# Why build Keystone?



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

That's one reason right there! That's the first thing I thought about when I saw this on the news! "Carrying crude from ND ! I'm sure there are many others!

Wade


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Exactly so. Also, it's highly unlikely that the per barrel price is going to remain where it is so basing the decision of current circumstances is very foolish.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

The down side of building Keystone would be all the emergency workers, clean up specialists, communist activists, and some of Warren Buffet's accountants would be out of work.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Anyone have any info about the pipeline Canada was going to build instead of Keystone?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

pancho said:


> Anyone have any info about the pipeline Canada was going to build instead of Keystone?


A fairly good summary of the Northern Gateway proposal. It is an environmental disaster just waiting to happen and British Columbia does not want it. Enbridge has to meet 209 conditions to proceed with the project. The First Nations are fighting hard against this project which would cross their land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge_Northern_Gateway_Pipelines


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Glade Runner said:


> Exactly so. Also, it's highly unlikely that the per barrel price is going to remain where it is so basing the decision of current circumstances is very foolish.


Demand for oil is falling, and it's likely to keep falling. Saudi Arabia has shown a total commitment to supplying all the oil the world needs. What does the supply-demand model tell you about that?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> *Why build Keystone?*


What did I miss? Has another oil train derailed and caught on fire? If so, where did it happen and how bad is it this time?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Paumon said:


> What did I miss? Has another oil train derailed and caught on fire? If so, where did it happen and how bad is it this time?


It's a moot question now. Keystone won't be built regardless of what the government approves. It no longer makes sense financially.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Nevada said:


> It's a moot question now. Keystone won't be built regardless of what the government approves. It no longer makes sense financially.


I just want to know if another oil train derailed.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Paumon said:


> What did I miss? Has another oil train derailed and caught on fire? If so, where did it happen and how bad is it this time?


Yes.



> MOUNT CARBON, W. VA. &#8212; Fires burned for hours Tuesday after a train carrying 109 tankers of crude oil derailed in a snowstorm alongside a creek in West Virginia, sending fireballs into the sky and threatening the water supply of people living nearby.
> 
> Hundreds of families were evacuated and two water treatment plants were shut down after dozens of the cars left the tracks and 19 caught fire Monday afternoon, creating shuddering explosions and intense heat. Part of the formation hit and set fire to a house, and one person was treated for smoke inhalation, but no other injuries were reported, according to a statement from the train company, CSX.


http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2015/0217/West-Virginia-crude-oil-train-derailment-Fires-burned-for-hours-smoke


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Thank you JTB.


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

Nevada said:


> It's a moot question now. Keystone won't be built regardless of what the government approves. It no longer makes sense financially.


I'm not so sure you are right on that. My understanding is that the saudis have stopped the limiting of production to flood the market,lowering prices simply to make it less economically feasible for american market to continue upgrading facilities and higher production.
If this is the case,the end game will produce a new leader in production and refinement in the U.S.,bumping the Saudis down a notch.It's just a gamble for self preservation.Personally I can't see how it will benefit them seeing all the major companies are basically in control of the oil reserves of both countries.Even if it did benefit them to some degree,it won't have an effect on China which will be in the buying market for at least the next 50 years.
It is only a moot point if our government allows it to be by backing off on things like the pipeline.

Wade


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It's a moot question now. Keystone won't be built regardless of what the government approves. It no longer makes sense financially.


wrongamundo oh sand dwelling one.

I told you before SA would not be doing this without our permission. We are working to sink the Russian economy. This is a short term blip.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Why build Keystone?
Because Obama doesn't want it. It's that simple.
Anyone with half a brain know that the Arab States are flooding the market with oil to make Keystone less attractive and therefore keeping us under their thumb. US oil independence would throw a wrench into their plans for influencing us, and throw a wrench into Obama's plan for a degraded America.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HDRider said:


> wrongamundo oh sand dwelling one.
> 
> I told you before SA would not be doing this without our permission. We are working to sink the Russian economy. This is a short term blip.


Saudi Arabia is aware that the day will come when oil is worthless. They way they look at it they would rather get something for all the oil they can, rather than get nothing for oil that will go unproduced.

Producing oil in Saudi is cheap. On many wells there is no pump required to produce the first few years, since it flows in its own. It's good quality oil also, so it's easy to refine. They can still make money at $30/bbl.

I expect to see low oil prices for the duration. The handwriting is on the wall -- oil is on its way out.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

The last I heard Canada already had a pipeline to do the same thing Keystone would do.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

HDRider said:


> wrongamundo oh sand dwelling one.
> 
> I told you before SA would not be doing this without our permission. We are working to sink the Russian economy. This is a short term blip.


Well those fools better try something else .Russia knows that with help from China they could crash the dollar but would also wreck them . So they are slowly getting rid of their US bonds .Also Russia and China is now by passing all use of dollars for their trade and so are many other countries . 

For a long time China and Russia have been warning about selling US paper, if only in theory
Increasingly, this appears to be also taking place in practice

http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/16/1938 

Also Russia has tons of gold and adding daily :runforhills:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Well those fools better try something else .Russia knows that with help from China they could crash the dollar but would also wreck them . So they are slowly getting rid of their US bonds .Also Russia and China is now by passing all use of dollars for their trade and so are many other countries .
> 
> For a long time China and Russia have been warning about selling US paper, if only in theory
> Increasingly, this appears to be also taking place in practice
> ...


Russia is going broke,,, fast.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Four things are now affecting the [oil] picture. 

Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels. 

Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya&#8212;two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined&#8212;has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. 

Thirdly, America has become the world&#8217;s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply. 

Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. *They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. *It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/econ...4?zid=295&ah=0bca374e65f2354d553956ea65f756e0

Russia is in a state of economic collapse. It has rampant inflation, and its oil economy is in tatters as the price per barrel is far below what Russia needs to drive growth. Russian banks are on state life support.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-in-decline-joseph-nye-quote-2015-2#ixzz3S2veEtZR


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The pipeline WILL get built there is no doubt on that just WHEN is the question. It is just another few hundred miles of a country The USA that already has over a million miles in pipelines. This little pipeline length is nothing just a drop and a spec on the map of pipelines that are already in use around the country. There is NO longer to any natural resources just that a few just want to stop buying gas and using oil, thats all. Anti- This Anti-That, anti- this over there and then the NIMBY folks.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I expect to see low oil prices for the duration. The handwriting is on the wall -- oil is on its way out.


Do you have a timeframe attached to this prediction in your mind? We'll probably never stop using petroleum completely, but how long do you think it will be until we're using a quarter of what we do now?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> Do you have a timeframe attached to this prediction in your mind? We'll probably never stop using petroleum completely, but how long do you think it will be until we're using a quarter of what we do now?


About the time the economy crashes.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Nevada; 
Your outlook is far too gloomy. Oil for fuel may become less important, but barring an breakthrough in the production of fuel cells or some fuel other than oil we will be years weaning ourselves from petroleum. 

Further, oil will always have great value as a chemical feedstock. I'm not selling my oil stocks any time soon.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Do you have a timeframe attached to this prediction in your mind? We'll probably never stop using petroleum completely, but how long do you think it will be until we're using a quarter of what we do now?


Today we use half the oil we used a decade ago, and the electric & hybrid revolution has barely begun. Figure it from there.

The deal breaker for the oil industry is Saudi's commitment to maintaining as much market share as they can. They're willing to do it at any price, even if oil drops another $20. This means that the party's over.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Nevada;
> Your outlook is far too gloomy. Oil for fuel may become less important, but barring an breakthrough in the production of fuel cells or some fuel other than oil we will be years weaning ourselves from petroleum.
> 
> Further, oil will always have great value as a chemical feedstock. I'm not selling my oil stocks any time soon.


Oil will always be with us, that's true, but I don't know that the oil industry is where I would put my investments. Unfortunately a large part of my retirement comes from Chevron each month. Let's hope they stay smart.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Saudi Arabia is aware that the day will come when oil is worthless. They way they look at it they would rather get something for all the oil they can, rather than get nothing for oil that will go unproduced.
> 
> Producing oil in Saudi is cheap. On many wells there is no pump required to produce the first few years, since it flows in its own. It's good quality oil also, so it's easy to refine. They can still make money at $30/bbl.
> 
> I expect to see low oil prices for the duration. The handwriting is on the wall -- oil is on its way out.


I actually see it as more of a slow race. âOil is worthlessâ vs. âNo more oil to suck out of the groundâ. Which will occur first??? I do not know and neither does anyone else. 

Oil may become worthless one day, but I have serious doubts that it will happen in our lifetimes. And for oil to be on the way out there would have to be a better alternative. There are presently too many variables and unknowns for any of the âgreenâ energies. The technology and infrastructure are simply not there, nor even close to being on the horizon. Not to mention that many attitudes would have to drastically change in order for there to be a Prius-like vehicle in every garage. Many will have to be cajoled and weaned off of their turbo-charged vehicles.




Nevada said:


> It's a moot question now. Keystone won't be built regardless of what the government approves. It no longer makes sense financially.


And that is the same short-sighted attitude that bites us in the butt every time. Oil prices dip and everyone wants to buy the largest gas guzzling SUV they can find. Oil prices dip and we stop thinking about drilling more wells or building pipelines. 

Unless you have inside knowledge that Santa Claus will be dropping off 15kwâs worth of solar panels, fuel cells, etc., to every Tom, Dick and Harry for the next Christmas holiday, I do believe that there will still be a need for oil for quite a while to come.

It will be a long and laborious effort to get the petroleum monkey off this countryâs back and I do not see it happening any time soon, but it is possible.





Nevada said:


> Today we use half the oil we used a decade ago, and the electric & hybrid revolution has barely begun. Figure it from there.



Both are true but, unfortunately, neither is an indicator that the world is ready for "no oil". I think that shoving it to the oil companies would be the next best thing to sliced bread, but, again, I do not think that either of us will live to see it happen. Unfortunately!!!

TRellis


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TRellis said:


> And that is the same short-sighted attitude that bites us in the butt every time. Oil prices dip and everyone wants to buy the largest gas guzzling SUV they can find. Oil prices dip and we stop thinking about drilling more wells or building pipelines.


It's different this time, and I'll tell you why. Never before have market swings been made so dramatically with such a small portion of the market. Basically, the market was flooded with oil from tar sands and North Dakota shale production. The the market was flooded even more by Saudi maintaining production.

The big indicator is US oil demand dropping in half over the past decade, with no indication that the trend will change.

*This isn't a cyclic event.* This is the beginning of the end of the oil industry. Understand that I've been watching the oil business my entire adult life, and these are unprecedented indicators.

We'll still use liquid fuels for a long time. I don't see any developments in alternative fuels for aircraft, trucks, and ships. But that technology will come along eventually.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Not that sure but I think HD was about possible benefits of Keystone instead of trucking it over the rail or road. Not what the Saudis will or wont do. 

That train derailment had me wondering too about the pipeline being better. I have no love for pipelines as I live in Texas the pipeline capital of the world. Plus I am a certified firefighter and have had the training for pipeline spills. It aint pretty when it happens but there is never anything as bad as this train wreck. 

