This administration's Green policies and how they affect Oil/Nat-Gas/Coal...

[Stephen Cue]

Just what I said - a geologist for an oil company usually has a pretty good idea how the oil market works. I know geologists for oil companies and none of them would say something that stupid unless they were being sarcastic. I'd like to know who he works for and what his position is.

LOL, I have no issues admitting I have no working knowledge of the oil market. I dont know which part you are referring to as stupid. Are we not producing record amounts of domestic oil?

Or was it the Bastard socialist hero part?

or both?

 

[RidgeHunter]

LOL, I have no issues admitting I have no working knowledge of the oil market. I dont know which part was stupid. Are we not producing record amounts of domestic oil?

Or was it the Bastard socialist hero part?

or both?

Yeah, all of it. We are on track to become the biggest producing nation, but that's the only part that makes sense. Oil is sold on the global market and increased domestic production has precious little to do with prices. OPEC countries still have a huge influence and if the price drops OPEC cuts production. Non-OPEC countries increasing production can influence prices, but the U.S. ain't the only non-OPEC producer. They ain't gonna keep up. U.S. production, even with recent increases, is a drop in the bucket of global oil production.

The U.S. became a net exporter of petroleum products last year. Think about why something like that would happen.

Chart U.S. production and gas (or even crude) prices over time and you can't even find a correlation between the two. If there was, prices would have increased after the '86 oil glut - not decreased. Domestic production fell by more than 30% during this time.

"Drill baby drill" and politicians acting as if they can enact policy which means cheaper gas prices is about the stupidest thing in American political dialogue. Increased domestic production is a good thing - especially for states like us - because it provides a load of high-paying jobs and contributes to the economy. But it does crap for prices. Funny enough, high global prices are one of the main contributors to increased production. They don't produce oil for fun. They produce it for money.

 

[Stephen Cue]

I found this from the Wallstreet Journal. Aside from partisan hate, and predicting $50 barrel, I not sure why a Geologist would not say what he said.

Ridge, pm me if you'd rather take it off public and Ill give you some info you were curious about.

Don’t Expect Lower Oil Prices Even as U.S. Output Surges

Don’t Expect Lower Oil Prices Even as U.S. Output Surges.ByBen Casselman
The U.S. is set to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest oil producer. But don’t expect that to translate into lower prices at the pump.

The International Energy Agency on Monday said the U.S. is on track to become the world’s biggest oil producer by 2020. By 2035, the agency said in its annual World Energy Outlook, the U.S. could get close to the elusive goal of energy independence, at least when it comes to oil.

But oil prices, the IEA said, will continue to rise, hitting $125 per barrel in inflation-adjusted terms - more than $215 per barrel in nominal terms - by 2035. U.S. consumers, the agency makes clear, won’t be shielded from those price increases, even if the country doesn’t import a drop of foreign oil.

Why doesn’t more production mean lower prices? Two reasons: supply and demand.

Oil is a global commodity. What matters for prices is total supply and total demand - not where the oil is produced or consumed. That means that even if the U.S. relied only on domestically produced oil, prices would still be dictated by global market forces.

In terms of supply, politicians tend to distinguish between foreign and domestic oil. But for prices, a different distinction is more important: OPEC and non-OPEC.

OPEC is a cartel, meaning its members collude to try to keep prices high. When prices start to fall, OPEC countries agree to cut back on production in order limit global oil supplies, pushing prices back up. Higher prices, however, induce more drilling in countries outside of OPEC, such as the U.S., which limits OPEC’s influence. The more of the world’s production that comes from outside of OPEC’s clutches, the harder it is for the cartel to control prices.

Increased domestic oil production, then, matters mostly because it adds to non-OPEC oil supply. The trouble is that even as the U.S. is pumping more oil, many other countries are pumping less. The IEA expects a surge in non-OPEC production this decade due to newly tapped deep-water and shale resources in the U.S., Canada and Brazil, but after that the world will rely increasingly on oil from OPEC countries, especially Iraq.

The other half of the equation is demand. The U.S. and other western countries are using less oil due to improved fuel efficiency, increased use of renewable fuels and other factors. But soaring demand in China and other developing countries more than offsets that decline. The IEA expects global oil demand to hit 99.7 million barrels per day in 2035, up from 87.4 million barrels per day in 2011.

If the IEA is right, the equation is simple: More demand plus less (non-OPEC) supply equals higher prices. But higher prices aren’t inevitable. Under an alternative scenario looked at by the IEA in which countries adopt policies to limit consumption of oil and other fossil fuels, prices would stay flat or even fall over the next two decades.

 

[Stephen Cue]

... ... ...

LOL, I was posting that article, that pretty much said the same thing you did, before I seen this.

 

[farmerbyron]

He also said gas prices will not go down though until after the oil companies recoup "expenditures". Whatever that means

Oh yeah, he also said it was "pure American oil industry ingenuity" that is responsible for this alleged future oil surplus.

I would imagine he is referring to this. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-03/growing-u-dot-s-dot-energy-supply-alters-political-debate-bgov-insight

Thanks largely to a technology called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” U.S. crude oil production increased almost 11 percent from 2006 to 2011, and is at its highest level since 1998.

The increased production certainly has nothing to do with a favorable energy policy from the white house.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/16/picket-flashback-oil-drilling-permits-down-36-perc/

Oil drilling permits down 36 percent under Obama

....Governor Romney shot back, saying: "Oil production is is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters."

....The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Obama's Interior Department just banned drilling on 11.5 million acres of petroleum reserve.

....The problem is almost no one in the energy industry and few in Alaska agree with him. In an August 22 letter to Mr. Salazar, the entire Alaska delegation in Congress—Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young—call it "the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades." This decision, they add, "will cause serious harm to the economy and energy security of the United States, as well as to the state of Alaska." Mr. Begich is a Democrat.

