollars of crude oil to the oil companies?

Hand it over? How about if we sell it to them?

There is nothing about Obama that makes him appear to be against the fossil fuel industries,

Why has he reduced oil production on Federal lands and offshore?
Why does he want to declare CO2 a pollutant? Require CO2 permits?
Is it because he's for fossil fuels? LOL!

Obama is very pro-business

Stop it, you're killing me!

On wind, Obama and Bush are about the same in their approach.

Obama took the wind stupidity and threw a lot more money at it, stupidly.

those projects you have complained about are very important for California electricity production

Yeah, that's what California needs, more expensive, unreliable generating capacity.

 

[Dubya]

You don't understand anything or you would have the sense to know anything you say is suspect. The monthly figures for crude production end in Oct 2012 and you have to go back to Dec 1993 to find higher production. Natural gas is at record production and coal is near record production and fluctuates with exports. It's been that way even though coal fired electricity production has been declining for a long time.

You wingnuts act like someone not giving away public resources to the rich is against the industries, when he has done more than you clowns.

I've pointed out twice how as we were importing bitumen from Canada with the Keystone Pipeline, we have been exporting gasoline that matches the amount of barrels. That all happened recently with Obama, so the fact is the Keystone Pipeline hasn't lowered our gasoline prices, but it's allowed Texas refineries to export gasoline. Cushing Oklahoma has had an oil glut and the Keystone project to connect it to the Texas refineries was approved. The only pipeline that wasn't approved was that shortcut across the Ogallala Aquifer. If they were so interested in getting their project approved, why didn't they just follow the original pipeline, where they have already used eminent domain to take the land?

I also noticed you didn't say anything about that pipeline crossing ANWR and speaking of ANWR, why is it smart for us to hand over about a trillion and a half dollars of crude oil to the oil companies? If you owned it on your private land, would you hand it over to them?

There is nothing about Obama that makes him appear to be against the fossil fuel industries, except the crap you right-wingers spew. Obama is very pro-business and you right-wingers are delusional. Obama throughs crumbs to the environmentalists and those projects you have complained about are very important for California electricity production, because of the advances in technology. On wind, Obama and Bush are about the same in their approach. The fact is I don't think Obama had much choice in his pro-business stance, because he inherited an economy you right-wingers trashed.

High domestic crude oil production is a good thing. The current phenonemon is absolutely undeniably NOT attributable to Obama or his policies. It's about hydraulic fracturing which Obama and his EPA thugs want buried and done.

Natural gas production is at record levels because of private enterprise, not Obama's Liberal agenda. Obama risks our tax dollars on failed renewable/alternative projects to no avail, while private commerce risks their own dollars in the marketplace.

Keep in mind that Obama's proposed budget contains over $40 billion in taxes on oil and natural gas. How's that for "incentive".

"Handing over" ANWR reserves would net the Federal Treasury untold millions of dollars in lease bonuses and royalties. More money INTO the pocket of the Negro-monkey.

The rest of your post is blathering bullshit and you are one seriously fucked up individual.

More mindless words from the right!

There is an investigation into fracturing causing ground water contamination, but just how to place the interest of that investigation on their shoulders and not the shoulders of the people who had to drink that water?

It's certainly not a quick investigation, is it?

What if it was your family drinking carcinogens, would your opinion of an investigation be any different? Would you be satisfied that the study is taking years?

It's always the same story for a right-winger, they don't care as long as it isn't them.

You want to hand over $1.5 trillion dollars of crude oil for millions of dollar in leases. Why not just hire the same people they hire and sell it to the oil companies at market prices, like they get their crude from overseas?

Give your own shit away to the oil companies and leave the other people's things alone!

 

[Koios]

Only if you do it right. Idiots.

THe goal of fracking is to capture the methane and sell it. Unfortunately the process of fracking often releases substantial fractions (8-18%) of the sequestered methane into surface fissures that allow the methane to seep into groundwater and the atmosphere.

Press Release - Fracking Operations Increase Methane Seepage

New EPA Rules Could Prevent 'Fracking' Backlash - Businessweek

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field

Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas. - Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field : Nature News & Comment

(many more available upon request)

THe goal of fracking is to capture the methane and sell it.

