EIN News says, "Greenpeace Chief Arrested on Greenland Oil Rig in Deepwater Drilling Protest The head of Greenpeace and another activist were arrested after they climbed an oil rig off Greenland's west coast in an attempt to stop a Scottish oil company from deepwater drilling in Arctic waters, Danish police said. (washingtonpost.com)".
Hooray for the Danish police!
Greenpeace is now an organization infiltrated by communists dedicated to the overthrow of world capitalistic enterprises and the subsequent establishment of authoritarian communism
Friday, June 17, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Americas Dominant in Oil Production?
EIN News says, "World Will Increasingly Turn to Americas for Oil, IEA Says Over the next few years, world consumers are going to become more dependent on North and South America to satisfy their growing thirst for crude oil, according to a forecast to be released by the International Energy Agency. (nytimes.com)".
This is a real surprise to me. I checked the IEA website. There's nothing on this yet.
If anybody knows anything more about this, I would be very glad to hear it.
This is a real surprise to me. I checked the IEA website. There's nothing on this yet.
If anybody knows anything more about this, I would be very glad to hear it.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The International Energy Agency 's Basis for Existence
EIN News says, "IEA Watching Oil Markets Closely The International Energy Agency is ready to take action if more oil is needed on the global energy market, the agency's director said from Paris. (upi.com)".
The above statement is an implication that the IEA has the power to affect oil supplies. Let's see if that's true.
The IEA is a voluntary organization of member countries. There are 28 members. Only two of these have significant production of oil. They are Canada and the US. Other than those two, countries producing more than 2 million barrels per day are Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Mexico, Emerates, Brazil, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Norway, Nigeria, and Algeria. Notice that except for Canada and the US, no oil producing countries are members of the IEA.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see that the IEA has any power at all, and no reason for its existence. Its member countries are primarily consumers of oil. Does the IEA presume that it will be able to convince its member countries to boycott oil use? Ridiculous!
The above statement is an implication that the IEA has the power to affect oil supplies. Let's see if that's true.
The IEA is a voluntary organization of member countries. There are 28 members. Only two of these have significant production of oil. They are Canada and the US. Other than those two, countries producing more than 2 million barrels per day are Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Mexico, Emerates, Brazil, Kuwait, Venezuela, Iraq, Norway, Nigeria, and Algeria. Notice that except for Canada and the US, no oil producing countries are members of the IEA.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see that the IEA has any power at all, and no reason for its existence. Its member countries are primarily consumers of oil. Does the IEA presume that it will be able to convince its member countries to boycott oil use? Ridiculous!
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
More Federal Oil and Gas Drilling Inspectors Will Inhibit Production
EIN News says, "U.S. Regulators Shake Up Offshore Drilling Inspections Government inspections of thousands of offshore oil and gas facilities now will involve teams of federal workers rather than just a single auditor under a plan announced. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement said the move was made possible by the agency's recent hires of new inspectors and the promise of more to come. (chron.com)".
From an employment point of view, this is good news. More jobs!
During his presidential campaigning, Pres. Obama promised "change". He didn't really specify the nature of the change, nor does he do so now. However, in his third year of office, we have accumulated enough circumstantial evidence, including some of his specific comments, to know that his change always intended to be a complete revision of the United States economy and social system. In effect, he wanted to establish a socialistic society, and we have every reason to believe that is his continued goal.
In a socialistic society everybody works for the government. There is NO unemployment. From that point of view, Pres. Obama is right on track with this program.
In my many decades life, I have seen slow conversion of Americans to a more socialistic philosophy. I personally don't think that's a proper direction, but I could be wrong. Perhaps the Soviets, Cubans, and North Koreans just didn't do it right.
But rather than speak in generalities, let's confine the discussion to the EIN News statement. More federal inspectors of offshore oil and gas drillers. Since the Back are now talking about teams versus single inspectors, this means a doubling or tripling of the inspector workforce, "with the promise of more to come".
While it's nice to see more people employed, the question is what they will be doing. We know from past experience that committees not only operate much less efficiently than single individuals, in government such committees are actually inhibitors of progress. Whereas a single inspector can discuss with the operator a safety drilling question and probably come to a resolution, the likelihood of such resolution with a committee discussion is more remote. One fine example of this committee operation is our jury system of 12 people tried and true. That system was initiated because, in the form of a committee, it is very difficult for a defendant to be found guilty by all persons of the committee. This has the advantage that there must be an absolute certainty of guilt, and this preserves our individual liberties.
As the federal drilling committees inhibit further drilling through various restrictions and lack of approvals and permits, etc., the American public will suffer through reduced production of oil and gas. Is increased government employment worth this?
From an employment point of view, this is good news. More jobs!
