Zero Only Takes 3 Days To Show Americans How Gullible They Are —- All Of The Above

image

$@#%#!@$!@%#^&$^#!@  Power outage.  Wow, I just realized how boring things are in the middle of the night without electricity.   Sorry about not being available for the conversation.  I was busy earlier, and when I finally got time the power went out.  At any rate …….

Well, it isn’t as if the idiots weren’t told.  From The Hill

Interior proposal would limit commercial oil shale development on federal lands

The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.

Oil shale development is not to be confused with drilling into shale formations for oil and natural gas.

Reid Porter, the lobby’s spokesman, said Friday’s news was a disappointing sign from the administration.
“This is another step in the wrong direction that limits development and investment in one of the nation’s most energy-rich areas and goes against a prior government decision that would allow for research and development over a much wider geographical area. Just days after the election this decision by the administration sends negative signals to industry and capital markets at a time when we need to encourage growth and innovation in the U.S.,” Porter said in a statement to The Hill.

In true Orwellian fashion, cue the current administration……

The administration noted the plan pushed forward Friday also included two research, development and demonstration (RD&D) leases for oil shale development.

“The proposed plan supports the Administration’s all-of-the-above approach to explore the full potential our nation’s domestic energy resources and to develop innovative technology and techniques that will lead to safe and responsible production of resources, including oil shale and tar sands, which industry recognizes are years from being commercially viable, but require RD&D today,” Interior spokesman Blake Androff said.

Someone needs to alert our neighbors to the north!  Someone needs to tell them their tar sand oil isn’t commercially viable!!!! 

More technically correct tar sands are bituminous sands.  The Alberta oil sands have been in commercial production since the original Great Canadian Oil Sands (now Suncor Energy) mine began operation in 1967.

Shale oil is slightly different.  In 2008, China led production with 470 million liters (ML), followed by Estonia (445 ML) and Brazil (250 ML).  That’s an awful lot of oil for some pinhead to say it isn’t commercially viable. 

So, we really have a member of the department of interior that doesn’t know both shale oil and tar sand oil have been commercially viable for years now?  Or, is this part an parcel of the continuing Obama misinformation campaign? 

h/t Kim

Originally from Junk Science

This entry was posted in Energy, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to Zero Only Takes 3 Days To Show Americans How Gullible They Are —- All Of The Above

  1. kelly liddle says:

    So long as the best prospects are unlocked I would actually say that keeping the rest for later is probably a good idea. I assume exploration permits are auctioned off so to auction them off now would get no or very little money. The government should treat this as a business. If it is permanently locked up then what I just said does not apply.

    • DirkH says:

      “So long as the best prospects are unlocked I would actually say that keeping the rest for later is probably a good idea.”

      In a market economy this happens automatically, as the price determines which resources can be economically produced. So Obama would not have to meddle with it if that’s what he wanted. He wants to block it completely.

      My interpretation is that he wants to please Putin, the Chicoms and the MB, in other words, he knowingly works against the interests of the American people.

    • Gator says:

      Hey! Let’s nationalize food and sequester it until the prices go up, more tax revenue for Big Brother! 😉

      • kelly liddle says:

        Gator
        It is not nationalising, it is already a national asset. As it is your asset do you want it sold no matter what price? I don’t like when my governments sell things for less than there optimal value.

        • Gator says:

          Witholding energy assets drives up the price on EVERYTHING ELSE, so that personal wealth is eroded, fatally stupid. I prefer to do what makes sense instead of following agendas.

      • kelly liddle says:

        You already have government controlled food unlike Aus. School lunches and farm subsidies.

      • kelly liddle says:

        Thinking about it a little more. You also have “food stamps” ethanol subsidies and strict quotas on imported foods such as sugar. Beef will effectively become freetrade in the AUSFTA in 2023. Food and its markets are heavily regulated in the US. Maybe can’t call it nationalisation but is not a free market by any stretch of imagination.

        Oil can’t be exported from the US so even if it makes economic sense for Alaska not to send there oil to US mainland they are forced to. If my comments amount to nationalisation then what do you have now?

        • gator69 says:

          Simple. What you propose, as shown above, is STUPID.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Gator Do you mean my suggestion that You The People should get every dollar you are entitled to is stupid? This is actually an entitlement as you are the owner.

        • gator69 says:

          If someone wants to give their personal wealth away, that is their choice. Forcing me to give mine away at the point of a gun is robbery. Dress it up all you like, with state sanctioned procedures, it is still robbery.

        • gator69 says:

          “Gator Do you mean my suggestion that You The People should get every dollar you are entitled to is stupid? This is actually an entitlement as you are the owner.”