And it seems to be doing just that.

Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas.

That's a shame. I guess we need more coal. And more nukes.

No. Just more nukes. Coal is a clusterfuck, and natural gas ain't much better. Meanwhile renewables are far, far away from meeting our needs.

Nuke power is by far our best option, with minimal greenhouse gas emissions and scales to demand, come rain or shine.

 

[Mr. H.]

You don't understand anything or you would have the sense to know anything you say is suspect. The monthly figures for crude production end in Oct 2012 and you have to go back to Dec 1993 to find higher production. Natural gas is at record production and coal is near record production and fluctuates with exports. It's been that way even though coal fired electricity production has been declining for a long time.

You wingnuts act like someone not giving away public resources to the rich is against the industries, when he has done more than you clowns.

I've pointed out twice how as we were importing bitumen from Canada with the Keystone Pipeline, we have been exporting gasoline that matches the amount of barrels. That all happened recently with Obama, so the fact is the Keystone Pipeline hasn't lowered our gasoline prices, but it's allowed Texas refineries to export gasoline. Cushing Oklahoma has had an oil glut and the Keystone project to connect it to the Texas refineries was approved. The only pipeline that wasn't approved was that shortcut across the Ogallala Aquifer. If they were so interested in getting their project approved, why didn't they just follow the original pipeline, where they have already used eminent domain to take the land?

I also noticed you didn't say anything about that pipeline crossing ANWR and speaking of ANWR, why is it smart for us to hand over about a trillion and a half dollars of crude oil to the oil companies? If you owned it on your private land, would you hand it over to them?

There is nothing about Obama that makes him appear to be against the fossil fuel industries, except the crap you right-wingers spew. Obama is very pro-business and you right-wingers are delusional. Obama throughs crumbs to the environmentalists and those projects you have complained about are very important for California electricity production, because of the advances in technology. On wind, Obama and Bush are about the same in their approach. The fact is I don't think Obama had much choice in his pro-business stance, because he inherited an economy you right-wingers trashed.

High domestic crude oil production is a good thing. The current phenonemon is absolutely undeniably NOT attributable to Obama or his policies. It's about hydraulic fracturing which Obama and his EPA thugs want buried and done.

Natural gas production is at record levels because of private enterprise, not Obama's Liberal agenda. Obama risks our tax dollars on failed renewable/alternative projects to no avail, while private commerce risks their own dollars in the marketplace.

Keep in mind that Obama's proposed budget contains over $40 billion in taxes on oil and natural gas. How's that for "incentive".

"Handing over" ANWR reserves would net the Federal Treasury untold millions of dollars in lease bonuses and royalties. More money INTO the pocket of the Negro-monkey.

The rest of your post is blathering bullshit and you are one seriously fucked up individual.

More mindless words from the right!

There is an investigation into fracturing causing ground water contamination, but just how to place the interest of that investigation on their shoulders and not the shoulders of the people who had to drink that water?

It's certainly not a quick investigation, is it?

What if it was your family drinking carcinogens, would your opinion of an investigation be any different? Would you be satisfied that the study is taking years?

It's always the same story for a right-winger, they don't care as long as it isn't them.

You want to hand over $1.5 trillion dollars of crude oil for millions of dollar in leases. Why not just hire the same people they hire and sell it to the oil companies at market prices, like they get their crude from overseas?

Give your own shit away to the oil companies and leave the other people's things alone!

My family drank cow shit residue. Where was your EPA? Our water well was so polluted with agricultural effluent that the local water district lab demanded that I cease drawing from that well IMMEDIATELY.

Why isn't YOUR groundwater being tested for animal choliforms, pesticides, herbicides, etc.?

Because your Left Wing ass is in bed with agriculture and its mndless drivel from the Left.


No one's families are "drinking carcinogens" from fracturing. But you are obviously drinking kool aid from Left Wing Hollywood propaganda.

It's twisted fucks like you that perpetuate the lies and misinformation that kills true productivity and job creation in this country.

You are a good Obama soldier, comrade.

 

[Dubya]

Your link doesn't have data for 2012 and again production means the rate of production. Do you think the EIA only makes annual reports or production has to mean annual production?