During his presidential campaigning, Pres. Obama promised "change". He didn't really specify the nature of the change, nor does he do so now. However, in his third year of office, we have accumulated enough circumstantial evidence, including some of his specific comments, to know that his change always intended to be a complete revision of the United States economy and social system. In effect, he wanted to establish a socialistic society, and we have every reason to believe that is his continued goal.
In a socialistic society everybody works for the government. There is NO unemployment. From that point of view, Pres. Obama is right on track with this program.
In my many decades life, I have seen slow conversion of Americans to a more socialistic philosophy. I personally don't think that's a proper direction, but I could be wrong. Perhaps the Soviets, Cubans, and North Koreans just didn't do it right.
But rather than speak in generalities, let's confine the discussion to the EIN News statement. More federal inspectors of offshore oil and gas drillers. Since the Back are now talking about teams versus single inspectors, this means a doubling or tripling of the inspector workforce, "with the promise of more to come".
While it's nice to see more people employed, the question is what they will be doing. We know from past experience that committees not only operate much less efficiently than single individuals, in government such committees are actually inhibitors of progress. Whereas a single inspector can discuss with the operator a safety drilling question and probably come to a resolution, the likelihood of such resolution with a committee discussion is more remote. One fine example of this committee operation is our jury system of 12 people tried and true. That system was initiated because, in the form of a committee, it is very difficult for a defendant to be found guilty by all persons of the committee. This has the advantage that there must be an absolute certainty of guilt, and this preserves our individual liberties.
As the federal drilling committees inhibit further drilling through various restrictions and lack of approvals and permits, etc., the American public will suffer through reduced production of oil and gas. Is increased government employment worth this?
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Amazing! A Concession to Capitalism by the Obama Administration
EIN News says, "Obama Administration to Extend Deep-water Leases Expiring Before 2015 The Obama administration will give oil and gas companies an extra year to develop their deep-water leases to make up for delays caused by last year's Gulf spill and the subsequent moratorium on some offshore drilling. (chron.com)".
Finally, a concession by the Obama Administration to a capitalistic enterprise?
Pres. Obama wants to be reelected so badly that he can taste it. His socialistic programs are not going well in the third year of his Administration. He is likely starting to worry about the 2012 election.
Perhaps with a little concession to capitalism here and there, he might be able to improve the economy slightly or at least give the appearance he is trying to help. This might get him some votes.
Somewhat as a side issue, I heard in the last two days of a proposal to put a 1 $ tax at the consumer level on each gallon of gasoline purchased. The stated justification is that such tax will discourage use of fossil fuel vehicles and accelerate the switch to electric powered vehicles. This is crazy! Why would anybody want to switch to an inefficient electrically powered vehicle, when the present gasoline powered vehicle does a very acceptable job? Perhaps the answer lies in another misconception. That is, we lose money on each item, but make it up on volume.
There's no question that we have for many years been victims of OPEC on availability and price of crude oil. It is also agreed by all that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and we should make every effort to change it. The Obama Administration had previously decided that we needed alternate forms of energy, particularly wind and solar. The problem with that is wind and solar are unable to compete economically with crude oil, even at prices controlled by OPEC.
In addition, the situation has changed radically on a worldwide basis, OPEC no longer has a continued lock on petroleum production. Crude oil is now available from many other countries other than the Middle East, and more importantly major oil companies have found within the continental US additional large reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and West Texas. The technology of handling tar sands has also improved radically, which gives another convenient source of crude. Lastly, the fracturing process in Montana and North Dakota has promise of giving very large quantities of natural gas, which further adds to the US energy reserves, without further development of inefficient wind and solar energy.
The only remaining problem is how to get the Obama Administration on a turnaround to recognize these new conditions and give up their now silly program of alternate energy sources.
Finally, a concession by the Obama Administration to a capitalistic enterprise?
Pres. Obama wants to be reelected so badly that he can taste it. His socialistic programs are not going well in the third year of his Administration. He is likely starting to worry about the 2012 election.
Perhaps with a little concession to capitalism here and there, he might be able to improve the economy slightly or at least give the appearance he is trying to help. This might get him some votes.
Somewhat as a side issue, I heard in the last two days of a proposal to put a 1 $ tax at the consumer level on each gallon of gasoline purchased. The stated justification is that such tax will discourage use of fossil fuel vehicles and accelerate the switch to electric powered vehicles. This is crazy! Why would anybody want to switch to an inefficient electrically powered vehicle, when the present gasoline powered vehicle does a very acceptable job? Perhaps the answer lies in another misconception. That is, we lose money on each item, but make it up on volume.
There's no question that we have for many years been victims of OPEC on availability and price of crude oil. It is also agreed by all that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and we should make every effort to change it. The Obama Administration had previously decided that we needed alternate forms of energy, particularly wind and solar. The problem with that is wind and solar are unable to compete economically with crude oil, even at prices controlled by OPEC.
