Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Joshua Wright at the New Geography website has a great article titled "The Explosion of Oil and Gas Extraction Jobs."  The whole article is worthwhile and there's a lot of interesting jobs data, but here's the most amazing data point:

"In total, nine of the top 11 fast-growing jobs in the nation are tied in one way or another to oil and gas extraction." 

30 Comments:

At 6/14/2011 1:10 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Yes, drilling equals energy security and jobs. Or, it would if you could get the leftists out of the way:

Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits….

…Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days.

…The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling….

FOX News

Voting for Democrats is an act of national suicide. Decline isn't an inevitability, it's a choice.

 
At 6/14/2011 1:29 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

We really, really need to drill ANWR, while we still have a pipeline to carry it.

 
At 6/14/2011 2:34 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Averaged over four weeks, gasoline use was 1 percent below the same period in 2010, John Gamel, director of economic analysis for SpendingPulse, said in a report. It was the 12th consecutive decline in the average.

Mastercard - Spending pulse

 
At 6/14/2011 2:40 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Actually, it was the GOP (Grifters on Parade) that made sure there would be no oil drilling off the coast of Florida.

Gov. Jeb Bush, no less, led the charge.

You see, rich people have seaside manses, and they don't want anything mussing up the view.

"Bush prevents oil, gas drilling off Florida coast
Government to buy back leasing rights

From wire reports

Associated Press
President Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush meet in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

WASHINGTON -- With his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, looking on, President Bush sealed a deal Wednesday to prevent further oil and gas drilling off the white sand beaches of the Florida Gulf Coast and in the cypress swamps near the Everglades.

The unexpected announcement would require the federal government to repurchase $235 million worth of oil and gas leasing rights in the Destin Dome area, about 25 miles south of Pensacola, and in three wildlife areas including Big Cypress National Preserve.

Jeb Bush acknowledged that the Oval Office announcement would boost his re-election campaign in Florida, the swing state in the 2000 presidential election and a tourism mecca where polls show 75 percent oppose offshore drilling."

But, hey let's blame the lefties.

 
At 6/14/2011 2:51 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,
"Actually, it was the GOP (Grifters on Parade) that made sure there would be no oil drilling off the coast of Florida."

Che was talking about Alaska. You must have missed that in your zeal to attack the GOP.

"But, hey let's blame the lefties."

Absolutely. With some notable exceptions, the Left are the main culprits behind our inability to drill. See your boyfriend's relentless attacks on the oil companies for further proof.

 
At 6/14/2011 3:21 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Paul-

Sorry, I thought the topic was drilling, and how political parties prevent drilling, as did the Bu$h-GOP off the coast of Florida.

Obama, despite the record Maconda blow-out, is again authorizing drilling in federal waters in the Gulf Coast--the very type of drilling the Bu$h Bros. stopped off Florida.

So your point was?

 
At 6/14/2011 3:46 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

First, you're an idiot.

Second, your boyfriend has technically lifted his dishonestly crafted moratorium, but last I checked he had issues only one new permit. Meanwhile, he banned drilling in the eastern gulf and the atlantic and pacific coasts for at least five to seven more years. His EPA is on the verge of shutting down drilling in western Texas in order to protect a 3 inch lizard. All along, the Democrats have fought any more drilling in oil rich Alaska for the past several decades. We won't even bother exploring the Leftist environmental groups who shut down drilling via the courts.

But, oh yeah, beach tourism rich Florida has decided not to drill there under a Republican governor.
I guess that both sides are equally to blame using that famous Benji logic.

 
At 6/14/2011 3:53 PM, Blogger Paul said...

One more thing,

it was your boyfriend and his idiot sidekick who advocated properly inflated tires over "drill, baby drill!" in '08.

You probably missed that because you were hissing at Sarah Palin while simultaneously longingly staring at the Obama poster adorning your bedroom wall.

 
At 6/14/2011 4:10 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Paul-

As always, you are wrong about my politics. I am not an Obama supporter.

On most issues, I am a Ron Paul supporter.

The fact that I chose not to vote for McCain hardly makes me left-wing. I thought McCain a dangerous choice, who would entangle us in more $3 trillion wars, ala Iraqistan, that we cannot afford.

 
At 6/14/2011 4:14 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Typical psuedo benny, long on chatter and short on substance...

As Republicans push for more offshore drilling, Democrats plan vote on repealing tax breaks for oil companies

 
At 6/14/2011 4:31 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Idealogies make idiots of us all.

Dems fight tax credits for oil companies.

Republicans fight tax credits for Biofuels.