It does have the 2012 data, you just have to click on the monthly button, instead of the annual button.
When you compare less than 4 years of production to 8 years of production, what are you discussing? I understood that to mean 4 years of totals versus 8 years of totals.

If you want to change your claim to say we produce more now than we did during Bush's presidency, on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis, you should leave off the word years.

Crude oil production is at an 18 year high, so get use to it.

That's a good thing. It would be higher if he stopped hindering production.

Obama has been better for the oil and gas industry than Bush was and that's a fact.

LOL! How do you figure that?

You wingnuts might see a President against the energy industry

He's only against energy that makes sense, like oil and natural gas. When it come to budget busting subsidies for losers like solar and wind, he's on board!

and since when have you ever gotten something right?

Plenty, starting when I predicted Obama would be as big a failure in DC as he was here in Chicago.

You don't understand anything or you would have the sense to know anything you say is suspect. The monthly figures for crude production end in Oct 2012 and you have to go back to Dec 1993 to find higher production. Natural gas is at record production and coal is near record production and fluctuates with exports. It's been that way even though coal fired electricity production has been declining for a long time.

You wingnuts act like someone not giving away public resources to the rich is against the industries, when he has done more than you clowns.

I've pointed out twice how as we were importing bitumen from Canada with the Keystone Pipeline, we have been exporting gasoline that matches the amount of barrels. That all happened recently with Obama, so the fact is the Keystone Pipeline hasn't lowered our gasoline prices, but it's allowed Texas refineries to export gasoline. Cushing Oklahoma has had an oil glut and the Keystone project to connect it to the Texas refineries was approved. The only pipeline that wasn't approved was that shortcut across the Ogallala Aquifer. If they were so interested in getting their project approved, why didn't they just follow the original pipeline, where they have already used eminent domain to take the land?

I also noticed you didn't say anything about that pipeline crossing ANWR and speaking of ANWR, why is it smart for us to hand over about a trillion and a half dollars of crude oil to the oil companies? If you owned it on your private land, would you hand it over to them?

There is nothing about Obama that makes him appear to be against the fossil fuel industries, except the crap you right-wingers spew. Obama is very pro-business and you right-wingers are delusional. Obama throughs crumbs to the environmentalists and those projects you have complained about are very important for California electricity production, because of the advances in technology. On wind, Obama and Bush are about the same in their approach. The fact is I don't think Obama had much choice in his pro-business stance, because he inherited an economy you right-wingers trashed.

You don't understand anything or you would have the sense to know anything you say is suspect. The monthly figures for crude production end in Oct 2012

Duh, that's why my post of the annual production figures said,
"The first 10 months of 2012, 1,934,093"

The only pipeline that wasn't approved was that shortcut across the Ogallala Aquifer.

Yeah, because all the other pipelines that criss cross the country have polluted how many aquifers? LOL!

speaking of ANWR, why is it smart for us to hand over about a trillion and a half dollars of crude oil to the oil companies?

Hand it over? How about if we sell it to them?

There is nothing about Obama that makes him appear to be against the fossil fuel industries,

Why has he reduced oil production on Federal lands and offshore?
Why does he want to declare CO2 a pollutant? Require CO2 permits?
Is it because he's for fossil fuels? LOL!

Obama is very pro-business

Stop it, you're killing me!

On wind, Obama and Bush are about the same in their approach.

Obama took the wind stupidity and threw a lot more money at it, stupidly.

those projects you have complained about are very important for California electricity production

Yeah, that's what California needs, more expensive, unreliable generating capacity.

More mindless rhetoric with no facts to back it up! You have the crude oil production for offshore, which isn't for states and that's federal property. Who owns the property where oil is being removed from shale oil by fracking? Prove there is less offshore production, even with the largest oil spill in history. Why did they lease those areas in the Arctic Ocean and Shell can't even get close to the site without major problems.

These are called facts and can be supported by numbers. You can find a map of the areas leased in the Gulf and other offshore areas. I've found the records on leases being auctioned, so why can't you?

It's getting to the point where an investment in solar electricity generation pays for itself in 3 years. That's not expensive and federal land was fast tracked to get it done in the Southwest. There is a boom of solar energy in that area, because the area has few clouds and a market for the electricity. Solar energy also produces during peak load times.

