What is your definition of Energy Independence

WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 03-19-2022, 06:22 PM
The article starts by saying that only a handful of "favourite" people were in a position to have the potus ear. And that sounds par for course with donny. Kind of a cult of personality that putin has revived. And when the article came out, they were very conservative with those filing the bankruptcy. Turns out over a 100 oil companies went that route. Hasn't been that high " since 142 bankruptcies were filed during the last oil bust in 2016."

Not here to shake pompoms like most. But try as you might, you gotta take feelings out of it. I know. That's about 99.9999% of the post here, people posting their "feelings." But that article surprised me. But just like donny mentioning those "people tell me" crowd without giving sources (sound familiar with the posters here?) I can believe the executives being off the record since people see what happens to those that don't say nice things about donny.

The biggest threat to the oil companies is the writing on the wall about corporations starting moves away from oil. These talks of energy independence is moot compared to when the tap runs dry. Originally Posted by Precious_b
Fair enough. Good post.

About your last sentence, there are two things that could cause the tap to run dry in the USA -- if prices are low so that it's not economic to find, develop and produce oil. Or if the politicians shut down the oil fields. And if either happens, it hopefully will only be temporary. Low prices will result in less production capacity as fields deplete. At some point demand will exceed supply and the cycle will turn. Higher prices will provide the incentive to make the investments to crank up production.

The politicians are trickier. WTF is convinced they're not stupid enough to shut down production and keep it shut down. Or they'll be kicked out of office if they do. Well, look at Western Europe. There's no move I'm aware of to allow hydraulic fracturing in Britain or France. They appear to have learned nothing from what's happening right now with Russia.

If AOC/Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren et al ever realize their dream to ban fracking, I'm not sure it would ever come back. The result would be an extreme drop in U.S. production. Originally Posted by Tiny
Two good posts...hopefully that emotional faux economic guru will stay busy at working his favorite gh and quit fucking up these threads
Precious_b's Avatar
...
here's a model of this bad boy. carriers rendered it obsolete before it even got off the drawing board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana-class_battleship


... Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Pipsqueak compared to what the Japanese were intending.
Precious_b's Avatar
Fair enough. Good post.

About your last sentence, there are two things that could cause the tap to run dry in the USA -- if prices are low so that it's not economic to find, develop and produce oil. Or if the politicians shut down the oil fields.
... Originally Posted by Tiny
Oh, don't you go agreeing with me. You're setting yourself up to be a pariah (sp).

Oil has been cheap. (See my postings about how Americans are spoiled on cheap oil.) And has been stated (I think I have posted it)that there are thousands of approved leases that have not had a hole punched in them. But it will run out. And inroads are being made on alternatives. Advances come. You don't see any horse-n-buggy on the highways. No one is lamenting the loss of tannery businesses. These went on the wayside with automobiles. And the car companies are making plans on saying farewell to the internal combustion engine. Volvo, Rolls Royce and some other one have stated they will end manufacturing cars powered by such.

There will be other alternatives. And if the oil companies really wanted to hold onto burning fossil fuels, they could refine coal into liquid fuel. But them damn stockholders don't want to cut into their profits.

BTW, anyone check the latest profit margins of the companies? The "I did that" crowd is drawing your attention away from it.
dilbert firestorm's Avatar
That's easy... the opposite of whatever a Democrat is proposing.

Democrat are too stupid to understand supply and demand... why the fcuk would I expect them to do anything right? Originally Posted by texassapper
everything they do turns to shit.
winn dixie's Avatar
The U.S. ...

Shit TEXAS can be energy independent easy!
lustylad's Avatar
... if the oil companies really wanted to hold onto burning fossil fuels, they could refine coal into liquid fuel. But them damn stockholders don't want to cut into their profits. Originally Posted by Precious_b
Sorry Precious, but the ignorance of that statement is jaw-dropping.

If current coal liquefaction technology could produce fuel more cheaply than simply taking it out of the ground, Big Oil would be pouring capital into liquefaction plants. The technology isn't there. Do you really expect people to invest in something that loses money on every barrel of oil it produces? And from a climate perspective, what's the point? When it's consumed, a barrel of oil squeezed out of coal emits the same amount of carbon as a barrel of oil recovered by conventional means.