In my county we have had three derailments in my lifetime. Zero pipeline accidents. Two derailments caused evacuation. One was only just grain. Only one railroad and 15 pipelines. All moving stuff daily. They do truck a lot of _stuff_ over the rail and by barge in the intracoastal canal. Don't know why when the canal already has pipelines going through it. At least in the Galveston Texas city local.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Today we use half the oil we used a decade ago, and the electric & hybrid revolution has barely begun. Figure it from there.


I was hoping you would figure it for me, but I guess I can do a little math. So about 20 years to get to a quarter what we use today? Or less, because the electric and hybrid pace is accelerating?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> I was hoping you would figure it for me, but I guess I can do a little math. So about 20 years to get to a quarter what we use today? Or less, because the electric and hybrid pace is accelerating?


The timetable is anyone's guess because there are variables we can't predict, like rate of innovation and the willingness to invest in new technologies. But I think the Saudis will keep oil prices low enough to discourage shale & tar sands production for the duration. Why shouldn't they?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

jtbrandt said:


> I was hoping you would figure it for me, but I guess I can do a little math. So about 20 years to get to a quarter what we use today? Or less, because the electric and hybrid pace is accelerating?


Don't forget or discount the _green_ movement. Used to when I built a house no one worried about the electric bill. "just build the dang thing" sort of mentality. Texas has been on the movement (believe it or not) since GW was governor here. When he was governor, he mandated that if the utilities wanted to deregulate they had to spend every year 5% of their *gross* profits on energy conservation principles.

Most people don't know that Oncor, AEP and Entergy sell watts to Cal. for 8 cents which is cheaper than they (Cally) can produce it. That and all the wind turbines we are installing plus our hydro plants that grow annually. 

But I have no figure because population grows as do electrical needs fluctuate. LEDS use less as do the newer TVs and appliances. But we do as a whole always want more stuff it seems.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Today we use half the oil we used a decade ago, and the electric & hybrid revolution has barely begun. Figure it from there.
> 
> The deal breaker for the oil industry is Saudi's commitment to maintaining as much market share as they can. They're willing to do it at any price, even if oil drops another $20. This means that the party's over.


So why are you so worried about "global warming"? I thought emissions were, well, up, up, up, and the sea was rising, and our kids were doomed?

Now you say we are using half the oil as ten years ago?

Confused about that...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmerDale said:


> So why are you so worried about "global warming"? I thought emissions were, well, up, up, up, and the sea was rising, and our kids were doomed?
> 
> Now you say we are using half the oil as ten years ago?
> 
> Confused about that...


Electric cars alone won't do it. But I think you already knew that.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> This isn't a cyclic event.[/B] This is the beginning of the end of the oil industry.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> I agree. There cant be a end all be all right off the bat. think of all the jobs lost all at once. It has to be a gradual movement. One that the jobs try and at least even out. Not saying this is the one but done any other way the global economy would collapse.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> I agree. There cant be a end all be all right off the bat. think of all the jobs lost all at once. It has to be a gradual movement. One that the jobs try and at least even out. Not saying this is the one but done any other way the global economy would collapse.


The industry will wind down over a few decades, but if someone is working for an oil producing company in North Dakota I think he needs to make plans for himself. The economy of North Dakota will see very hard times soon, but I don't know how much impact that might have on the rest of the country.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Nevada said:


> The industry will wind down over a few decades, but if someone is working for an oil producing company in North Dakota I think he needs to make plans for himself. The economy of North Dakota will see very hard times soon, but I don't know how much impact that might have on the rest of the country.


Totally agree Nevada. I am a Texas boy working for an oil/gas transport business. I sent resumes out three months ago as I am construction guy all my life. But even he who delivers our gasoline is getting out of the oil business. I am building his real estate portfolio as money allows him right now.* BUT*

There are many others here that are being laid off daily in the oil business. Seems we (insert state) never learn. I learned from the first one in the 80's and haven't looked back since. I got burned bad but had no family to support so I was one of the lucky ones.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Electric cars alone won't do it. But I think you already knew that.


That was a short answer. I was hoping you would explain more why you are so scared of the warming caused by emissions of mankind, yet now you say we use half the oil we did ten years ago, yet emissions are still rising, causing more global warming, and we need to stop it.

So that is why I am confused. If we are using half the oil of a decade ago, would it not follow that emissions are dropping, and we are therefore healing the planet? 

You think we will not be using oil for long? So why the big panic over rising sea levels and global warming, and dropping lakes?

I should be able to hear you from here, whooping it up and having a mighty party because evil, (oil), is almost through, and the associated carbon emissions will plummet, causing your lake to refill, the glaciers to grow, crops to fail, and the sea level to drop like a rock, no?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Totally agree Nevada. I am a Texas boy working for an oil/gas transport business. I sent resumes out three months ago as I am construction guy all my life. But even he who delivers our gasoline is getting out of the oil business. I am building his real estate portfolio as money allows him right now.* BUT*
> 
> There are many others here that are being laid off daily in the oil business. Seems we (insert state) never learn. I learned from the first one in the 80's and haven't looked back since. I got burned bad but had no family to support so I was one of the lucky ones.


It's always been a boom & bust industry, but it's different this time. I don't see any reason why Saudi shouldn't run shale producers out of business and keep them out of business. Their weapon is low oil prices.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmerDale said:


> That was a short answer. I was hoping you would explain more why you are so scared of the warming caused by emissions of mankind, yet now you say we use half the oil we did ten years ago, yet emissions are still rising, causing more global warming, and we need to stop it.
> 
> So that is why I am confused. If we are using half the oil of a decade ago, would it not follow that emissions are dropping, and we are therefore healing the planet?
> 
> ...


