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

[ez bake]

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/coal/index.html?8a


http://www.mrc.org/node/27538

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/b...l-industry-is-under-siege.html?_r=2&ref=coal&

Some interesting links.....

Personally, anecdotally going by watching the market and owning Russian coal stocks, I'd say there's been a perfect storm worldwide of a drop in demand and a push for NG so names like Mechel have been hit hard. Here, I'd imagine it kind of makes the switch a no brainer with the EPA and .gov breathing down your neck.

Here's another question: With all of the EPA's regulations (many of which appear to be silly, though I actually respect Cohiba's opinion on the matter as his career makes him an expert), are any of these regulations against the Coal industry actually merited? Is the Coal industry actually causing enough damage to the environment that they actually need more strict regulations?

Keep in mind that many of us who consider ourselves conversationalists (who spend a great deal of time outdoors hunting/fishing/camping/etc.) don't actually want to destroy the environment despite hating a lot about what the greenies stand for.

 

[Shadowrider]

Here's another one for you.

A position paper on proposed hydraulic fracturing rules. I highlighted some of the more senseless points.

June, 2012

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has proposed a new rule for hydraulic fracturing (fracing) that would
add redundant regulations for oil and natural gas development on federal and Indian lands throughout the
nation, and will particularly discourage investment and job creation in the West. BLM should suspend rule
making until it conducts the thorough economic and federalism analyses required for rules costing society
over $100 million and impacting the relationship between states and the federal government.
Disadvantage Western Public Lands States

• Economics firm John Dunham & Associates conservatively estimates that the rule would impose a cost to
society of between $1.499 billion and $1.615 billion annually, or about $253,000 per new well, in just
thirteen western states.

• The rule will divert investment away from energy development, job creation, and economic growth into
federal compliance redundant with state regulation, further disadvantaging western public lands states.

• The increase in the cost of development will reduce royalty and tax revenue to the American taxpayer,
tribes, western states, and local governments.
Federalism

• States have successfully regulated more than one million fracing operations spanning sixty years; new
federal mandates are not necessary given the exemplary safety record. State rules specifically tailored to
their unique geologic and hydrologic conditions better protect the environment and ensure the safety of
groundwater than a blanket, redundant federal rule.

• Companies must obtain a state permit and comply with all state regulations when operating on federal
lands. State regulators continue to develop new regulations collaboratively with the public.

• The rule imposes an entire redundant regulatory process that will exacerbate existing delays. While
states efficiently process permits in an average of thirty days, the federal government takes 298 days.
The rule would likely add another 100 days.

• BLM seems to be moving aggressively forward with regulations and permit terms that will allow it to take
over control of state water rights. EPA and the states have jurisdiction over water quality and usage
rights, not BLM, and this is an unacceptable usurpation of state’s rights guaranteed by the 10th
Amendment.

• Industry and states have collaboratively responded to public concerns about the safety of frac fluids, and
companies disclose chemicals via FracFocus.org voluntarily or in compliance with state regulations.


Lack of Justification

• There are no incidents of contamination from fracing on public or other lands that necessitate federal
regulation, and BLM has offered no justification for proceeding with the development of these rules.

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently studying the impacts of fracing, yet BLM is
moving forward without being informed by the scientific conclusions and recommendations of the study.

• At a time of decreasing federal budgets and staff, BLM does not have the expertise and resources to
implement a full new regulatory regime redundant with state efforts.

http://westernenergyalliance.org/wp...y-Alliance-BLM-Hydraulic-Fracturing-Rules.pdf

 

[ez bake]

Here's another one for you.

A position paper on proposed hydraulic fracturing rules. I highlighted some of the more senseless points.

Good points, but isn't Fracturing fairly new? So wouldn't it basically have relatively few regulations if none were created? Also, isn't fracturing one of the most productive/successful industries of the last 4 years?

So by that token, isn't all of that pretty much normal (possibly a little too Greenie, but still - not really affecting their profit).

Let's not forget that 100% of what the EPA does is not bad (and prior to the EPA, there were some seriously horrible dick-move stories from corporations that just didn't give a $#@! about the people or environment around their facilities).

