Friday Energy Links
1. CBS News: Boom times are back in Oklahoma for oil production
2. CBS MoneyWatch -- "There is one reason the U.S. economy is recovering: Low gas prices. Natural gas, that is. The price is at a 10-year low and expected to stay that way for awhile. This glut of inexpensive energy is why so many companies have been moving manufacturing back to the U.S.
The cheap price has been a boon to many industries, like plastics, fertilizers, chemicals and other things derived from natural gas. It has also helped manufacturers of everything from steel to beer, which use large amounts of energy. This, more than anything else, is responsible for the return of so much manufacturing to the U.S. Manufacturing employment rose by 225,000 jobs last year, sustaining gains for the first time since 1997."
3. Houston Chronicle -- "The University of Texas Energy Institute recently released a report confirming that the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, used to release oil and gas from shale rock, has a minimal impact on ground water."
3. Houston Chronicle -- "The University of Texas Energy Institute recently released a report confirming that the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, used to release oil and gas from shale rock, has a minimal impact on ground water."
36 Comments:
“Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” -- Obama Administration Energy Secretary, Steven Chu
I happen to be a big fan of natural gas drilling in the USA. I see abundant supplies for generations.
But really, a University of Texas Energy Institute study proves fracking is pure and clean?
That's like a Department of Defense study that proves we need incredibly expensive but laughably vulnerable aircraft carriers and tanks.
Or some libs who put together a "climate study."
You know the results before you read the study.
From Zer0 Hedge: What Rising Gasoline Prices Do To The Economy
"You know the results before you read the study."
Kinda like I usually know what general asinine comment Benji will excrete when I read one of Dr Perry's posts.
Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding---13k on the Dow today?
Wow!
What will the bears say now?
Morgan has been short since 8k. But he says he made huge profits--along with Richard Fisher, no doubt. Fisher went super short on the S&P 500 in June of 2010. Check out the timing.
And the Fed may lighten up yet. We are courting deflation, and even Bernanke is not foolish enough to let deflation happen.
Juandos-
Higher gasoline prices mean more willing for oil in North Dakota and elsewhere in the USA. It does not mean recession, but a minor change in goods purchased.
Besides, most Americans are migrating to higher mpg cars.
And we can print money to import oil.
The important thing is make sure enough money is circulating.
Ahhh pseudo benny you're missing the point a couple of ways amigo...
"And we can print money to import oil"...
NO WE CAN'T!
WE REALLY, REALLY CAN'T!
benji-
you keep making this absurd claim about my being and having been short.
you know full well it isn't true.
why tell repeated lies?
you just look like an ethically vapid buffoon.
the fact is that you have so little to contribute that you just make noises and tell deliberate lies to attempt to look clever.
further, that fact that you immediately equate doubting economic growth with being short just shows that you do not understand investing at all.
we lost 1/2 of 1% in 2008 while being 90% net long.
we have never been net short since the fund was founded and likely never will be. that's not how we play bad economies and tapes.
your lack of understanding of investment seems only exceeded by your need to lie and pretend you posses it.
But really, a University of Texas Energy Institute study proves fracking is pure and clean?
oh, yeah, god forbid we should ask people who have actual experience with drilling and fracking, geology experts, etc.
who should we ask?
this is a BS ad hominem response from someone too lazy and uninformed to actually read the study and look at the data.
That's like a Department of Defense study that proves we need incredibly expensive but laughably vulnerable aircraft carriers and tanks.
oh, you mean the carriers and tanks that were so incredibly effective in iraq?
i don't seem to recall any us carriers being sunk in the past decades and a great deal of successful force projection using them.
whether we ought to be projecting such force is a separate issue, but the track record of our actually doing it is very good, perhaps better than any force in history.
do you bother to think before you make such claims bunny? it really appears not.
"But really, a University of Texas Energy Institute study proves fracking is pure and clean?"...
Kind of sliding off the whacky end aren't you morganovich?
You know that's not what's in the report but the report demystifies the leftist, bunny squeezer myths about fracking...
I grew up near an oil field that was less than half a mile away and fracking was used then (facking solution was a combo of water and sand) and this was back in the sixties...
No, the water didn't taste funny, and no, there weren't mini-quakes happening...
Robert W. Chase: Five myths about ‘fracking’
Chase is a professor and chairman of the Department of Petroleum Engineering and Geology at Marietta College...
Speaking of energy sources at one time whale oil was an important source...
Derek Thompson has very nice article about it over at the Atlantic: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of U.S. Whaling: An Innovation Story
Wikipedia:
In the period following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the RPG became a favorite weapon of the insurgent forces fighting U.S. troops. Since most of the readily-available RPG-7 rounds cannot penetrate M1 Abrams tank armor from the front, it is primarily effective against soft-skinned or lightly armored vehicles, and infantry. Even if the RPG hit does not completely disable the tank or kill the crew, it can still damage external equipment, lowering the tank's effectiveness or forcing the crew to abandon and destroy it.