The Big Oil companies like Exxon, Chevron and BP compete in the energy industry, broadly defined. They aren't slaves to fossil fuels. As soon as viable alternatives appear, they will be the first to jump on them. They will be part of the solution. You need to stop hating them and viewing them as part of the problem.
lustylad's Avatar
Putin’s War Revives Calls for Investigation into Russia’s Support of Green Groups Battling U.S. Oil Production

MARCH 13, 2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has sparked renewed concerns that Russia may be providing financial support for U.S. anti-domestic energy activists trying to stop the U.S. from producing oil, particularly through the process of fracking.

Russia, a leading supplier of oil on the world market, has leverage over other countries that are opposed to the invasion of Ukraine, but are dependent on Russian oil. Thus, Russia has both political and financial incentive to undermine U.S. domestic oil production – a long-standing concern, which has garnered renewed attention in light of the invasion of Ukraine.

“Investigate Russia’s covert funding of US anti-fossil fuel groups,” Merrill Matthews, resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, urges in a March 1, 2022 commentary in The Hill.

In the past, “media and Democrats mostly shrugged their collective shoulders” at concerns that Russia may be aiding environmental groups attempting to prevent the U.S. from producing oil,” Matthews writes. “Maybe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will force those naysayers to reconsider the accusations and evidence and begin new investigations.”

Of particular concern is that Russia may be responsible for the success environment groups have had in preventing oil production via the process of fracking, Matthews writes:

“Clearly, environmental groups have had some success with their anti-fracking efforts. New York, Washington and Maryland have banned fracking. California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order last year banning fracking in the state by 2024.”

Also on March 1 of this year, The Federalist published a piece by former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official Samantha Dravis titled, “Stop Letting Environmental Groups Funded By Russia Dictate America’s Energy Policy.”

“Indeed, it is an open secret that Russians have funded anti-fracking and anti-natural gas propaganda in America for decades, as environmental groups funded the campaigns of Democrats and pressured them to ban fossil fuels,” Dravis writes, also noting the environmental left’s success:

“After spending millions to elect Biden, the environmental left got its wish: Biden canceled America’s Keystone XL pipeline, blocking the safe transport of oil from one of our closest allies and killing thousands of jobs. At the same time, Biden removed President Trump’s sanctions on the Russian NordStream2 pipeline, giving Putin the green light to move forward.

“Biden canceled oil and gas leasing on 2.46 billion acres of federal on and off-shore lands, effectively crushing American energy supplies.”

“The result is that Russia got exactly what it wanted: Europe and America have become more dependent on Russian gas,” Dravis concludes. “It is time for Biden and Democrats to wake up and stop their blind allegiance to environmental groups who attack American energy and have links to foreign countries.”

An award-winning MRCTV documentary, “Killing Keystone: How Biden & The Left Destroyed American Energy Independence,” (See video below) examines the timeline of the Keystone XL project and how American energy independence has been lost under Joe Biden and the policies of the left.

On March 7 of this year, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) sent a letter to the chairs of the House committees on Energy and Commerce, Oversight and Reform, Science Space and Technology, and the Select Climate Committee asking that they reopen and “build on” the investigation conducted by the House Science, Space and Technology Committee in 2018.

Also on March 7, in a self-published piece on Substack, Author Michael Shellenberger accused Russia of funding anti-fracking activists.

“Europe reduced its natural gas production, including from fracking, under pressure from climate activists. It now turns out that some of those anti-fracking activists were funded by Putin.” Shellenberger says, linking to his February 24 tweet, citing the Centre for European Studies.

While accusations of Russia supporting anti-oil environmental groups have been made for years, they are predominantly predicated on four sources:

A 2017 letter from Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Randy Weber (R-Texas) to then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin,
A 2017 report by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI),
2016 comments by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attributed to a speech to a private audience, and
A 2014 remark by then-North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
A 2018 United States House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology majority report summarizes the NATO, Clinton and DNI findings and incorporates information from Rep. Smith’s letter to Mnuchin:

“Secretary General of NATO, told reporters in 2014, ‘Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas.’”

“Former Secretary of State and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, with access to intelligence reports, made a private speech in 2014, according to documents from WikiLeaks, which included statements about the struggles of dealing with Russian-backed environmental groups. According to a media report, Secretary Clinton said the following: ‘We [the State Department and the U.S.] were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia.”