Of all the pundits, talking heads, politicians, etc, only Sarah Palin, of all people, actually drilled down to what those tax breaks would mean for "Big Producers," "Small Producers," and prices/production.

 
At 6/14/2011 4:44 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Don't care about jobs, jobs, jobs.

I care about prosperity, prosperity, prosperity.

Focus is all wrong;

 
At 6/14/2011 4:45 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Of all the pundits, talking heads, politicians, etc, only Sarah Palin, of all people, actually drilled down to what those tax breaks would mean for "Big Producers," "Small Producers," and prices/production"...

Got link rufus?

 
At 6/14/2011 5:04 PM, Blogger Bloggin' Brewskie said...

The oil industry is going to be looking for highly-skilled professionals - engineers, petroleum geologists, etc. - big time in the upcoming years as Boomers retire. Get qualified and get in: it pays well!

 
At 6/14/2011 5:05 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Bloggin Brewskie-

Yeah, too bad I am old myself.

 
At 6/14/2011 5:13 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

Please, stop lying to yourself and the rest of us. You know you were in love with Obama in '08, and have repeatedly attempted to credit him here for whatever meager green shoots appeared to be rising up through the cracks.

You helped this 2 legged wrecking ball attain the power he needed to launch his war on capitalism. Well done.

 
At 6/14/2011 5:16 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Actually, Juandos, I heard her talking about it on TV. No one even, as far as I know, bothered to publish her comments.

She may have mentioned it in one of her Facebook posts, but I don't follow those.

The reason I noticed was, Rockman had discussed the ramifications over at the Oil Drum.

 
At 6/14/2011 6:33 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Paul-

Everyone says Michelle Bachman is the GOP comer.

You gonna vote for her?

She is a major recipient of USDA subsidies. Her family "farm," more accurately called a federal welfare operation, received $251k in taxpayer money in the years leading up to 2006.

Imagine running a business where Uncle Sam gives you money.

GOP = Grifters on Parade.

Pay up taxpayers--you have D-Party and R-Party grifters to keep fed.

 
At 6/14/2011 7:50 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

China wastes the most money on green energy:

China tops US in spending on clean energy
2010-03-25

"In 2009 China invested $34.6 billion in the clean energy economy while the United States invested $18.6 billion and came in second place, according to the report called, "Who's Winning the Clean Energy Race?""

Of course, we're wasting even more money than in 2009:

Green Waste: Where We Spent the Money
February 2, 2011

Washington state:

In the Snohomish School District, solar panels are being installed on two public elementary schools at the cost of $690,000 per school.

The panels...at 100 kilowatts (kw) each...are expected to last 25 years. Assuming...the high end of solar energy production in the Northwest...(and) at six cents per kwh, slightly above the current price, this would save about $177,000 during the life of the panels...The net loss for each school is around $513,000.

If energy rates tripled next year and lasted for the next twenty five years, the total energy savings would be $531,000, for a net loss per school of $159,000, even with this dramatic and unlikely increase in energy prices.

This isn't the only recent example of this kind of wasteful expenditure.

Earlier this year the state opened a new 2,000 bed prison called the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center...the "nation's greenest prison."...Installation cost taxpayers $880,000

– money provided by a state grant for renewable energy projects. The solar panels will save the state an estimated $4,000 to $7,000 a year in electricity costs, with a total savings of $140,000 during the panels' 25-year lifespan.

Some argue that even though the solar panels aren't economically responsible, they are environmentally responsible because they cut carbon emissions. Solar energy fails this test, as well.

In Washington state, for every megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity, we emit 322 lbs. of CO2. Annually, those solar panels will produce about 91 MWh, reducing carbon emissions by 13 metric tons a year. The average cost of a metric ton of carbon emissions on the European Climate Exchange is about $20.

In other words, the state could buy the same amount of carbon emissions reductions for about $270 a year. Over the 25-year lifespan, this means the state will achieve carbon emissions reductions worth about $6,700.

So, adding the $6,700 to the $140,000 yields a savings of $146,700 for the low cost of $880,000. The state is spending $6 to save $1.

 
At 6/14/2011 8:01 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Who knows what China pays for infrastructure and green energy benefits?

$5 for $1, $10 for $1, or more?

I guess, it's better than digging holes and filling them back up again.

 
At 6/14/2011 8:27 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

First off: If they paid $690,000.00 for 100 kw of peak energy someone should go to jail. They paid almost $450,000.00 more than anybody in their right mind would pay (and that's before the federal solar credit kicks in.)