....When the president says he is opening up millions of acres for drilling exploration in the United States, Cavuto says you might want to thank the previous presidents instead, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. According to the Bureau of Land Management, the current administration has actually decreased approval of drilling permits by 36 percent. Even under Bill Clinton, his administration increased the approval of drilling permits by 58 percent, and George W. Bush increased approval by 116 percent.

 

[freeranger]

Food for thought when it comes to drilling on federal land vs private/state land.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/09/24/u-s-oil-production-up-but-on-whose-lands-2/

 

[dennishoddy]

I guess y'all missed this. Let me bring it up again.

Coal....He wants to change regulations for coal plants that will make it almost impossible to meet emission limits.
Example: Install expensive air scrubbers to meet the limits or stop production or pay a "pollution" tax-called : credits...meaning the increased expensive will go to the consumer. Yet, install unprofitable air turbines?? Not just Obama...more of an EPA regulation.


EPA: Run by Lisa Jackson who was appointed by Obama. More and more regulation on the oil and gas industry, which means costly restrictions. Mobile emissions(cars) are not meeting ozone standards, in turn gas pumps will have the vapor recovery nozzle....if ozone standards are not met here in Oklahoma...get ready...ALL gasoline will have at least 10 percent ethonol...NO MORE "real" gas stations.

So, here in Okie land...restrict the oil companies and don't even inspect cars?? Yet, its coming. Just like Houston....when your pulled over by the cops...they can check for moving violations and air violations....they stick an air monitor up your tailpipe...out of compliance=fine.


I know he/EPA tried to kill the keystone pipeline, maybe it has passed....maybe it hasn't...we still have four more years....wait and see.

I know he/EPA wants to attack farmers...dust tax, gas tax, production tax.


Trust me, even before Obama, what the EPA tried to do in Houston might become a reality....enforcement is another question.

Houston several years ago tired to limit when you mowed you grass(early morning/late at night), truckers could not idle their trucks over 30 minutes when parked, there were others...I can't remember right now. All in the name of clean air.


I want a healthy environment but I don't want to destroy industry. What got me about Houston...restrict Houston with air regulations and let Mexico pollute the land, Gulf, and air...then blow over to the U.S. side and do nothing but grin.

The EPA can restrict business "environmentally" to the point...they move to Mexico. Look at Fender guitars in California, the American made ones are made in America, shipped to Mexico, sprayed painted and stained, laquered, then shipped back to the U.S. for assembly.


I really can't state anymore without going into detail.....at least not yet....I don't want to overstep my bounds and get into trouble. Yes, everyone knows that I'm an Environmental Scientist. I will state this: Know your State and Federal Representatives phone numbers and emails. As always, when taxes and restrictions are imposed they are all but impossible to get rid of. When a company moves, closes, or lays off people....what does it take to return to normal??

In parting, keep your eyes and ears open on Obama but more on the EPA. They have become as powerful as the IRS and when they enact a rule or restriction who has the resources to fight them? Listen to business people, oil companies, farmers and others controlled and regulated by the EPA....what they are starting to say is no joke. I'm not a conspiracy, nut-job, whack-o type person but future "restrictions" must be presented to our State and Federal leaders attention...if it matters anymore.



All I can say, I may have said to much, I try to keep my mouth closed on the internet.



Cohiba

 

[inactive]

I guess y'all missed this. Let me bring it up again.

When I saw that much text from Cohiba, I just figured he was still drunk from yesterday's big Texans win and ranting some nonsense.

 

[ez bake]

I would imagine he is referring to this. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-03/growing-u-dot-s-dot-energy-supply-alters-political-debate-bgov-insight




The increased production certainly has nothing to do with a favorable energy policy from the white house.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/16/picket-flashback-oil-drilling-permits-down-36-perc/

Oil drilling permits down 36 percent under Obama

This is sort of the point of this entire thread.

- Obama Hates Oil (I don't know that this is true, but it certainly seems as if his lobbyists do)

- Obama's Administration has generated tons of regulations (this certainly seems true - even if Bush's administration also passed a ton of 'em)

- These regulations are detrimental to the energy-producing industries (OK - sure, I'll agree to that point as well)

But somehow, Oil production is up, they're making record profits (or at least were for 3 1/2 years under the big O), so how bad is it really affecting the Energy industry? Clearly there is a paradox with Oil, so everyone goes right to Coal - but are we really ignoring the fact that with newly discovered Fracking techniques and oil surplus... that the free market might actually be what's damaging the Coal industry and not the EPA?

I've looked at a lot of the regulations (thanks Shadowrider), but I guess the really difficult part is equating how much a regulation actually affects the industry (I can't believe I'm saying this, but RickN posted one of the most level-headed articles in this thread - it's a good read and states that the problem is much more complicated than a few sound bites).

My real reason for posting all of these "truth behind" threads is to educate myself as well as others and prevent this repeating of talking points without really thinking about what we're saying.

Think about it - the GOP had a very tired, unbelievable message that was almost a culmination of bull$#!+... and it cost 'em the election folks.
The next 4 years are just as much the fault of the GOP for pumping out talking-points that were so far off that they were essentially wild lying accusations. People got tired of it and as bad as Obama was, his lies sounded better.

Now let's get to the bottom of this EPA stuff...

 

[shooterdave]

Huge NG reserves and NG prices dropping too stupid low prices have more to do with coal plant closures than looming EPA regulations. Can anyone tell the class how much NG was in 2006? What about 2012? Profitability drives the energy industry, people.

$10-12 per thousand cu/ft in 2006
$2-275 per thousand cu/ft in 2012

Based on these figures, I've lost roughly a half mil in the past six years.