Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

Looks like the Saudis are worried about what North American shale oil means for the future of their oil dominance.

 http://www.financialpost.com/news/Saudis+face+waning+power+North+America/5747443/story.html (http://www.financialpost.com/news/Saudis+face+waning+power+North+America/5747443/story.html)

Saudis face waning power in North America

While the green movement naively harbours hopes it will be able to shut down unconventional oil and gas development, in Saudi Arabia they are already contemplating a time when North American fossil fuel will replace their oil.

Looking past the din of protesters, state-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco is resigned to the fact that its influence will wane because of the massive unconventional fossil-fuel development underway in North America.


"Some are even talking about an era of 'energy independence' for the Americas, based on the immense conventional and unconventional hydrocarbon resources located there. While that might be stretching the point, it is clear that the abundance of resources and the more 'balanced' geographical distribution of unconventionals have reduced the much-hyped concerns over 'energy security', which once served as the undercurrent driving energy policies and dominated the global energy debate."

The Saudis now find themselves between a shale rock and a hard place: While high crude prices mean the Saudis can maintain their excessive domestic subsidies for citizens, in the long run that means the world is developing new sources, making it less dependent on Saudi oil.

Although the Saudis have vigorously fought the Ethical Oil ads, which paint them in a negative light, they already know their oil is less welcome in the Americas - Saudi oil made up a mere 9.3% of U.S. oil imports last year, down from 11.2% five years ago, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Good news on the energy front.  Of course I'm a supporter of ethical oil, not conflict oil.

explain "Ethical Oil" and "Shale oil"...

er, explain, with pros/cons, without a GOP slant if you can..

please

I thought it was a Canadian thing.

Canada is a country that is a democracy, generally supports human rights, and doesn't oppress it's people.  When we get shale oil or any oil from that kind of country, that's what you are supporting.

If you are buying oil from Saudi Arabia, you pouring money into the coffers of a country that is oppressive, doesn't have a concept of human rights that we understand, and uses it's money to evangelize the world with their version of Islam, one of the most hardcore and militant versions.  That's conflict oil.

Now we need oil so we are going to buy it from someone, but if I had my druthers, I would rather buy it from Canada than Saudi Arabia.

It's a scam. Snake oil with a cute name to put smilies on people's faces.

so would anyone.. so what's the catch?

Oh  damn... I'm tired...but let me try to explain...

Let's say the right wing of Canada wanted to rape the plains of ...say, Alberta...the "Texas" of Canada, and rip off layers and layers of soil and substrate, destroying thousands and thousands of pristine lands and forests using precipitious amounts of natural resources to eek out a bit of shale oil.

Let's say the effort  would never be accomplished without tugging at the heartstrings of those other residents of Canada...you know, those far more unaware of their agenda...by picturing their plans as something all warm and fuzzy and embracing the minds of amateur tree huggers while simultaneously tickling the nationalistic, bigoted fantasies of their own islamophobic followers by creating blogs and creatively worded letters to the editor of local newspapers.


Let's give it a name that would placate the minds of both groups in an attempt to make them think they're doing the right thing.

Let's name it "ETHICAL"!

So I'm guessing you're opposed to this?

http://oilandgas-investments.com/2011/top-stories/goldman-sachs-predicts-that-u-s-will-be-worlds-largest-producer-of-oil-in-2017/ (http://oilandgas-investments.com/2011/top-stories/goldman-sachs-predicts-that-u-s-will-be-worlds-largest-producer-of-oil-in-2017/)

Goldman Sachs predicts that U.S. will be world’s largest producer of oil in 2017

Goldman Sachs made a prediction on Sunday, September 11, that the United States will become the world's largest oil producing country by 2017. This significant production boost will occur as a result of utilizing a new definition of oil and generous estimates for the amount of liquids-rich shale production that can occur, The Oil Drum reports.

The investment bank has claimed that the country's daily production of oil will grow from 8.3 million to 10.9 million barrels of oil per day (Mbopd) by the year 2017, according to the media outlet. This level of production would exceed both Saudi Arabia and Russia, which is currently the top oil producer. The European and Asian country should only increase its oil production by 100,000 barrels during this period, which would result in a total output of 10.7 Mbopd, according to Dow Jones Newswires.