Transportation is only about 1/4 of CO2 emissions, and transportation includes trucks, trains and ships. They're using about the same. Most of the other 3/4 of CO2 emissions are from power generation and industrial sources. There's not a lot of progress there.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I don't believe that we use half the oil that we did 10 years ago. I think oil consumption has doubled from what it was 10 years ago.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Is 0bama a fan of tar sand oil?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Paumon said:


> I don't believe that we use half the oil that we did 10 years ago. I think oil consumption has doubled from what it was 10 years ago.


Oil consumption has decreased in the last 10 years. Not by half or even close to it but the trend had been fairly flat for a while even before the Great Recession. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=consumption


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I don't believe that we use half the oil that we did 10 years ago. I think oil consumption has doubled from what it was 10 years ago.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Oil consumption has decreased in the last 10 years. Not by half or even close to it but the trend had been fairly flat for a while even before the Great Recession. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=consumption


2003.....10 %
2004.......3.75 %
2005.......1.79 %
2006.......1.08 %
2007.......1.30 %
2008......-0.78 %
2009......-1.25 %
2010.......3.40 %
2011.......0.93 %
2012.......1.14 %
2013.......0.76 %

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Paumon said:


> I don't believe that we use half the oil that we did 10 years ago. I think oil consumption has doubled from what it was 10 years ago.


No I sure don;t think so either. It has gone down some but not by that much. So many more things are being made out of oil and its by-products then ever before. just not at the same rate. The number one reason is the economic down turn throughout the World, not just here in the states.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Demand for oil is falling, and it's likely to keep falling. Saudi Arabia has shown a total commitment to supplying all the oil the world needs. What does the supply-demand model tell you about that?


What I know about Saudi Arabia tells me their reserves are not what they're cracked up to be. They're talking a good game but they will not be able to deliver in the long run. They are also dipping heavily into their cash reserves to pay their running costs at the moment. They need $80 a barrel to cover their cost of government, etc.

I am not speculating, I know quite a lot about their actual reserve status and their lack of success in recent exploration efforts. The Saudis are past masters at putting on a good front.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Saudi Arabia is aware that the day will come when oil is worthless. They way they look at it they would rather get something for all the oil they can, rather than get nothing for oil that will go unproduced.
> 
> Producing oil in Saudi is cheap. On many wells there is no pump required to produce the first few years, since it flows in its own. It's good quality oil also, so it's easy to refine. They can still make money at $30/bbl.
> 
> I expect to see low oil prices for the duration. The handwriting is on the wall -- oil is on its way out.


You're just as right about this as you are everything else. Which is to say you're talking through your hat. While you may have lived in Saudi a couple of years your information is way out of date and to be honest, working in a refinery doesn't tell you a whole lot about their oil industry in general. You know about process but bugger all about reservoirs.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Saudi Arabia is aware that the day will come when oil is worthless.


Yeah, and nuclear power plants were going to make electricity too cheap to meter. 

This is complete nonsense, for the foreseeable future hydrocarbons will be the principle energy source for the planet. No currently available or anticipated in the short to medium term technology has any promise of changing that fact. Especially for transportation. Twenty or thirty years may start to change that but it is questionable. 

I'm as green as anyone in the way I live my life but the propaganda you hear from the hydrocarbon haters is just that, propaganda. The only reason any of this stuff is being sold is because of massive government subsidies.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Paumon said:


> I don't believe that we use half the oil that we did 10 years ago. I think oil consumption has doubled from what it was 10 years ago.


Gasoline consumption is half what it was 10 years ago, not oil consumption.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Gasoline consumption is half what it was 10 years ago, not oil consumption.


And yet you previously stated....



Nevada said:


> Today we use half the oil we used a decade ago, and the electric & hybrid revolution has barely begun. Figure it from there.


Make up my mind...

TRellis


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Gasoline consumption is half what it was 10 years ago, not oil consumption.


Nope, wrongo bucko

2000	.........2.40 %
2001	.........0.96 %
2002	.........0.57 %
2003	.........1.11 %
2004	.........2.23 %
2005	.........1.40 %
2006	.........1.50 %
2007	.........1.01 %
2008	........-1.28 %
2009	..........1.51 %
2010	..........1.34 %

http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx/?product=gasoline&graph=consumption


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Nope, wrongo bucko
> 
> 2000	.........2.40 %
> 2001	.........0.96 %
> ...


Which shows definitively how completely, utterly and dramatically wrong Nevada can be and for the most part is.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2015/02/18/why_oil_prices_must_go_up_108289.html

Good article on why prices must go up. Very simply, reserves are not being replaced. One ENI guy is predicting $200 a barrel.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Glade Runner said:


> Which shows definitively how completely, utterly and dramatically wrong Nevada can be and for the most part is.


Facts just get in the way.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Glade Runner said:


> Which shows definitively how completely, utterly and dramatically wrong Nevada can be and for the most part is.


That's global, not the US. USA gasoline consumption has dropped significantly.









http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-30/us-gasoline-consumption-plummets-nearly-75


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

A perfect example of, "How can I parse this so wrong is right." Typical leftist claptrap.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Nevada said:


> That's global, not the US. USA gasoline consumption has dropped significantly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You crawl through every crack there is, backtrack, restate, and obfuscate.

Even your stupid chart misleads. "Sold by refiners" Jeez. The EPA is killing refiners. But you are an "oil expert". You know that.

In 2013, about 134.51 billion gallons (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline were consumed in the United States, a daily average of about 368.51 million gallons (or 8.77 million barrels). This was about 6% less than the record high of about 142.35 billion gallons (or 3.39 billion barrels) consumed in 2007.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Nevada is a perfect example of why Bill Clinton though his statement "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." was a legitimate comment. You have to wonder if lefties go to school for this stuff because there's no way you come by it naturally.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The timetable is anyone's guess because there are variables we can't predict, like rate of innovation and the willingness to invest in new technologies. But I think the Saudis will keep oil prices low enough to discourage shale & tar sands production *for the duration*. Why shouldn't they?