Newer RPG-7 rounds are more capable, and in August 2006, an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal ERA of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq and wounded several crew members.[24]
Basically, a few guys on motorcycles and newer RPGs are a grim threat to our best tanks. The motorcycles/RPGs are far, far more maneuverable, far less expensive, and easily replaced.
And little ships or subs with missiles can sink our biggest surface ships.
But hey--keep sending your income tax dollars to DC. Suckers.
"Basically, a few guys on motorcycles and newer RPGs are a grim threat to our best tanks. The motorcycles/RPGs are far, far more maneuverable, far less expensive, and easily replaced. "
ah, which is why it took what, 3 days to take over the whole country? and US losses were so far below anyone's projections that even the military couldn't believe it?
"And little ships or subs with missiles can sink our biggest surface ships."
which is why the number of ships sunk in the 2 iraq wars was what?
0?
keep making up facts and basing your views on them bunny. ignorance suits you.
"..the leftist, bunny squeezer myths about fracking..."
Haha, "bunny squeezer." I don't know what that means, exactly, but it's a funny term.
Benji,
"Basically, a few guys on motorcycles and newer RPGs are a grim threat to our best tanks."
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Well pseudo benny you see what happens when you go to a garbage dump like wikipedia for your info, its at the very least questionable at best because the authors tend not to deliver the whole picture...
RPGs, well its factual that they are cheap to manufacture and use...
Hence the reason for the development of reactive armor and other methods...
"Haha, "bunny squeezer." I don't know what that means, exactly, but it's a funny term"...
I'm sure you've seen them on a television commercial sometime in the past...
There's some 'doe eyed' skank with a cotton tail or jack rabbit in her arms and she's petting it while making some inane but piteous plea for the contents of your wallet so that you too can help save the habitat of some vile rodent...
Juandos-
Reactive armor, while expensive, may help for a while. But already the bad guys know to fire twice at the same location on a tank. The first RPG activates the reactive armor. The second is fatal. The Soviets had reactive armor going into Afghanistan, and they suffered heavy losses to RPGs.
And no one has answered the question--what does it cost to field six guys on scooters with ROPGs, vs. how much for US soldiers, lifetime pensions and medical care, inside of tanks? Ever wonder how we ran up $4 trillion in bills in Iraqistan?
If you are fool enough to believe what federal parasites in DC tell you, then you deserve to have your money looted out of your pocket.
Suckers.
bunny-
and you keep ducking the key question:
if all this scooter and rpg tech is so effective, how did we win so quickly against them with astoundingly few casualties?
you keep trotting out this hypothetical that is not supported by the facts.
idiot.
Ever wonder how we ran up $4 trillion in bills in Iraqistan?
No, because it's a phony number as has been demonstrated to you over and over again here.
"If you are fool enough to believe what federal parasites in DC tell you, then you deserve to have your money looted out of your pocket."
Most decent Americans don't consider the people working to defend our country "parasites."
That leaves you out, douchebag.
"The Soviets had reactive armor going into Afghanistan, and they suffered heavy losses to RPGs."
Yes, I'm sure the communists had the same technology 30 years ago that we have now.
"Reactive armor, while expensive, may help for a while. But already the bad guys know to fire twice at the same location on a tank. The first RPG activates the reactive armor. The second is fatal. The Soviets had reactive armor going into Afghanistan, and they suffered heavy losses to RPGs"...
pseudo benny what's painfully obvious by your comment is that you either didn't read the article and its related links or you didn't understand them...
other methods
Come on man! Get your act together...
Benji states:
"That's like a Department of Defense study that proves we need incredibly expensive but laughably vulnerable aircraft carriers..."
From The Atlantic article titled "The Last Ace":
"The ability of the United States to own the skies over any battlefield has transformed the way we fight. The last American soldier killed on the ground by an enemy air attack died in Korea, on April 15, 1953."
Hmm, I think that superior planes and pilots, stationed on U.S. aircraft carriers, have protected billions of the world's citizens, including Benji, with an astounding record for sixty years.
To All-
We spend $1 trillion a year on Defense, Homeland Security and the VA, or $3,333 per US resident, or $13k for an average family of four.
Every year, and next year will be more.
You think you are not pouring money into a parasite-hole in DC? You think the $2 billion per copy B2 bomber is worth it? When it sits in the hangar for 119 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight-time?
We are using incredibly expensive and complicated and fragile Cold War equipment and formations to fight Third World collections of terrorists.
Listen to Ron Paul, listen to Pat Buchanan, listen to true conservatives, and not GOP apologists for agency spending in Washington, the Sodom on the Potomac.
The U.S. economy is in uncharted waters.