There are figures on wind generation, so why can't you prove your point about when capacity was installed? It's just so much easier to lie about things, isn't it?

The economic reality of the near future is if you want to export to a country, you better not be making too much CO2 or your products will face a carbon tax in that other country. If you know that now, you better do something about it or be like a right-winger too stupid to do business, because he has his head in the sand. To compete on the world market, you have to play by their rules or you don't do business. Businesses understand that and want to expand their markets.

The Ogallala Aquifer is Red State country, very important to agriculture in eight states and they want to build a pipeline across the most important part of it to take a shortcut? They can spend more money and go around it. The aquifer already has enough problems. The Keystone XL is a big project that eventually will even expand to the east to feed refinieries on the east coast. They can go around the aquifer like they did with their first pipeline.

 

[Dubya]

THe goal of fracking is to capture the methane and sell it. Unfortunately the process of fracking often releases substantial fractions (8-18%) of the sequestered methane into surface fissures that allow the methane to seep into groundwater and the atmosphere.

Press Release - Fracking Operations Increase Methane Seepage

New EPA Rules Could Prevent 'Fracking' Backlash - Businessweek

Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing

Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field

Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas. - Air sampling reveals high emissions from gas field : Nature News & Comment

(many more available upon request)

THe goal of fracking is to capture the methane and sell it.

And it seems to be doing just that.

Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas.

That's a shame. I guess we need more coal. And more nukes.

No. Just more nukes. Coal is a clusterfuck, and natural gas ain't much better. Meanwhile renewables are far, far away from meeting our needs.

Nuke power is by far our best option, with minimal greenhouse gas emissions and scales to demand, come rain or shine.

Many countries have Thorium MSR programs in the works and the smart thing would be to band together and get this technology developed as quickly as possible.

 

[Dubya]

High domestic crude oil production is a good thing. The current phenonemon is absolutely undeniably NOT attributable to Obama or his policies. It's about hydraulic fracturing which Obama and his EPA thugs want buried and done.

Natural gas production is at record levels because of private enterprise, not Obama's Liberal agenda. Obama risks our tax dollars on failed renewable/alternative projects to no avail, while private commerce risks their own dollars in the marketplace.

Keep in mind that Obama's proposed budget contains over $40 billion in taxes on oil and natural gas. How's that for "incentive".

"Handing over" ANWR reserves would net the Federal Treasury untold millions of dollars in lease bonuses and royalties. More money INTO the pocket of the Negro-monkey.

The rest of your post is blathering bullshit and you are one seriously fucked up individual.

More mindless words from the right!

There is an investigation into fracturing causing ground water contamination, but just how to place the interest of that investigation on their shoulders and not the shoulders of the people who had to drink that water?

It's certainly not a quick investigation, is it?

What if it was your family drinking carcinogens, would your opinion of an investigation be any different? Would you be satisfied that the study is taking years?

It's always the same story for a right-winger, they don't care as long as it isn't them.

You want to hand over $1.5 trillion dollars of crude oil for millions of dollar in leases. Why not just hire the same people they hire and sell it to the oil companies at market prices, like they get their crude from overseas?

Give your own shit away to the oil companies and leave the other people's things alone!

My family drank cow shit residue. Where was your EPA? Our water well was so polluted with agricultural effluent that the local water district lab demanded that I cease drawing from that well IMMEDIATELY.

Why isn't YOUR groundwater being tested for animal choliforms, pesticides, herbicides, etc.?

Because your Left Wing ass is in bed with agriculture and its mndless drivel from the Left.


No one's families are "drinking carcinogens" from fracturing. But you are obviously drinking kool aid from Left Wing Hollywood propaganda.

It's twisted fucks like you that perpetuate the lies and misinformation that kills true productivity and job creation in this country.

You are a good Obama soldier, comrade.

How would you know if fracking chemicals contaminated groundwater somewhere? Is it impossible because your right-wing fool ass wants it to be that way? There has been a test positive and then inconclusive of fracking chemicals contaminating ground water and other reports in Pennsylvania. There's been an investigation and it seems like it's been going on for a couple years.