I'm just trying to get an idea of what you mean by the duration...the duration of human history, or what? I'm not looking for an argument; I'm legitimately seeking your opinion since you know more about oil than I do.

ETA: Reading the rest of the thread, I see now that there has been some dispute about your numbers. If you're only talking U.S. oil/gasoline consumption decreasing while the rest of the world picks up the oil we no longer need, that changes the picture.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Glade Runner said:


> Nevada is a perfect example of why Bill Clinton though his statement "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." was a legitimate comment. You have to wonder if lefties go to school for this stuff because there's no way *you come by it naturally*.


I think it does.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

No reply, Nevada? Is that an admission that your figures were misleading, or just leaving the thread because people were being unfriendly?

All these numbers are confusing to me. I would like to defer to the expertise of others, but if you don't answer the challenges to the numbers, I have no idea what to believe. Oil is not my thing, but I am interested to know what's what.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

A train of tank cars derailed alongside the Kanawha River in WV. It was carrying oil from North Dakota to VA. The local paper stated 30,000 gallons of oil was involved when each tanker carried 30,000 gal. Based on the number of cars probably about 3,000,000 gal of oil were in the train.

"David McClung said he felt the heat from one of the shuddering explosions at his home. He lives about a half mile up a hill from the site. "It was a little scary. It was like an atomic bomb went off," he said. One of the explosions that followed sent a fireball at least 300 feet into the air, McClung added."

http://www.wptv.com/news/national/west-virginia-oil-train-derailment-fires-for-hours-smoke


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> I'm just trying to get an idea of what you mean by the duration...the duration of human history, or what? I'm not looking for an argument; I'm legitimately seeking your opinion since you know more about oil than I do.


While I can't predict the future, I believe the petroleum for fuel is in the process of going the way of the horse for transportation and the kerosene lamp for lighting homes.



jtbrandt said:


> ETA: Reading the rest of the thread, I see now that there has been some dispute about your numbers. If you're only talking U.S. oil/gasoline consumption decreasing while the rest of the world picks up the oil we no longer need, that changes the picture.


World gasoline consumption is holding because more people are driving in China. But that will change. The rest of the world will follow suit for driving more efficient cars and changing to electric & hybrid technologies.

I'm telling you, the party is over.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> While I can't predict the future, I believe the petroleum for fuel is in the process of going the way of the horse for transportation and the kerosene lamp for lighting homes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah it will be a thing of the past in probably 50 to 75 years from now, I won't see it in my lifetime. But it is a nice bedtime story :cute:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Yeah it will be a thing of the past in probably 50 to 75 years from now, I won't see it in my lifetime. But it is a nice bedtime story :cute:


I'm seeing indicators that I've never seen before. The most significant is the absolute commitment Saudi has to maintaining low oil prices. We all know how successful Saudi was at keeping prices up, so I suspect they'll be successful at keeping prices down. As for timing, how long did it take for cars & trucks to replace the horse after Henry Ford started making the Model T?

The concern is whether our economy can withstand a North Dakota oil industry crash, because it's going to happen.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I'm seeing indicators that I've never seen before. The most significant is the absolute commitment Saudi has to maintaining low oil prices. We all know how successful Saudi was at keeping prices up, so I suspect they'll be successful at keeping prices down.
> 
> The concern is whether our economy can withstand a North Dakota oil industry crash, because it's going to happen.


What I am seeing is an effort to deprive ISIS of operating capital, the Saudis are doing a good job of it too. As to the US we are using less fuel mainly because most middle class folks are struggling with the increased costs of food and medical care (insurance). Budgets have no wiggle room at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> What I am seeing is an effort to deprive ISIS of operating capital, the Saudis are doing a good job of it too.


This is about Saudi Arabia maintaining their market share. It has nothing to do with ISIS.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> This is about Saudi Arabia maintaining their market share. It has nothing to do with ISIS.


We all have our sources of info. :sing:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes that is what is going on. Isis and other countries that the ME wants to put a strangle hole on. This is just to stop the oil shale oil producers and nothing more. The Mideast still wants to dominate to be the only place to buy oil and set the price for the world. They have the cash reserves to do it too. Ya oil will be still be in high demand for ma years to come. And with enough oil for the next 200 to 500 years by that time better things will be in use. But not for a long long time. Even IF Apple wants to start building CARS by 2020 even contemplating buying Tesla alone the way. This country has way to many wide open Long driving distances for small tinker toy electric nonsense.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Yes that is what is going on. Isis and other countries that the ME wants to put a strangle hole on. This is just to stop the oil shale oil producers and nothing more. The Mideast still wants to dominate to be the only place to buy oil and set the price for the world. They have the cash reserves to do it too. Ya oil will be still be in high demand for ma years to come. And with enough oil for the next 200 to 500 years by that time better things will be in use. But not for a long long time. Even IF Apple wants to start building CARS by 2020 even contemplating buying Tesla alone the way. *This country has way too many wide open Long driving distances for small tinker toy electric nonsense.*


Somehow the so-called cognoscenti miss that point.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I'm seeing indicators that I've never seen before. The most significant is the absolute commitment Saudi has to maintaining low oil prices. We all know how successful Saudi was at keeping prices up, so I suspect they'll be successful at keeping prices down. As for timing, how long did it take for cars & trucks to replace the horse after Henry Ford started making the Model T?
> 
> The concern is whether our economy can withstand a North Dakota oil industry crash, because it's going to happen.