          I am entitled to cheap energy.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Gator
          I am a bit confused by your last statement. If your federal government gives away the hydrocarbon resources for nothing isn’t that forcing you to lose wealth or is it ok because it is not your personal wealth and instead you would prefer you are taxed more? You have heaps of state sanctioned procedures and some of them are likely to lower the price the government can obtain for that asset ( I am talking about needing licenses to sell the product to anyone, in particular).

        • kelly liddle says:

          “I am entitled to cheap energy.”
          In that case you agree with the companies being restricted to selling the energy they have extracted to you (at the point of a gun) at potentially a much lower price than they may get on the free market. I would suggest you are entitled to buy energy in the free market so long as monopoly behaviour is considered.

        • gator69 says:

          Obviously logic is not you strong suit. What you propose erodes personal wealth, which weakens our economy. If you do not understand this, noone can help you.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Gator
          You seem to be suggesting the status quo is ok where companies are forced to sell things cheaply to you even the minerals extracted on private land. You also seem to be suggesting that there should be a one off fire sale of all mineral assets owned by your federal government. Currently the sale of leases would provide a steady and mostly increasing income stream but you just want all the money now and you trust your federal government to invest that small amount of money wisely. This will not happen that is logical thinking.

        • gator69 says:

          You are making less sense with each successive post. If I am forced to pay double for my energy, I have no money for travel, eating out, entertainment, new products, etc… That means the folks who HAD jobs at those businesses are now out of work and no longer contributing to society. In fact they would then be a drain our national wealth. It aint rocket science, unless you are not able to reason on your own.

        • kelly liddle says:

          “If I am forced to pay double for my energy”

          Are you suggesting that your current rules distort the market maybe up to 50% (oil or natural gas not electricity as I think you do have distortions up to that level depending on the state you live in). If this could be true then you are making some oil men much much poorer. How about you just pay the free market rate. Stopping someone from acting in the free market will be a much larger drain on your country. Even one of our Aussie lefties (Minister for Resources and Energy) agrees with this principle. How endemic is socialism in your country if even the righties in the US are to the left of Australian lefties on certain issues? Yes you should be “forced to pay the market rate” whatever that might be. Notable countries like Saudi Arabia (and other middle eastern countries) Venezeula, Indonesia and Russia suppress or have suppressed local fuel prices, so you like being in such a club? The principle is at stake here and unless you live in Alaska or in a region that has major natural gas resources it is unlikely to make you poorer as oil is mostly determined by the international price as you are an importer for the forseeable future. The current protectionist policies for energy users most likely are pushing the price of natural gas down in the US.

        • Gator says:

          Now you are just bleating. It is noise at this piont.

  2. miked1947 says:

    Say one thing to get elected then do the opposite after the election.
    It did not take long for this Zebra to show his true stripes.

  3. leftinbrooklyn says:

    ‘So, we really have a member of the department of interior that doesn’t know both shale oil and tar sand oil have been commercially viable for years now?’

    You must have forgotten the new definition of ‘commercially viable’: If it doesn’t lead to more CAGW, & doesn’t cause a lizard any further frustration during it’s hunt for food. The R&D will certainly find those to be the case.

  4. DirkH says:

    Obamistas want firing people to be made illegal.
    http://twitchy.com/2012/11/09/former-harry-reid-senior-advisor-murray-energy-ceos-layoff-prayer-grotesque/
    “Kelly O. Sullivan @KellyOSullivan

    Unconscionable. Should be illegal. | Real Class Warfare: Murray Energy Fires 156 Employees After Obama Victory: bobcesca.com/blog-archives/…

  5. DirkH says:

    kelly liddle says:
    November 11, 2012 at 9:36 am
    “Gator
    You seem to be suggesting the status quo is ok where companies are forced to sell things cheaply to you even the minerals extracted on private land. ”

    Kelly, it is COMPETITION that “forces” companies to sell their product cheaply. Are you now complaining about competition and the low prices it has as consequence? Karl Marx posited that capitalism is doomed because competition nixes the profits of companies. Do you agree with him? Would you want the government to fix that, for instance by mandating high minimum prices for food, energy, water and housing? We could save water by making it prohibitively expensive! Think of the children!

  6. DirkH says:

    gator69 says:
    November 11, 2012 at 9:43 am
    “If I am forced to pay double for my energy, I have no money for travel, eating out, entertainment, new products, etc… That means the folks who HAD jobs at those businesses are now out of work and no longer contributing to society.”