 

[JD8]

Here's another question: With all of the EPA's regulations (many of which appear to be silly, though I actually respect Cohiba's opinion on the matter as his career makes him an expert), are any of these regulations against the Coal industry actually merited? Is the Coal industry actually causing enough damage to the environment that they actually need more strict regulations?

I think that opposed to NG I'd say probably. However, as I posted early on in the thread, there are some breakthroughs in technology that is enhancing OLD technology allowing us to produce diesel from coal with a significant amount of efficiency. Why not try to work with what we have?

One thing I know for sure, whether it be coal, NG, oil, etc..... Obama's not helping to facilitate any our fossil fuel resources. Seems there are a lot of quiet backdoor roadblocks.

 

[Shadowrider]

Good points, but isn't Fracturing fairly new? So wouldn't it basically have relatively few regulations if none were created? Also, isn't fracturing one of the most productive/successful industries of the last 4 years?

So by that token, isn't all of that pretty much normal (possibly a little too Greenie, but still - not really affecting their profit).

Let's not forget that 100% of what the EPA does is not bad (and prior to the EPA, there were some seriously horrible dick-move stories from corporations that just didn't give a $#@! about the people or environment around their facilities).

No fraccing isn't new at all. As the paper states it's been being done for about 60 years. What is somewhat new (about 10 years or so) is fraccing a horizontal well bore. That's what you are thinking about.

And the EPA has so far exceeded their mission statement it's not funny and doesn't make a good joke anymore, it's actually scary. They should be watching for drainage pipes in rivers and such, but they also think they need to regulate farmers for how much their cows fart. I'm not exaggerating here, it's just ridiculous. They've become a tool for oppression and there is no way to say otherwise.

 

[Cohiba]

Thank you ezbake, I do apologize for being vague.

I have to be extremely careful what I say, state and dispense on the internet. When you are in the position to level million dollar fines and have done so, privacy is a must.

I have inside knowledge of Cushing,gas compressors, and oil related material you wouldn't believe.

When I have to read regulations and volumes A-Z, then AA-ZZ, I have some knowledge. Again, I must be careful what I say, I could wind up in litigation.


Bottom line: The EPA looks at industry as a fattened cow, especially the oil companies right now.
Their logic is...If we fine them(tax or regulation) they can afford it..look at their profits.

As for coal, I really don't understand...except for pollution regulations. They won't go after coal directly, just the users. More like gun control through ammunition regulatiom.

I really still don't umderstand the EPA's way of thinking. It's been this way since the late '80's to present. So, conservative or liberal Presidents have let them go wild. When will it stop, when enough people lose their jobs in the name of the environment...land, water, air. When enough people complain, maybe, just maybe our legislatures will act like they care about people AND the environment.

Sorry again for being vague.


Cohiba

 

[okietool]

Thank you ezbake, I do apologize for being vague.

I have to be extremely careful what I say, state and dispense on the internet. When you are in the position to level million dollar fines and have done so, privacy is a must.

I have inside knowledge of Cushing,gas compressors, and oil related material you wouldn't believe.

When I have to read regulations and volumes A-Z, then AA-ZZ, I have some knowledge. Again, I must be careful what I say, I could wind up in litigation.


Bottom line: The EPA looks at industry as a fattened cow, especially the oil companies right now.
Their logic is...If we fine them(tax or regulation) they can afford it..look at their profits.

As for coal, I really don't understand...except for pollution regulations. They won't go after coal directly, just the users. More like gun control through ammunition regulatiom.

I really still don't umderstand the EPA's way of thinking. It's been this way since the late '80's to present. So, conservative or liberal Presidents have let them go wild. When will it stop, when enough people lose their jobs in the name of the environment...land, water, air. When enough people complain, maybe, just maybe our legislatures will act like they care about people AND the environment.

Sorry again for being vague.


Cohiba

And BIG Oil still prospers. As huge as the dollar figures are, the profit margins are not what is expected in retail businesses.
The fracing deal is actually old technology done on a (seemingly) larger scale. I'm sure there are some well completion guys on this board that can give some real numbers that show the relationship between gallons of frac fluid and length of pay zone. The big Ingredient in the fracs I have a passing familiarity with is plain old water.
And the thread lives on.