I hope you're right on all counts. As far as ND oil industry taking down the economy, I doubt it.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

no really said:


> Yeah it will be a thing of the past in probably 50 to 75 years from now, I won't see it in my lifetime. But it is a nice bedtime story :cute:


That's about what I would predict too, but for me it's just kind of wild guess. I am interested in why people think it will be sooner, but I'm not seeing anything very convincing so far.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> While I can't predict the future, I believe the petroleum for fuel is in the process of going the way of the horse for transportation and the kerosene lamp for lighting homes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know you're telling me that...but I don't just take anyone's word for it. I'm trying to understand why you believe it.



Nevada said:


> As for timing, how long did it take for cars & trucks to replace the horse after Henry Ford started making the Model T?


Here's the thing...horses are still out there...I have 17 of them and can't reach parts of my ranch without them. I know, obviously horses are not a significant mode of transportation in the developed world. But the point is that Henry Ford didn't make horses completely obsolete. In a similar way, I find it hard to believe that electric cars are going to make engines obsolete any time soon. And it isn't a conservative distaste for electric cars that's making me think this way. I like them. I just don't see the evidence that they are going to transform the world within the next few decades.

Hybrids, on the other hand, may become really big. I like those too, though not as much as I like pure electrics. But as long as oil-burning hybrids are common, there will be demand for oil to fuel them...less of it, sure...but still significant.

None of this is meant as argument. I have just been trying to get an idea of what you base your prediction on. It seems to be about as much of a hunch as my own predictions. Maybe a more educated hunch, though. Thanks for coming back and answering.


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

I really don't want to step into the middle of an argument so don't take this that way.I Have to admit following this thread has been fun!
I don't have anything to base this on except my gut feeling but, I think Nevada could be right but for all the wrong reasons.The relationship between our government and big business seems to be very healthy,for them,but not for us, the people.
I look at a few past events and see how very easy it would be to force their will on us and if the government does not want us to use oil that's just what they will do.I look at things like the recent ammo shortage and can see how easy it would be to ban guns by banning ammo.It's been what , a couple years since you could just walk into a business and by 22 ammo?If thru their cozy little relationship the government could could force manufacturers to halt production of 22 ammo it would effectively be a ban on 22 rifles. And they are not above doing something like that. I know because they already have.

When Obama pushed thru his tax hike on alcohol and tobacco he effectively banned the use of cigarettes for everyone under a certain earning level.In the tax hike alcohol tax went up by about 7% while the cigarette tax increased by about 2,378%.It's pretty plan to see his actions were geared against poor people because the poor are the highest percentage of smokers and the rich are the highest (per dollar) spenders on alcohol.He couldn't get a large alcohol tax thru because it would hurt the wallets of the rich of which are sitting in congress.If you don't believe this then why does the nation have a health care program that was signed into law for all ,EXCEPT CONGRESS .
The point is simply if the government wants to end oil consumption they can do it any time they want to and there is nothing we can do about it,therefore nevada "could" be right!

Wade


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

1shotwade said:


> Very valid point. When cigarettes went up it was pretty telling when cigars didn't. Gotta be able to have our cigar and gin after a law making session after all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Well, we didn't have to wait long for oil prices to tank again. It traded today as low as $42.85, a six year low.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/16/investing/oil-prices-gas-6-year-low/index.html

Expect gasoline to drop by summer, just as I said it might.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Well, we didn't have to wait long for oil prices to tank again. It traded today as low as $42.85, a six year low.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/16/investing/oil-prices-gas-6-year-low/index.html
> 
> Expect gasoline to drop by summer, just as I said it might.


The irony of this thread, is in a world of oil over-supply, that having keystone xl will only make things worse, for our own oil industry.

Our Government (in this case, the GOP) tells us it's "good" for us, so naturally, we have to believe them.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

And the left laughed at and mocked the right for "drill baby drill"! Yet that proved to be right. You might want to temper your eye rolling for a couple of years.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/13/dems-change-tune-after-mocking-gop-for-drill-baby-drill/


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

nchobbyfarm said:


> And the left laughed at and mocked the right for "drill baby drill"! Yet that proved to be right. You might want to temper your eye rolling for a couple of years.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/13/dems-change-tune-after-mocking-gop-for-drill-baby-drill/


Contrary to popular belief, I am most certainly not of the "Left", of which I have equal disdain.

I simply prefer, to look at the _big picture_.

Personally, fracking is fine, IMO, if it's done properly. I was not for drilling in ANWR, because it would not make any significant drop in oil prices, wince there was a plentiful world supply.

I'm glad we a a revitalized domestic crude oil and nautral gas industry.

I'd like to see it stay that way and Keystone XL is not going to help in any way.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> And the left laughed at and mocked the right for "drill baby drill"! Yet that proved to be right. You might want to temper your eye rolling for a couple of years.


We don't know the extent of damage bankrupted oil companies will do to our economy. No doubt, a lot more money was lost than made. It could put us back in recession, and even put banks in a bind again.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> We don't know the extent of damage bankrupted oil companies will do to our economy. No doubt, a lot more money was lost than made. It could put us back in recession, and even put banks in a bind again.



I thought we were in a decade long recession already. When did the "Nevada decade recession" end? I missed your declaration that it was over early!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I thought we were in a decade long recession already. When did the "Nevada decade recession" end? I missed your declaration that it was over early!


It can get a lot worse.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It can get a lot worse.


That's rich! Just glad you admitted you were wrong. That's the first step so I hear.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Personally, fracking is fine, IMO, if it's done properly.


The problem as I see it is who determines what constitutes "fracking done properly"? Unless something has changed that I have not yet heard about, none of the companies that are fracking will make public what is in the fluid that they use to fracture the oil bearing rock. 