How Goldman Sachs arrived at its current production estimate of 8.3 Mbopd is ambiguous, The Oil Drum reports. The Energy Information Agency states that daily production averaged 5.6 Mbopd in June. The media outlet speculates that the investment bank erroneously included natural gas liquids and liquefied refinery gases in oil, but even then the numbers only total 7.8 Mbopd.

From your link:


If this is such an earth-shattering disclosure, then why did only Goldman-Sachs report it? Why did nobody else verify their claim? All you have is this blog which states they claim is in error... ::)

Oh. Maybe this is why.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8367

Maybe somebody screwed up and a report intended for internal use only was made public.
 

Now for the compelling question...

FaFa: What have you done to lilMike to join you as a Conspiracy Theorist Extraordinaire???

Gotta love Goldman-Sachs spot-on predictions! (http://escapetyranny.com/2011/05/31/goldman-sachs-5-gas-coming-this-summer-was-1-61-when-bush-left-office/)

hehe.

you do raise a good question tho.. how much 'resource' (natural and Saudi supplied) do we use to get to the shale? if it's a 10 to 1 ratio (10 be resources/1 being shale) then really, what's the point other than propaganda-like boastfulness of trying to become 'green'..

yeah, why are you believing anything GS is betting on? Haven't they proved to be shitty gamblers who pad their 'pitch' just to make a buck?

They hired an ad agency (staffed by Bush/Rove ex-staffers) to spruce up their image (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/goldman_rehab_cranks_up_engine_to_rWUvoockwZr0TlUY4OQ17J) after they were bailed out by Bush.



Which is nice, since BP hired Goldman Sachs to spruce up their image (http://climate.aib.org.uk/article/25479/As-both-its-stock-and-image-collapses-BP-hires-former-Bush-Cheney-and-Goldman-Sachs-officials-to-defend-its-interests-and-restore-its-reputation) after the gulf oil spill...

I agree that if in the original article that promotes the report that it brings up that it might be based on questionable data... than it's questionable.  But I'm not interested in any particular actual date that we could be the world's largest producer of oil, I'm interested in the trend.  A few years ago, who predicted this?  All I kept hearing about was peak oil.  We were running out...  But now, technological developments have opened up quite a lot of petroleum both in the US and Canada that wasn't available before.

I find this good news since it shows that it could be feasible to become energy independent in a couple of years.   But you are acting as if this is bad news. What gives?  I thought energy independence was something that both the left and right could agree on.

And what is this conspiracy that I'm in?

Well they did a great job in picking their own personal President!

I'm no fan of Goldman Sachs.  They've manipulated the government to their own ends.  But my interest is, as I explained in my reply to Howey, the about-face on domestic and North American energy production.  It's both positive news and a positive trend.  However you guys seem to have an issue with it, even though it should be something that benefits right and left.  Sometimes it's hard to figure you guys out!    ???

How is there an "about-face on domestic and North American energy production"? Do you mean oil wells, or shale oil exploration rape of prisitine lands as your scam article describes? As long as I remember Republicans have been for destroying America for every little drop of oil, Democrats not.

This does not benefit "right and left". As I've already proven, it's a pit bull with lipstick.

It is a Pit Bull with lipstick.  Cut down a few Truffula Trees, what could be the harm?

I understand where Mike is coming from though.  Getting as far away from dependence on middle east oil, taking their hold on the situation, out of the equation...is very appealing.

A few Truffula Trees? Independence? A few Truffula Trees? Independence?

But, it's never ends up being...just a few...does it?

If we had taken alternative energies seriously, we might need a few less Truffula Trees for that Independence.

But we're Americans...we don't do "balance" well.  We usually need shit to blow up first, rummage through the pieces, point fingers...then SORTA address things.

(http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2010/02/double-facepalm.jpg)

I think it's the 'drill here and now' issue that's the 'catch' I was talking about.. yes, we're all pro-energy independence.. but you want to just kill our resources to get to a non-sustainable energry source.. whereas we, the left, want more sustainable sources without having to destroy the earth to get it..