In addition, the situation has changed radically on a worldwide basis, OPEC no longer has a continued lock on petroleum production. Crude oil is now available from many other countries other than the Middle East, and more importantly major oil companies have found within the continental US additional large reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and West Texas. The technology of handling tar sands has also improved radically, which gives another convenient source of crude. Lastly, the fracturing process in Montana and North Dakota has promise of giving very large quantities of natural gas, which further adds to the US energy reserves, without further development of inefficient wind and solar energy.
The only remaining problem is how to get the Obama Administration on a turnaround to recognize these new conditions and give up their now silly program of alternate energy sources.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Congress Needs to Force Development of the New Oil Discovery in the Gulf
EIN News says, "Exxon Makes Major Oil Discovery in Gulf of Mexico Exxon Mobil said it has discovered an estimated 700 million barrels of oil equivalent at a deepwater well off the Louisiana coast, a major find that a top House Republican argued should push the administration to speed up offshore permitting. (foxnews.com)".
This is a prime example of how technology can change the economic picture. The difficulty is in the timing. A mere discovery of this large oil deposit unfortunately does not bring immediate relief to the American public in the form of lower fuel prices. It takes time to install equipment to bring the oil to the service, transport it to refineries, and refine it to gasoline. However, it bodes well for the future.
As indicated in the announcement, government restriction can also be a completely limiting factor. It is not clear whether the discovery has been made through drilling, which requires a federal permit or whether it came about through other means. In either event, the Obama Administration has the power to make this find unavailable to the American public. This is a distinct possibility, because from previous Administration actions, we know that every effort will continue to be employed in order to promote the alternate energy forms of wind and solar.
Congratulations to the "top House Republican" for his push to speed up offshore permitting. Too that we don't have his name so that we can give him proper credit. Even so, it will be necessary for the whole Congress to press the Administration so that the American public can benefit from the new discovery.
This is a prime example of how technology can change the economic picture. The difficulty is in the timing. A mere discovery of this large oil deposit unfortunately does not bring immediate relief to the American public in the form of lower fuel prices. It takes time to install equipment to bring the oil to the service, transport it to refineries, and refine it to gasoline. However, it bodes well for the future.
As indicated in the announcement, government restriction can also be a completely limiting factor. It is not clear whether the discovery has been made through drilling, which requires a federal permit or whether it came about through other means. In either event, the Obama Administration has the power to make this find unavailable to the American public. This is a distinct possibility, because from previous Administration actions, we know that every effort will continue to be employed in order to promote the alternate energy forms of wind and solar.
Congratulations to the "top House Republican" for his push to speed up offshore permitting. Too that we don't have his name so that we can give him proper credit. Even so, it will be necessary for the whole Congress to press the Administration so that the American public can benefit from the new discovery.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Alpha Natural Resources Puts its Money on Coal
EIN News says, "Massey, Alpha Investors Approve $7.1 Billion Deal Shareholders have approved coal producer Alpha Natural Resources' $7.1 billion takeover of struggling rival Massey Energy Co. (businessweek.com)".
Yahoo says, "Alpha is the nation's leading supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal used in the steel-making process and is a major supplier of thermal coal to electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the country".
Sources of energy consumed in the US in '09 are:
Coal - 24% (91% of it is used for electric power generation)
Renewables - 7% (a breakdown is for hydro and biomass/ethanol, 3% each, wind 0.3%
and 0.07% solar).
It is silly to think that wind and solar could make any significant contribution to the total in the near future. There is a bare but unlikely possibility that biomass could be a player, but it can't compete on a price basis without taxpayer subsidy. Only unrealistic government dreamers could come up with the idea that wind and solar could be seriously involved.
The Alpha Officers, Board of Directors, and Stockholders know that the heavy energy lifting is done by coal and will continue for the foreseeable future, even if the Obama Administration does not.
Yahoo says, "Alpha is the nation's leading supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal used in the steel-making process and is a major supplier of thermal coal to electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the country".
Sources of energy consumed in the US in '09 are:
Coal - 24% (91% of it is used for electric power generation)
Renewables - 7% (a breakdown is for hydro and biomass/ethanol, 3% each, wind 0.3%
and 0.07% solar).
It is silly to think that wind and solar could make any significant contribution to the total in the near future. There is a bare but unlikely possibility that biomass could be a player, but it can't compete on a price basis without taxpayer subsidy. Only unrealistic government dreamers could come up with the idea that wind and solar could be seriously involved.
The Alpha Officers, Board of Directors, and Stockholders know that the heavy energy lifting is done by coal and will continue for the foreseeable future, even if the Obama Administration does not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