They all claim that the formula is proprietary. Communities cannot make an informed decision whether to allow fracking or not because they are not given all of the pertinent information. 

I guess it just becomes a case of where we trust in the fact that corporations have our best interests in mind and allow them to just do what they want? I am not comfortable with that. There are far too many instances where corporations in the past and present, have done what they please to the detriment of the locals several years down the road after the corporations have left after having gotten what they wanted.

TRellis


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

TRellis said:


> The problem as I see it is who determines what constitutes "fracking done properly"? Unless something has changed that I have not yet heard about, none of the companies that are fracking will make public what is in the fluid that they use to fracture the oil bearing rock.
> 
> They all claim that the formula is proprietary. Communities cannot make an informed decision whether to allow fracking or not because they are not given all of the pertinent information.
> 
> ...


For most of the country fracking done properly means that their gas prices stay low and their water table isn't affected. Just as for most people coal mining done properly doesn't cost the lives of family members, the top of their mountain disappearing or coal slurry spoiling their river but keeps their electrical costs down. As long as most reap the benefit most don't care about the real cost.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> For most of the country fracking done properly means that their gas prices stay low and their water table isn't affected. Just as for most people coal mining done properly doesn't cost the lives of family members, the top of their mountain disappearing or coal slurry spoiling their river but keeps their electrical costs down. As long as most reap the benefit most don't care about the real cost.


And that is the same thing as the "not in my backyard" reasoning. Or at least, "it is good as long as it does not adversely affect me and mine" attitude.

TRellis


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

TRellis said:


> And that is the same thing as the "not in my backyard" reasoning. Or at least, "it is good as long as it does not adversely affect me and mine" attitude.
> 
> TRellis


I wasn't advocating for the attitude or endorsing it, just offering my answer to your question. "Drill baby,drill" sounds good until it's your groundwater, hunting or fishing grounds or beaches that are affected. Then most people become the environmental whackos that get made fun of.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

TRellis said:


> And that is the same thing as the "not in my backyard" reasoning. Or at least, "it is good as long as it does not adversely affect me and mine" attitude.
> 
> TRellis


 So true. And around my area it is the Sand Mining issue.
My goodness sand mines have been around for years as well. And those that do it correctly you can not tell what land has been sand taken off and then land yet to be mined. Those that do not get fined.
The ones that are doing things right replant tress and vegetation and one mine not 30 miles from me has been going since the 80's and not one issue has arisen from them.
Silica Sand, and other sand that is mined, is important not only to the oil industry, but many other industries as well.
And boy has this sand mining ever helped the railroads~!!
Adding new tracks, building rail yards just to keep those sand cars on while loading and on unloading, Big Business for sure and keeps many people working as well. And must all those sand rail cars are headed to the Dakotas to feed the ever increasing oil boom. And this Keystone pipeline will connect to others on the way to the south to deliver oil to OUR refineries, making jobs for Americans.~!


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Unfortunately there are many mines (about 500,000) where no reclamation or remediation has been done. The mine was worked until it was depleted or no longer profitable and then the companies just left, leaving behind all their mess. They did so because they could since there were no environmental laws and enforcement and the governments did not demand a bond for the reclamation work. 

Even when environmental laws were put into place many companies just declared that part of their business to be bankrupt and thus they did not have to pay. The citizens did.

The mine at Faro is one of the most contaminated abandoned mines in the world and although the remediation has started (paid by the government thus the people) it will take a century to complete.

Of the 500,000 mines the worst of the worst get federal Superfund money for cleanup. The rest are left to the states, private organizations and nonprofit conservation groups to clean up.

However - They&#8217;re also left with the liability. Under the Clean Water Act, anyone altering a water source needs to have a permit. And getting that permit requires assuming responsibility for water pollution. In many cases, if a nonprofit decides to clean up waste at an abandoned mine, it also could be on the hook for the water quality of the entire watershed &#8211; a prohibitively expensive task.

So the waste site sits untouched, and acid continues to drain into nearby water.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

TRellis said:


> The problem as I see it is who determines what constitutes "fracking done properly"? Unless something has changed that I have not yet heard about, none of the companies that are fracking will make public what is in the fluid that they use to fracture the oil bearing rock.
> 
> They all claim that the formula is proprietary. Communities cannot make an informed decision whether to allow fracking or not because they are not given all of the pertinent information.
> 
> ...


Ok, so let's not frack drill either, just get dirty Canada oil and just hope for the best. 

FWIW, what sold me on fracking (not that I know much of anything about it) is that they use steel well casing until they get through the aquifer, which should minimize risk, from the "chemicals", of which some states EPA already require disclosure, evven if the general public (and competitors) don't know.

FWIW The compounds of crude oil itself (although all "natural") are not necessarily all that pleasant and worry-free either.

Maybe someday we will live in a perfect world. in the mean time, it's nice IMO, that Americans have jobs in our own oil/gas fields.


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I wasn't advocating for the attitude or endorsing it, just offering my answer to your question. "Drill baby,drill" sounds good until it's your groundwater, hunting or fishing grounds or beaches that are affected. Then most people become the environmental whackos that get made fun of.


I understood your intent and did not think you were advocating or endorsing it. Sorry if I made it sound like you were.

TRellis


----------



## TRellis (Sep 16, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Ok, so let's not frack drill either, just get dirty Canada oil and just hope for the best.


And I am not necessarily saying do not frack either. I am just stating that the truth should be known about exactly what it is that is being used in the fracking fluids so that intelligent decisions can be made concerning whether or not to allow fracking.



plowjockey said:


> FWIW, what sold me on fracking (not that I know much of anything about it) is that they use steel well casing until they get through the aquifer, which should minimize risk, from the "chemicals", of which some states EPA already require disclosure, even if the general public (and competitors) don't know.