Where was the EPA? How did you become smart enough to test your well? Do you think the EPA hires a bunch of people to run around testing things, like everybody's well, so a bunch of people can collect a government paycheck? It only has 17,000 employees and is involved in everything about the environment.

Mercury emissions

In March 2005, nine states (California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Mexico and Vermont) sued the EPA. The EPA's inspector general had determined that the EPA's regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees.[61][62] The EPA had suppressed a study it commissioned by Harvard University which contradicted its position on mercury controls.[63] The suit alleges that the EPA's rule allowing exemption from "maximum available control technology" was illegal, and additionally charged that the EPA's system of pollution credit trading allows power plants to forego reducing mercury emissions.[64] Several states also began to enact their own mercury emission regulations. Illinois's proposed rule would have reduced mercury emissions from power plants by an average of 90% by 2009.[65]

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The EPA really sounds strict when states are suing it because it isn't enforcing laws against power plants.

 

[Koios]

THe goal of fracking is to capture the methane and sell it.

And it seems to be doing just that.

Methane leaks during production may offset climate benefits of natural gas.

That's a shame. I guess we need more coal. And more nukes.

No. Just more nukes. Coal is a clusterfuck, and natural gas ain't much better. Meanwhile renewables are far, far away from meeting our needs.

Nuke power is by far our best option, with minimal greenhouse gas emissions and scales to demand, come rain or shine.

Many countries have Thorium MSR programs in the works and the smart thing would be to band together and get this technology developed as quickly as possible.

Good luck. Would some lights on at night help speed the process by letting folks work late? If so, we have a grid you can tap into, supplied mainly by burning coal.

 

[Dubya]

No. Just more nukes. Coal is a clusterfuck, and natural gas ain't much better. Meanwhile renewables are far, far away from meeting our needs.

Nuke power is by far our best option, with minimal greenhouse gas emissions and scales to demand, come rain or shine.

Many countries have Thorium MSR programs in the works and the smart thing would be to band together and get this technology developed as quickly as possible.

Good luck. Would some lights on at night help speed the process by letting folks work late? If so, we have a grid you can tap into, supplied mainly by burning coal.

I think the thing that would really help would be for these nations with an interest banding together to get it done. Since the United States explored this over 50 years ago, it should also get involved.

These reactors can't meltdown and it's very difficult to get nuclear weapons materials from them. They don't need expensive containment. The man in control of designing our first two types of commercial reactors wanted to switch to thorium, but our government chose the dangerous reactors to get nuclear weapons materials. The thorium program started because they wanted to make a nuclear reactor to power an aircraft.

There are areas like the Deep South that don't have much wind or solar potential and it just isn't practical there. No alternative energy technology will work everywhere, except nuclear.

 

[Koios]

Many countries have Thorium MSR programs in the works and the smart thing would be to band together and get this technology developed as quickly as possible.

Good luck. Would some lights on at night help speed the process by letting folks work late? If so, we have a grid you can tap into, supplied mainly by burning coal.

I think the thing that would really help would be for these nations with an interest banding together to get it done. Since the United States explored this over 50 years ago, it should also get involved.

These reactors can't meltdown and it's very difficult to get nuclear weapons materials from them. They don't need expensive containment. The man in control of designing our first two types of commercial reactors wanted to switch to thorium, but our government chose the dangerous reactors to get nuclear weapons materials. The thorium program started because they wanted to make a nuclear reactor to power an aircraft.

There are areas like the Deep South that don't have much wind or solar potential and it just isn't practical there. No alternative energy technology will work everywhere, except nuclear.

We're letting our fear of nukes send us off into chasing for windmills, and have been for many decades. How's it going?

Germany went full on into alternatives, and has finally conceded they need to scale up nukes.

We have a solution. It's proven and highly evolved, and as safe as any other, including hydro: Nuke power.

 

[Mr. H.]

More mindless words from the right!

There is an investigation into fracturing causing ground water contamination, but just how to place the interest of that investigation on their shoulders and not the shoulders of the people who had to drink that water?

It's certainly not a quick investigation, is it?

What if it was your family drinking carcinogens, would your opinion of an investigation be any different? Would you be satisfied that the study is taking years?

It's always the same story for a right-winger, they don't care as long as it isn't them.