“In January 2017, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report that contained “clear evidence that the Kremlin is financing and choreographing anti-fracking propaganda in the United States.” The report found that the Russian-sponsored news agency RT (formerly Russian Today) “r[an] anti-fracking programing, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health,” which “is likely reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and the U.S. natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to [Russian energy companies’] profitability,” such as state-controlled Russian energy giant Gazprom. A Republican staff report by the Senate suggests that Russian funds have been funneled through off-shore corporations and passed on to U.S.-based environmental activist organizations with the intent to effect political change.”

“The Committee began investigating Russian attempts to influence U.S. energy markets in the summer of 2017 when Chairman Smith wrote the Secretary of Treasury regarding Russia’s intricate money-laundering scheme. Russian-sponsored agents funneled money to U.S. environmental organizations in an attempt to portray energy companies in a negative way and disrupt domestic energy markets.”

https://thespectator.info/2022/03/13...il-production/
lustylad's Avatar
Russian-linked groups donated to anti-frakking Green
groups because they love the planet right?


Who were those Useful Idiots…


Strategically, Russia would be crazy if it weren’t funding Green Groups to scare the West out of using its own resources and hobbling its own energy grid.

Russia has the motive, the means and the opportunity. Ask not whether Russia was funding some Greens, but whether Putin would not be.

These dark money trails across international borders are almost impossible to pin down, but there are clues, leaks and links suggesting Russia was sending hundreds of millions of dollars to support anti-fossil-fuel Green environmentalists.

Yesterday Russian troops did a hostile takeover of the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. So in that spirit it’s time to ask Was Russia preparing for War or just worried about polar bears and walruses?

Would Good Global Citizen Russia say No Thanks to a chance to gain dominant control of a key strategic market?

The Wall Street Journal / The Australian

A mere 15 years ago, countries in the EU produced more gas than Russia exported. Yet European production has plunged by more than half during the past decade. Putin has happily filled the supply gap.

In 2020 Russia exported nearly three times more gas than Europe produced. What’s amazing is that Europe increased its reliance on Russian gas even after Gazprom repeatedly suspended pipeline exports to Ukraine.

Europe still had the gas, it just needed to be convinced not to use it:

Europe had an estimated 966 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable wet natural gas resources as of 2013, about enough to supply the EU for 60 years. Much of this is located in eastern Europe, including Ukraine, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. But France, Britain, The Netherlands and Germany are also sitting on shale deposits.

In 2014, a NATO bigwig and former Prime Minister of Denmark claimed the Russians were fuelling the opposition to frakking.

Former NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen blamed Russia for fuelling the fracking opposition. “Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas,” he noted in 2014.

“I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas,” said Rasmussen…

According to DeSmog (remember them?) this was revealed at a London’s Chatham House event in 2014 and was not supposed to be leaked (or maybe it was?). DeSmog’s entire ammunition against this quote is that Rassmussen later said “it was my interpretation”, which confirms that he said it.

Four years later US congressmen were releasing reports describing potential funding chains from Russia to non-profit environmental groups.

Kevin Mooney, Washington Examiner, June 14, 2018

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who chairs the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, released a report in March that explores Russia’s motives for disrupting America’s energy sector.

“Russia benefits from stirring up controversy about U.S. energy production,” Smith said in a press release. “U.S. energy exports to European countries are increasing, which means they will have less reason to rely upon Russia for their energy needs. This, in turn, will reduce Russia’s influence on Europe to Russia’s detriment and Europe’s benefit. That’s why Russian agents attempted to manipulate Americans’ opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change. The American people deserve to know if what they see on social media is the creation of a foreign power seeking to undermine our domestic energy policy.”

Smith’s report describes the Russian scheme to use nonprofit entities to influence and sway U.S. public policy and public opinion against fracking. The evidence in the report shows that Russia has been using U.S. environmental groups to spread what Smith aptly describes as “propaganda” to undermine America’s natural gas revolution.