Here's some neat little graphs on the evolution of Solar costs. Solar Costs

Now, Wash State wouldn't be my first choice of locations for Solar, but in Sunny Climes (and China has an abundance of those) Solar is Great, and getting "Greater" for Peaking power.

 
At 6/14/2011 8:34 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Yesterday, California got 5.055 Gigawatt Hrs from Solar

And, notice how far into the evening they were getting electricity from their Solar.

BTW, a couple of these are very old plants, and have been paid off for awhile. It's, now, looking like there's just no telling how long these things Will last. But, they, obviously, last way longer than 25 yrs.

 
At 6/14/2011 8:41 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

China is not eco-stupid. They have big problems with keeping the lights on. They're, now, importing large amounts of coal, and still can't come close to keeping up with demand.

They're investing big bucks in Wind, and Solar because they think it makes sense.

For example, they are probably getting those panels built, and installed for close to $1.00/watt. Once you start running those numbers vs. importing $125.00/ton thermal coal you start to see what they're thinking.

 
At 6/14/2011 9:11 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Rufus, the Chinese are more desperate for energy than people in Washington state.

Energy Costs:

Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar
April 2, 2010

Hydroelectric is the most cost effective at $0.03 per kWh.

Nuclear and coal are tied at $0.04 per kWh.

This comes as a bit of a surprise because coal is typically regarded as the cheapest form of energy production.

Another surprise is that wind power ($0.08 per kWh) came in slightly cheaper than natural gas ($0.10 per kWh).

Solar power was by far the most expensive at $0.22 per kWh—and that only represents construction costs because I could not find reliable data on production costs.

Also, there is a higher degree of uncertainty in cost with wind and solar energy due to poor and varying data regarding the useful life of the facilities and their capacity factors.

Unfortunately, the only way to reduce the per kWh energy cost in the US further is by replacing peak production currently supplied by petroleum and natural gas plants.

 
At 6/14/2011 9:28 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

PT, Solar costs have come down, tremendously, since that article was written. And, coal is getting more expensive You need to take a look at my above link on solar costs.

 
At 6/15/2011 1:38 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Rufus, according to the EIA Levelized Cost of New Electricity Generating Technologies, solar and wind power won't even be close to competitive in cost by 2016.

Solar will be at least three times more expensive than most other technologies, and that doesn't even include the following:

"Because intermittent technologies (e.g. solar and wind) do not provide the same contribution to system reliability as technologies that are operator controlled and dispatched, they may require additional system investment as back-up power that are not included in the levelized costs."

 
At 6/15/2011 2:32 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Actually, Juandos, I heard her talking about it on TV. No one even, as far as I know, bothered to publish her comments"...

Ahhh geez!, I guess I shouldn't be suprised rufus at that since it seems that 'Palinphobia' is rampant in the MSM...

"And, coal is getting more expensive You need to take a look at my above link on solar costs"...

Increased coal costs due to excess regulation?

 
At 6/15/2011 2:55 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Peak

"Washington state:

In the Snohomish School District, solar panels are being installed on two public elementary schools at the cost of $690,000 per school.
"

"The panels...at 100 kilowatts (kw) each...are expected to last 25 years. Assuming...the high end of solar energy production in the Northwest...(and) at six cents per kwh, slightly above the current price, this would save about $177,000 during the life of the panels...The net loss for each school is around $513,000."

I suppose that due to rebates, taxpayers are paying up front for about half of that, so the school district may not lose as much as you claim.

On the other hand, I assume that 100 kw is the rated output of the panels, and if I'm not mistaken, it rains most of the time in that part of Washington, so this project may not produce any meaningful savings at all.

 
At 6/15/2011 8:03 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"Don't care about jobs, jobs, jobs.

I care about prosperity, prosperity, prosperity.

Focus is all wrong"

i agree.

creating jobs for jobs sake accomplishes nothing. if it did, then hiring 100 new TSA workers would be useful.

 
At 6/15/2011 12:27 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

Absolutely, I would enthusiastically vote for Bachmann. Unlike your boyfriend, she has long fought to cut overall spending. She receives very high marks from independent watch dog groups that rate Congressmen based on their votes. Your boyfriend always received the equivalent of an "f" from conservative groups and an "A" from the Left. She has outlined spending cuts your boyfriend will never sign.

So her husband's family takes farm subsidies legally, so? It's perfectly legal. She still advocates cuts in the USDA and reform of the ag system. Your boyfriend, on the other hand, was one of the biggest Big Ag whores in Congress yet you fell in love anyway.

I always see you ranting here about the home mortgage deduction. Are you going to tell us you never have taken advantage of it?

Welfare queen Benji!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home