Peak oil, depression, national debt greater than GDP (with $1 trillion a year budget deficits), money multiplier below 1 (MULT fred), excess reserves (EXCRESNS fred) off the chart, and an economic illiterate leading the most important economic recovery in history with statements like this:
"You know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices."
Rising gas prices will slow or stall the recovery.
Paul:
[Invisible tank]
Wow, that's cool! Now, if they could only do something about that awful noise.
bunny-
you are confusing 2 topics.
the current system has given us the most effective and versatile military force in all of history.
but that is a separate issue from whether or not we need it and it's worth paying for.
you seem unable to keep issues separate in your rattle headed mind.
your initial comment was about how laughable vulnerable they were, which is utterly untrue.
as i said from the start, that's a separate issue from whether they are worth paying for.
you are either trying to change the topic to get away from the monstrous loser of a position you have been defending or are just too dumb to know the difference.
"We spend $1 trillion a year on Defense, Homeland Security and the VA, or $3,333 per US resident, or $13k for an average family of four"...
pseudo benny you seditious, lying dumb @$$, how many times are you going to repeat that factless BS?
Are you confused at what blog site you're on?
This isn't Kostard fools' world...
Juandos--
As I do not count in debt service on military outlays,. my numbers are actually low. For 2011:
Defense: 739.9
VA 141.1
HS 48.1
Civilian Defense 59.2
Total 988.1 b. Higehr this year, and if we add in debt service, even higher.
There are 300 million residents in the USA.
So you get to $3,333 every year, from every resident, for the national defense parasite club.
Note to Morgan: Explain our victories in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We are $2 trillion into Eatcrapistan, and what have we to show for it? The US military has prevailed? We have not even beat guys armed with rifles and RPGs and homemade bombs.
Yes, we can beat Third World nations that try conventional warfare tactics against us. We cannot beat anyone else.
We are lucky we do not tangle with China, and their growing fleet of diesel electric and quiet subs, that can sink all of our surface ships simultaneously.
Most likely, our surface ships will have to retire to port or be sunk in any real naval confrontation.
Morgan--You should know this. There is no market forces to make federal agencies efficient or better. They just get fatter and more coprolitic all the time.
And the Big Fat Momma Parasite of all federal agencies is Defense.
However, there are some strong fundamentals in the U.S. economy.
In the production function Y = t(L, K, R, E,...X), i.e. real GDP, nominal GDP, or inflation is a function of technology or productivity on labor, capital, raw materials, energy, etc.
I stated before:
The U.S. is in a technological boom that began in 1982, while the 80 million Baby-Boomers began entering "prime-age."
Wage growth "crashed" in 1982, and has been slow since then, i.e. no wage-price spiral.
There remains a global savings glut, while U.S. firms continue to earn record-breaking profits, i.e. create huge amounts of capital through efficiencies.
The U.S. economy has been producing much more output with much fewer inputs, since 1982, and that trend accelerated even faster after 2000.
******
Also, I may add, the U.S. economy on the production side has become "lighter." So, less energy is needed to produce output.
However, the energy savings on the production side were shifted to the consumption side, e.g. larger houses, SUVs, more home appliances, etc.
So, the rising price of oil has a more powerful effect on consumption than production, in the U.S. economy.
There are at least two ways to create deflation:
1. Decrease the money supply.
2. Increase the quantity and/or quality of goods & services.
"my numbers are actually low..."...
Your numbers are low quality baloney pseudo benny as you've been shown repeatedly...
Who do you think you're kidding?
"We are $2 trillion into Eatcrapistan, and what have we to show for it?"...
That pseudo benny is still looking for facts in all the wrong places...
bunny-
viet nam was a time when the US army was in poor shape. less tech, poor training, and a draft. the current military looks nothing like that.
afghanistan was never (nor could be) about victory int he way you describe. once more you are mixing up multiple ideas.
the tanks you complain about don't work there.
aircraft (from carriers) have been key to the strategy.
it's a diffuse population in some of the most difficult terrain in the world.
we have not lost a military conflict. we have walked into a quagmire of a hearts and minds problem that not even alexander the great could solve.
they are not destroying our tanks in any meaningful way nor affecting our aircraft.
it's just an impossible country to actual invade and the locals are corrupt and cowardly.
the real question is why we ever tried to hold ground there. it's the objective, not the capabilities that's the issue.
places like afghanistan are PRECISELY why we need aircraft carriers. you strike enemies with impunity and then sit out of reach.
your grasp on military tactics and strategy seems even worse than your grasp on economics and monetary policy, and that's really saying somehting.
""We are $2 trillion into Eatcrapistan, and what have we to show for it?"..."
seen any more attacks on US soil?
now consider a world in which we did nothing.
think the taliban and al queda might have been emboldened?
it's called "deterrence".
look it up.
Post a Comment
<< Home