    Exactly, and this is currently happening; the lay off wave is gathering steam. We will see company collapses, and less competition and a higher price level as a result. At a certain level it will stabilize – at which point there will be far less employment, far higher prices, less competition, higher profits for the surviving companies, overall less economic activity – much of the economic activity happening now will no more be viable – higher taxes to feed the newly unemployment.

    It is a selection process. The state will take ownership of or subsidize the companies of its cronies to help them survive this wave of destruction, this will become another drain of the public purse.

    It’s The Great Purge.

    • Gator says:

      Hey Dirk! What Kelly doesn’t know, is that my energy prices have already doubled, once, in the past 4 years. I have stopped taking vacations, I have stopped going out to eat, I have stopped buying anything other than necessities, I have stopped going to concerts, movies, or anywhere at all, in order to keep what I have. And it’s not just me, the house down the hill sat empty after its owners lost their jobs, and the property owner to my west has stopped all spending other than necessities. Healthcare costs have about doubled, food is going upward, materials have skyrocketed to the point I had to stop building my roadhouse.

      Energy costs drive all other costs. We have enough resources for hundreds of years and by then we will have found better ways to produce energy, so keeping it in the ground makes ZERO sense, as it may be virtually worthless someday.

      Cheap energy now will ensure a brighter future for the coming generations, as they will not be strapped with the extra debt this unnecessary tax on everything will incur.

      • DirkH says:

        Gator says:
        November 11, 2012 at 10:24 am
        “Energy costs drive all other costs. We have enough resources for hundreds of years and by then we will have found better ways to produce energy, so keeping it in the ground makes ZERO sense, as it may be virtually worthless someday.”

        Exactly. The market price at any given time determines what should or should not be extracted.

        This might be interesting for Kelly.
        http://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Home/homepage_node_en.html
        (Energy resources for 1,500 years globally, as estimated by German Federal Institute for Geosciences. The institute is usually derided by our Green public media as “industry-friendly”. Raping Gaia and all that. Not something that our journalists can tolerate.)

      • kelly liddle says:

        Gator if you are talking about gasoline the price is determined by the international market. The lowering of your dollar has contributed greatly to increases in gasoline prices along with propping up substandard refineries (if this happened in your state then you are paying taxes to prop it up). In Aus refineries are shutting all the time (partly due to our carbon tax I believe and also due to high construction costs to build new refineries)

        Your point about possible energy breakthroughs is a valid one but it is not a certainty and at the moment fossil fuels are the most competitive. About 1% of normal dirt is uranium and if this can be extracted using a small amount of energy then energy is virtually unlimited. This energy can be used to make hydrocarbons if need be.

  7. DirkH says:

    kelly liddle says:
    November 11, 2012 at 10:20 am
    “The current protectionist policies for energy users most likely are pushing the price of natural gas down in the US.”

    No; a vast increase in the supply of shale gas has made the price come down.

    • kelly liddle says:

      And a limited market to sell it to. The price of natural gas in Aus is much higher due to the competition of buyers. We export the stuff.

      • DirkH says:

        You need LNG terminals to export the stuff. They don’t just fall from the sky. Before the shale gas boom, the US had no reason to build them.

        • kelly liddle says:

          Yes no doubt but in Aus we only need environmental approvals not approvals to export it. In a free market the price would rise even before the export terminals are built like it has done in Queensland (currently in the process). There is great uncertainty in the US whether or not natural gas will ever get an export permit from the mainland. It is expected that Alaska will get them.

        • DirkH says:

          Under Obama it makes no sense, as he would take bribes that eat all your profits (see the BP shakedown after the Macondo well incident).

        • DirkH says:

          An Obama crony might get the cake, though. Or a state-owned or expropriated company. Like in Venezuela.

  8. suyts says:

    Why does the US govt. own so much land? If the US doesn’t completely shut down all of the oil and gas extraction, then the US will eventually export. We have too much not to. But, this has to be demonstrated by supplies before it become politically viable.

    The US, by halving the land available, is costing itself revenue. As mentioned before, the US has enough oil to significantly alter the price on the global markets and can do so for hundreds of years. There’s no reason to “save it for later”.

    • kelly liddle says:

      Suyts
      First of all sorry for hijacking the thread but I blame Gator and Dirk for responding to me LOL.

      About how much land a government should own I don’t know but the other point in your first paragraph is probably true given Gator is essentially conservative but on this issue is like you a bit protectionist at times. So politically this might be the way it has to be done. As the US was the largest producer years ago and has a large land area rich in nonconvential hydrocarbons I do believe that US could be the largest producer again one day.