You want to hand over $1.5 trillion dollars of crude oil for millions of dollar in leases. Why not just hire the same people they hire and sell it to the oil companies at market prices, like they get their crude from overseas?

Give your own shit away to the oil companies and leave the other people's things alone!

My family drank cow shit residue. Where was your EPA? Our water well was so polluted with agricultural effluent that the local water district lab demanded that I cease drawing from that well IMMEDIATELY.

Why isn't YOUR groundwater being tested for animal choliforms, pesticides, herbicides, etc.?

Because your Left Wing ass is in bed with agriculture and its mndless drivel from the Left.


No one's families are "drinking carcinogens" from fracturing. But you are obviously drinking kool aid from Left Wing Hollywood propaganda.

It's twisted fucks like you that perpetuate the lies and misinformation that kills true productivity and job creation in this country.

You are a good Obama soldier, comrade.

How would you know if fracking chemicals contaminated groundwater somewhere? Is it impossible because your right-wing fool ass wants it to be that way? There has been a test positive and then inconclusive of fracking chemicals contaminating ground water and other reports in Pennsylvania. There's been an investigation and it seems like it's been going on for a couple years.

Where was the EPA? How did you become smart enough to test your well? Do you think the EPA hires a bunch of people to run around testing things, like everybody's well, so a bunch of people can collect a government paycheck? It only has 17,000 employees and is involved in everything about the environment.

Mercury emissions

In March 2005, nine states (California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Mexico and Vermont) sued the EPA. The EPA's inspector general had determined that the EPA's regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees.[61][62] The EPA had suppressed a study it commissioned by Harvard University which contradicted its position on mercury controls.[63] The suit alleges that the EPA's rule allowing exemption from "maximum available control technology" was illegal, and additionally charged that the EPA's system of pollution credit trading allows power plants to forego reducing mercury emissions.[64] Several states also began to enact their own mercury emission regulations. Illinois's proposed rule would have reduced mercury emissions from power plants by an average of 90% by 2009.[65]

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The EPA really sounds strict when states are suing it because it isn't enforcing laws against power plants.

I took a sample from our well and sent it to the local water district lab, you idiot.

My point is, fresh water contamination from H.F. is not a big issue but a contrived crisis propagated by anti-drilling zealots such as yourself.

 

[Trakar]

Good luck. Would some lights on at night help speed the process by letting folks work late? If so, we have a grid you can tap into, supplied mainly by burning coal.

I think the thing that would really help would be for these nations with an interest banding together to get it done. Since the United States explored this over 50 years ago, it should also get involved.

These reactors can't meltdown and it's very difficult to get nuclear weapons materials from them. They don't need expensive containment. The man in control of designing our first two types of commercial reactors wanted to switch to thorium, but our government chose the dangerous reactors to get nuclear weapons materials. The thorium program started because they wanted to make a nuclear reactor to power an aircraft.

There are areas like the Deep South that don't have much wind or solar potential and it just isn't practical there. No alternative energy technology will work everywhere, except nuclear.

We're letting our fear of nukes send us off into chasing for windmills, and have been for many decades. How's it going?

Germany went full on into alternatives, and has finally conceded they need to scale up nukes.

We have a solution. It's proven and highly evolved, and as safe as any other, including hydro: Nuke power.

Well, there are apparently many areas where we have differing understandings, but I certainly agree that advanced nuclear power systems should be playing a major and potentially increasing role in our national energy policies. It may be better to have a quasi-governmental organization in charge of that power sector, but by all means lets push for a good power source that is largely being shunned by PR instead of facts.

 

[Dubya]

My family drank cow shit residue. Where was your EPA? Our water well was so polluted with agricultural effluent that the local water district lab demanded that I cease drawing from that well IMMEDIATELY.

Why isn't YOUR groundwater being tested for animal choliforms, pesticides, herbicides, etc.?

Because your Left Wing ass is in bed with agriculture and its mndless drivel from the Left.


No one's families are "drinking carcinogens" from fracturing. But you are obviously drinking kool aid from Left Wing Hollywood propaganda.

It's twisted fucks like you that perpetuate the lies and misinformation that kills true productivity and job creation in this country.

You are a good Obama soldier, comrade.