National Guard of Russia
Росгвардия

The SeaChange Foundation, in San Francisco has apparently given out “about $400 million” between 2007 and 2015 to “environmental groups that have worked to block fracking and pipeline construction that make natural gas development and distribution possible.” Downstream recipients include the Tides Foundation, which received $8 million, and the U.S. Climate Action Network ( $7.3 million). SeaChange also gave $30 million to the Energy Foundation which then funded the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

A 29-year CIA veteran Kenneth L. Stiles analyzed the links, and followed the money, as much as anyone could. The dollars track back from local Virginia green groups right through one or two layers of NGO’s and back to opaque Foundations in Bermuda which were set up by people who also used to work with a Russian Minister and friend of Putin.

Could be a coincidence…

Kevin Mooney, Aug 25, 2017, TheDailySignal

Two of these local environmental groups “are, without a doubt, agents of influence to Moscow through [a] networking system of shell companies and foundations,” Stiles said.

The Russians “executed a political agenda with little or no paper trail,” the letter explains, by using a Bermuda-based shell company, Klein Ltd., “to funnel tens of millions of dollars” to a San Francisco-based nonprofit called the Sea Change Foundation that focuses on climate change.

The Sea Change Foundation then moves the money in the form of grants to other nonprofit environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund.

SeaChange Logo

Klein Ltd, the shell company that supplies the money operates out of Bermuda and isn’t required to disclose the identity of donors. Klein itself was formed by a law firm in Bermuda called Wakefield Quin. The top administrators of that, in turn, apparently have also held top positions in investment groups owned by a Russian Minister and friend of Putin:

The Russian connection with Klein, and from there to Virginia, comes in the form of Bermuda-based law firm Wakefield Quin, which was instrumental in Klein’s formation in March 2011. The law firm shares the same address with Klein and 20 other companies, congressional investigators determined.

Wakefield Quin’s top lawyers and administrators have held what the lawmakers’ letter to the treasury secretary describes as “directorship positions” with an investment group owned by Leonid Reiman, “a Russian minister of telecommunications and a longtime friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin.”

Having friends of Putin helping you save your environment takes on a whole new flavour now.


https://iowaclimate.org/2022/03/04/r...-planet-right/
  • Tiny
  • 03-20-2022, 04:15 AM
The U.S. ...

Shit TEXAS can be energy independent easy! Originally Posted by winn dixie
Can be? It is WD. We must be an exporter of oil + refined products and natural gas. We're way ahead of most of the rest of the country in wind energy. While we have huge reserves of lignite, we're probably a net importer of coal, as we choose to use clean burning Wyoming coal instead. That's something that's lost on the states of Washington, Oregon and California, who refuse to allow the Wyoming coal producers to export their product to Asian markets. So instead the Asians burn dirtier Indonesian and Chinese coal with higher CO2 emissions per BTU, along with coal from places like Australia that's comparable to ours.
  • Tiny
  • 03-20-2022, 04:22 AM
Sorry Precious, but the ignorance of that statement is jaw-dropping.

If current coal liquefaction technology could produce fuel more cheaply than simply taking it out of the ground, Big Oil would be pouring capital into liquefaction plants. The technology isn't there. Do you really expect people to invest in something that loses money on every barrel of oil it produces? And from a climate perspective, what's the point? When it's consumed, a barrel of oil squeezed out of coal emits the same amount of carbon as a barrel of oil recovered by conventional means.

The Big Oil companies like Exxon, Chevron and BP compete in the energy industry, broadly defined. They aren't slaves to fossil fuels. As soon as viable alternatives appear, they will be the first to jump on them. They will be part of the solution. You need to stop hating them and viewing them as part of the problem. Originally Posted by lustylad
You first gasify the coal, then use gas-to-liquids technology (GTL) to produce fuels. That's probably going to emit a lot more carbon than producing and refining oil. And I know you're right about the cost.

I pointed out in one of WTF's other threads that our oil and natural gas resource is something like 700 billion barrels oil equivalent. That's many years of production at our current rate of consumption. And most of it is cheaper to produce than taking coal and converting it to fuel. Also agreed about oil companies being the first to jump on coal to liquids technology. They've done a lot of work in the area historically.