      The US definately has enough in volume to affect the world price (don’t know about hundreds of years though) but the price of extraction might make that impossible. The price at which permits can be auctioned at now could very significantly increase should extraction be shown to be viable and this revenue could be much more than the ongoing revenue from royalties and normal income taxes. There are some examples of people buying coal exploration leases from state governments in Aus for maybe a million or 2 and then selling them for hundreds of millions after only drilling a hole or 2 showing what was already known along with price increases in the commodity.

      • suyts says:

        Kelly, if cost of the leases exceed the royalties and tax revenue, then the price of oil would be significantly impacted by the cost of the lease. This in turn has an adverse effect on our national economy. Currently, (the last I saw) the extraction costs of shale oil comes in at about $70/barrel. If, by the lease price, the cost increases much more, it won’t be economically viable to extract it. Meaning we will have chosen to sit on our resources as opposed to putting them to use.

        The idea is to put people back to work and start making this a prosperous nation once again.

        • kelly liddle says:

          The cost of the lease will go up or down according to the oil price and predicted oil price not the other way. Your argument is essentially that releasing land faster and forcing production would be a good idea. Maybe that is true and if Obama was correct in one of his debates he is doing this with the use it or lose it on leases. It is a very difficult area as no one can predict the future. Maybe fossil hydrocarbons will still be a major energy source in 100 years or maybe every oil field will have closed as algae or something else will be cheaper.

        • suyts says:

          Kelly, this isn’t a “use it or lose it” scenario, this is a you’ve never had the leases and you never will scenario.

        • DirkH says:

          “Maybe that is true and if Obama was correct in one of his debates he is doing this with the use it or lose it on leases.”

          Obama probably doesn’t even remember what he promised.

          He’s off golfing.

        • kelly liddle says:

          “this is a you’ve never had the leases and you never will scenario”

          Suyts
          I don’t know about that but if you look at my first comment last sentence then that is my reply. But even so I think this discussion has been worth while.

        • suyts says:

          Yes, it’s a good discussion!

      • cdquarles says:

        We will never run out of oil and other hydrocarbons as long as there is carbonate in the ground and living things around to help recycle them. We do not know how much oil and gas there is in the US. What we do know that we have (not counting stuff locked up by stupid governments) will last for several hundred years. There is enough oil and gas available *right now* *IF* the government state and federal got out of the way to double our nearly 10 million bpd oil/gas equivalent, of which some 6million bpd is oil and 4million bpd is gas equivalent oil. That’s just the US. The same thing applies to most of the rest of the world.

        • kelly liddle says:

          “IF* the government state and federal got out of the way”

          One very major part of getting out of the way I am arguing is to allow exports without any permit. This will give the natural gas companies certainty that they can recieve a world market price less transport costs and increase investment. The US is actually number one in non-conventional gas extraction in my opinion. Quite like the idea of Aus not having US competition in the gas market so great if you keep it all to yourselves.

  9. DirkH says:

    It looks like the US does export refined petroleum and NatGas to a significant extent.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
    Crude oil – production:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    9.023 million bbl/day (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 4
    Crude oil – exports:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    43,800 bbl/day (2009 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 46
    Crude oil – imports:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    9.013 million bbl/day (2009 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 2
    Crude oil – proved reserves:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    20.68 billion bbl (1 January 2012 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 14
    Refined petroleum products – production:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    17.88 million bbl/day (2009 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 2
    Refined petroleum products – consumption:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    18.84 million bbl/day (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 2
    Refined petroleum products – exports:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    1.876 million bbl/day (2009 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 4
    Refined petroleum products – imports:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    1.255 million bbl/day (2009 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 5
    Natural gas – production:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    651.3 billion cu m (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 3
    Natural gas – consumption:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    689.9 billion cu m (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 2
    Natural gas – exports:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    42.67 billion cu m (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 9
    Natural gas – imports:
    Field info displayed for all countries in alpha order.
    97.86 billion cu m (2011 est.)
    country comparison to the world: 4

    • kelly liddle says:

      Yes they are major players but I am guessing that most of these things are offsets eg. same company importing and exporting. With refined products it is often about the type of fuel with the US importing gasoline and exporting diesel both to or from Europe and the seasonal changes with heating oil (which include diesel from memory) and driving season. The US is a net exporter of refined products.

      • DirkH says:

        Yes, there will surely be seasonal fluctuations that explain a lot of the import/export business, and also differences between the two coasts – the left coast should import more, the Gulf area export more.

      • cdquarles says:

        US heating oil, which is a declining market, is a bit heavier molecular weight and a bit higher distillation temperature than diesel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s