And the use of a steel casing is a good thing, but I do not necessarily put my faith in any EPA (federal or state). Their track record is not the best. They are really good at levying fines for accidents after the fact, but pretty lousy at setting up operating guidelines to prevent accidents.

Where I used to live the local "developer god", who is the uncle of my best friend there, was developing a large piece of property. The state EPA said that he could not have more than a certain percentage of soil broken at any one time to prevent silting of several formerly great trout streams and lakes. 

Needless to say, he more than tripled the amount of ground broken at any point in time during development. The streams silted over and a lot of fish died. Someone called the EPA on him, he said he would not do it again and paid a meager fine. A little later someone called the EPA again and again and again with the same results.

One evening he and I were present at a dinner party and he started talking about all of the EPA fines and how he considered them the "cost of doing business". He considered it cheaper to pay the fines than to lengthen the duration of the development as long as he could do as he wanted.

I chimed in that as long as he felt that way that I would now call the EPA every week instead of every month. It took him a moment to realize that it really was me that had been turning him in to the EPA. We really have not spoken since and did not get invited to the same dinner parties again after that.

And just so you know, the effected streams have yet to recover and this was more than 15 years ago.




plowjockey said:


> FWIW The compounds of crude oil itself (although all "natural") are not necessarily all that pleasant and worry-free either.



Agreed!!! You will not get any argument from me about that.



plowjockey said:


> Maybe someday we will live in a perfect world. in the mean time, it's nice IMO, that Americans have jobs in our own oil/gas fields.



Not looking for a "perfect" world. Just looking for one where truthful, factual and accurate information is available about a process that may or may not adversely affect many individuals for a long time.

This is the only planet that we have. Why should we allow short term gain for a few trump long term problems for the rest?

TRellis


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> "Drill baby,drill" sounds good


Interestingly, Sarah Palin's call for drilling wasn't about making money, it was about energy independence and the security it was supposed to bring to the country. But the result will be more energy dependence on Saudi oil.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Interestingly, Sarah Palin's call for drilling wasn't about making money, it was about energy independence and the security it was supposed to bring to the country. But the result will be more energy dependence on Saudi oil.


Interestingly you pulled half my quote and it doesn't matter the reason Ms. Palin said it , people's attitude is the same. As long as the drilling rig isn't in their back yard or affects their lifestyle most don't care about the issues involved in oil production.

As to making us more dependent on Saudi oil. Why would that be more than a short term thing. The Saudis and the rest of OPEC can't live on $40 oil forever. The oil under the ground isn't going anywhere. The idle drilling rigs aren't going to the Middle East. They are going to sit in storage yards until prices go back up enough to make them economical again. Smart companies will buy rigs and equipment and leases from those less smart and be in position to make even more money as prices inevitably rebound. There's already more talk and plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. The already drilled wells in the Bakken and Texas will continue to produce as evidenced by increasing oil stocks even as rig counts have dropped. To throw a little politics in my suspicion is that some of the republican opposition to an Iran deal centers around keeping Iranian oil from hitting the open market and further depressing oil prices, angering the Saudis and US oil producers.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

nchobbyfarm said:


> And the left laughed at and mocked the right for "drill baby drill"! Yet that proved to be right. You might want to temper your eye rolling for a couple of years.


 The only reason I ever mocked the idiotic chanting of 'drill baby drill' was the fact we were ALREADY DOING THAT!! Other than the recession and the BP 'spill baby spill' incident, domestic oil production has been steadily RISING since, oh about the time the 'all hat no cowboy' oilman got out of the White House!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And it is nothing wrong with drilling even more. Noting wrong with keeping even more people employed now is it. Why is it that the left seems to think that working is a bad thing for Americans.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

greg273 said:


> The only reason I ever mocked the idiotic chanting of 'drill baby drill' was the fact we were ALREADY DOING THAT!! Other than the recession and the BP 'spill baby spill' incident, domestic oil production has been steadily RISING since, oh about the time the 'all hat no cowboy' oilman got out of the White House!


The first time the "Drill baby Drill" was used was at the sept. 1-4, 2008 National Republican Convention. According to the chart in the link below, US production was at its lowest point since the 1940's that month. Not exactly lighting the world on fire with domestic production when she first used the phrase. 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

nchobbyfarm said:


> The first time the "Drill baby Drill" was used was at the sept. 1-4, 2008 National Republican Convention. According to the chart in the link below, US production was at its lowest point since the 1940's that month. Not exactly lighting the world on fire with domestic production when she first used the phrase.


 If you look at the number of oil rigs operating at the time, they were near 25 year highs. The amount of drilling activity is tied far more to price than the shifting political winds. 


http://www.wtrg.com/rotaryrigs.html


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

greg273 said:


> If you look at the number of oil rigs operating at the time, they were near 25 year highs. The amount of drilling activity is tied far more to price than the shifting political winds.
> 
> 
> http://www.wtrg.com/rotaryrigs.html


I used the same measure that you used in your first response to show that production was down. I don't have time to read up on the number of rigs right this minute, so your facts there may be true. But the price in September 2008 was still over $100 per barrel which is historically fairly high. Why all these rigs were only working at reduced production is there business. But the fact remains, when domestic production is up or perceived up, the US price for gas goes down. And that was the goal of Drill Baby Drill. The rest is political wrangling. And to be clear, I would not vote for Palin for President. But those that made fun of her for saying drilling would lower gas prices were wrong.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Well I would vote for Palin over Hillery. Not that I agree with her but because I know her to be a honest politician. In the end I think a honest politician that I don't agree with will cost the USA less than a dishonest one that I agree with.


----------