Precious' thinking is in line with what people were saying 40 years ago. But thanks to technological innovations of our oil and gas industry in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, it's outdated now.
Why_Yes_I_Do's Avatar
...(I think I have posted it)that there are thousands of approved leases that have not had a hole punched in them. ... Originally Posted by Precious_b
You skipped the step where you expound on lease versus permit. Golden opportunity to explain the value of a lease without a permit to drill-baby-drill.
LexusLover's Avatar
Golden opportunity to explain the value of a lease without a permit to drill-baby-drill. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do
She can't, and neither can WTF et al. There's another "issue" involved and that is over-leasing and failure to explore/develop by the "existing" lease to "expire" the "existing" lease and/or an "extension" of an existing lease to provide control of the property. It's one thing for a duffus public relations bullshitter to talk shit about "all the lands to lease" for drilling, but it's quite another to be able to lease existing land that is "drillable' by the "new" leaseholder. That clown in DC knows less about it than those making up shit in here, because she hasn't even read any of the published articles trying to entice lenders and investors to piss off a bunch of money.

That doesn't even scratch a surface to meet the oppressive "environmental" requirements to obtain the approvals for a "permit" and overcome the length of time that it takes to get a "final" approval. Then the 'funding" of the exploration, drilling, and recovery begins and that can be years away in today's environment.

The idiots in the WH shut down the business with a stroke of a pen and smart investors/lenders know as long as they are around with a pen their money could go down the drain.

The loudmouths reading and regurgitating publications trying to dismiss reality have NEVER been involved in the process of actually "clearing" title to land of any leasehold interests and crafting a legitimate title opinion to present to lenders/investors that will assure them there are "rights" to whatever might be found based on accurate engineering reserve reports to demonstrate an ability to repay the loan (with interest and fees) and/or a healthy return on the investment.
  • Tiny
  • 03-20-2022, 06:56 AM
Oh, don't you go agreeing with me. You're setting yourself up to be a pariah (sp).

Oil has been cheap. (See my postings about how Americans are spoiled on cheap oil.) And has been stated (I think I have posted it)that there are thousands of approved leases that have not had a hole punched in them. But it will run out. And inroads are being made on alternatives. Advances come. You don't see any horse-n-buggy on the highways. No one is lamenting the loss of tannery businesses. These went on the wayside with automobiles. And the car companies are making plans on saying farewell to the internal combustion engine. Volvo, Rolls Royce and some other one have stated they will end manufacturing cars powered by such.

There will be other alternatives. And if the oil companies really wanted to hold onto burning fossil fuels, they could refine coal into liquid fuel. But them damn stockholders don't want to cut into their profits.

BTW, anyone check the latest profit margins of the companies? The "I did that" crowd is drawing your attention away from it. Originally Posted by Precious_b
Yes at some point we’ll have cheap renewable energy that can be used for transportation and base load electricity. We’re not there yet.

What are you getting at re: profit margins? Over the long haul, oil and gas E & P hasn’t been a particularly good business. Maybe not as bad as airlines but the return on invested capital over the long haul is below average. As you’ve noted there are lots of bankruptcies when the price of oil crashes and stays low.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 03-20-2022, 07:40 AM
Unfortunately lustylad met his quota at his favorite gloryhole and is now trying to to walk the line that Russia has a huge disinformation campaign in our country regarding oil production but seems to dismiss their disinformation towards getting Trump elected.

For those of us not drawn to hypocrisy...the correct conclusion would have been that "Yes indeed we are at war with Putin and his disinformation machine!"

But that is not what Trump did when he met with Putin and was asked about the conclusion our intelligence community had concluded. He sure seemed to take Putin's side. Caught hell for it except for the hypocrisy wing of the GOP of which many of you seem to be still part of.



.
lustylad's Avatar
Awww... did WTF wake up on the Lie & Deflect side of his bed this morning? Oh wait, that's the same side of the bed he ALWAYS wakes up on, ain't it?

So now he wants to change the subject from Putin funneling millions of dollars through shell companies in Bermuda into the hands of anti-pipeline and anti-fracking extremists... to Putin buying a sprinkling of anti-Hillary Facebook ads in 2016?

As if that somehow swung the election, but all those "Zuck bucks" showered on DNC activists and dirty tricksters 4 years later (shhh - move along, nothing to see here) in repentence to the wokesters somehow didn't move the needle?

"For those of us not dripping in hypocrisy"... well, that obviously rules WTF out of THIS discussion!