How would you know if fracking chemicals contaminated groundwater somewhere? Is it impossible because your right-wing fool ass wants it to be that way? There has been a test positive and then inconclusive of fracking chemicals contaminating ground water and other reports in Pennsylvania. There's been an investigation and it seems like it's been going on for a couple years.

Where was the EPA? How did you become smart enough to test your well? Do you think the EPA hires a bunch of people to run around testing things, like everybody's well, so a bunch of people can collect a government paycheck? It only has 17,000 employees and is involved in everything about the environment.

Mercury emissions

In March 2005, nine states (California, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maine, Connecticut, New Mexico and Vermont) sued the EPA. The EPA's inspector general had determined that the EPA's regulation of mercury emissions did not follow the Clean Air Act, and that the regulations were influenced by top political appointees.[61][62] The EPA had suppressed a study it commissioned by Harvard University which contradicted its position on mercury controls.[63] The suit alleges that the EPA's rule allowing exemption from "maximum available control technology" was illegal, and additionally charged that the EPA's system of pollution credit trading allows power plants to forego reducing mercury emissions.[64] Several states also began to enact their own mercury emission regulations. Illinois's proposed rule would have reduced mercury emissions from power plants by an average of 90% by 2009.[65]

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The EPA really sounds strict when states are suing it because it isn't enforcing laws against power plants.

I took a sample from our well and sent it to the local water district lab, you idiot.

My point is, fresh water contamination from H.F. is not a big issue but a contrived crisis propagated by anti-drilling zealots such as yourself.

Why don't you quote where I opposed fracking? That's just more shit a right-winger has made up. If you can't quote where I said, that means you are a liar.

The other point was the EPA doesn't go around testing everyone well.

 

[Dubya]

Good luck. Would some lights on at night help speed the process by letting folks work late? If so, we have a grid you can tap into, supplied mainly by burning coal.

I think the thing that would really help would be for these nations with an interest banding together to get it done. Since the United States explored this over 50 years ago, it should also get involved.

These reactors can't meltdown and it's very difficult to get nuclear weapons materials from them. They don't need expensive containment. The man in control of designing our first two types of commercial reactors wanted to switch to thorium, but our government chose the dangerous reactors to get nuclear weapons materials. The thorium program started because they wanted to make a nuclear reactor to power an aircraft.

There are areas like the Deep South that don't have much wind or solar potential and it just isn't practical there. No alternative energy technology will work everywhere, except nuclear.

We're letting our fear of nukes send us off into chasing for windmills, and have been for many decades. How's it going?

Germany went full on into alternatives, and has finally conceded they need to scale up nukes.

We have a solution. It's proven and highly evolved, and as safe as any other, including hydro: Nuke power.

The present commercial nuclear industry is expensive, dangerous and was designed to make nuclear materials for nuclear weapons, which can't easily be made with U-233. With minimum containment to collect molten radioactive salts, you could shoot a hole in the Thorium MSR reactor and there would very little escape of radioactive materials. That's because Thorium MSRs clean up nuclear wastes and the waste products are regularly removed. You can even use the processes to clean up old nuclear wastes. Thorium MSRs aren't under pressure, like our present reactors, and that's why the reactors don't need expensive containment. The reactors are also smaller, so they use about four reactors to match our present ones. They breed their own nuclear fuel and use a lab to process fuel and clean up nuclear waste products. They are high temperature/atmospheric pressure with a freeze plug at the bottom. If power is lost, there is no power to cool the freeze plug, so the heat makes the reactor material flow into containment areas below. The fuel is diluted and can never get hot enough to meltdown.

Nuclear reactor units only last so long and our present reactors are often shut down because of spent fuel build up. If the world developed Thorium MSR technology and the groundwork has been developed, we could replace the old units with the new technology and clean up the nuclear wastes. Nuclear solutions have the draw back of scale and the economical ones need to be large scale. If an area only needs to add a small amount of generating capacity, the other alternatives would be the best choice, if practical in that area. Once you want to generate an additional capacity in the 250MW range, you could just add another reactor. MSRs are a good solution for generating base load electricity capacity.

Presently, I think grid storage using sodium sulfur batteries is another great solution. We could set up grid storage sites that could store extra electricity and rebuild the batteries in situ. The extra electricity could be used during peak demand periods and the batteries recharged at night. They have built and sold 1MW storage capacity batteries to assist wind turbines.

 

[Mr. H.]

How would you know if fracking chemicals contaminated groundwater somewhere? Is it impossible because your right-wing fool ass wants it to be that way? There has been a test positive and then inconclusive of fracking chemicals contaminating ground water and other reports in Pennsylvania. There's been an investigation and it seems like it's been going on for a couple years.

Where was the EPA? How did you become smart enough to test your well? Do you think the EPA hires a bunch of people to run around testing things, like everybody's well, so a bunch of people can collect a government paycheck? It only has 17,000 employees and is involved in everything about the environment.



Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The EPA really sounds strict when states are suing it because it isn't enforcing laws against power plants.

I took a sample from our well and sent it to the local water district lab, you idiot.

My point is, fresh water contamination from H.F. is not a big issue but a contrived crisis propagated by anti-drilling zealots such as yourself.

Why don't you quote where I opposed fracking? That's just more shit a right-winger has made up. If you can't quote where I said, that means you are a liar.

The other point was the EPA doesn't go around testing everyone well.

*yaaaawn....*

 

[Dubya]

I took a sample from our well and sent it to the local water district lab, you idiot.

My point is, fresh water contamination from H.F. is not a big issue but a contrived crisis propagated by anti-drilling zealots such as yourself.

Why don't you quote where I opposed fracking? That's just more shit a right-winger has made up. If you can't quote where I said, that means you are a liar.

The other point was the EPA doesn't go around testing everyone well.

*yaaaawn....*

That's what you are worth, because you can't discuss anything and say dumbshit.

The EPA is too busy to test your well for cow shit. Thanks to idiots, like you, who make their job harder, they even have to go to court to show why they allow mercury being exposed to their citizens.

It's really simple. You want to kill youself, your family and your neighbors, we can't stop you. We can stop you from slowly killing us.

The EPA has never protected the people of this country to the extent they should be protected. The people in any state have no right to do us harm and the same rules apply to my state.

We've been through the days when someone had a gold strike opportunity, ran up to Alaska, just based on a claim, and destroyed a thousand times more important fishing industry. We learn and you don't.

 

[Mr. H.]

You're wasting your words. You've been written off as a numbskull long ago.

 

[Decus]

Someone here seems proud that oil production under Obama is up. What the person doesn't know is that the process oil lease to exploration to production is often much longer than 4 years.

"Another reason is the time it takes to go from bidding on a lease to producing oil. It can take seven, eight, nine years to do the seismic work, line up the contractors, conduct the exploratory drilling, and then build the infrastructure needed to bring the oil and gas market, he said."
Oil drilling on leases for millions of acres remains idle - Jun. 7, 2011

Is Obama really the reason for increased oil production?

 

[Trakar]

Someone here seems proud that oil production under Obama is up. What the person doesn't know is that the process oil lease to exploration to production is often much longer than 4 years.

"Another reason is the time it takes to go from bidding on a lease to producing oil. It can take seven, eight, nine years to do the seismic work, line up the contractors, conduct the exploratory drilling, and then build the infrastructure needed to bring the oil and gas market, he said."
Oil drilling on leases for millions of acres remains idle - Jun. 7, 2011

Is Obama really the reason for increased oil production?

Well, I am talking mostly about new leases, exploration and development, but, given that he could have suspended and cancelled all leases and rights to resources on federal lands,...yeah, I blame Obama.

 

[Dubya]

Someone here seems proud that oil production under Obama is up. What the person doesn't know is that the process oil lease to exploration to production is often much longer than 4 years.

"Another reason is the time it takes to go from bidding on a lease to producing oil. It can take seven, eight, nine years to do the seismic work, line up the contractors, conduct the exploratory drilling, and then build the infrastructure needed to bring the oil and gas market, he said."
Oil drilling on leases for millions of acres remains idle - Jun. 7, 2011

Is Obama really the reason for increased oil production?

I think I know what's involved in the process; it's just crude oil and not rocket science.

If it's so hard for them, stop giving them resources on public lands or economic zones! Sell it to them at market prices and not a penney on the dollar!