I really don't know why that's hard for you to figure out, but I really don't know why with a lot of things concerning you(ie the right)

Huh?

Why the facepalm?

Well if you've already proven it!  Why didn't you say so?

So I can put you down as a no for energy independence if it requires actually using domestic... you know... energy.


(http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PRESIDENTGOLDMANSACHS.jpg)

The fact that you are calling it "sustainable" rather than pointing to some particular energy source to save the day, shows that you don't have anything ready for prime time that is sustainable.  I don't mind the search for sustainable energy sources, but in the meantime, why oppose something that could provide energy in the short term that's already proven to be practical?

to the sitituation of GS...

not your post...

also...

as a useful image for future need, i would imagine, if you ever see a double face palm forum moment...

but i could be wrong...

There is a montage of president's back to Ford stating almost verbatim the same words about oil independence. This might make good fodder for bickering but without knowing or acknowledging artificial scarcity, big oil in high places and the vast untapped resources of Alaska besides oil, a full spectrum observation or analysis doesn't exist in a discussion like this. NASA completely disproved the green movements claim of the planet getting hotter. What it is doing is experiencing more extremes and going through a kind of equilibrium. It sent Al Gore further into the stratosphere of bizarroland. The graph that he showed in An ICT was upside down. The space shuttles and rockets do more damage to the atmosphere than the bullshit the green movement scam pushes.

The NASA claim has been disproven time and time again.

it wasn't towards you, it was for the idiots you wrote about..

Oh, ok.. since I don't have anything in the pipe I can't dislike another 'drill here, drill now' project?

yeah, I call bullshit on that. The fact that all we do is 'drill here,drill now' and it's all that we'll ever do is why there isn't anything on the horizon.  while other countries are moving right along with their plans.. like the dutch and wind

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/25/wind-power-to-make-up-half-of-danish-energy-use-in-2020/

but that's something you don't like.. nor do your counter parts since it doesn't equate to 'drill here, drill now'..but maybe if enough people say no to more drilling, then we will start using some of these 'European' concepts.. altho as long as we have rear thinking oil-junkies around and in charge, I doubt it... I mean, the euro's(not the money) only have wallpaper that is 3 times as old as we've been a country.. but ya know their 'foreign' and all..

what is it about the right that they can't just progress...

The scam of washing oil out of sand has been tried for over a hundred years and failed every time. The only thing it's accomplished is lots of wasted water and millions of acres of destroyed land.

Time to try something new.

The reason we're grasping at straws, instead of getting serious with alternative energies as an offset (and hopefully eventually our saving grace when the wells literally run dry) is money.  Money has ALWAYS been the motivator for stunting any real movements towards progress of REAL independence.

Our economy, how we operate, is built entirely around the functionality that oil provides.  There will never be (in this country) a gradual push towards alternatives that offset an ever depleting oil supply.  As I've said before, while money has such a stranglehold over every aspect of decision making...we'll wait until the very last second before we HAVE to transition...and it will be ugly, very ugly.  It won't be on our watch, but it will be on our children and their grand children's watch.  How sad that the few will force so many to live in such a chaotic and frantic environment...for the cash they're making today.

There are times when the common good of the now AND future should be a serious consideration over the profit of the moment.  But we don't operate like that.  Never have, never will. 

Funny thing is it's money that killed previous attempts at extracting shale oil.

We've done other things.  The administration loaned half a billion to Solyndra.  That's not chump change.  And that's just to one company. I'm sure there are plenty more Solyndras out there. 

As for wind, the Pickens plan has pretty much abandoned that part of the plan to concentrate on natural gas.  I'm sure there are probably real technical and economic reasons for this.

But you act as if the choice is between dirty oil and clean wind and solar.

It's not.

It's between oil from North America and oil from somewhere else.  At least until Solyndra starts turning a profit.

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-shale-drilling-spurs-job-hopes-rust-belt-181047095.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-shale-drilling-spurs-job-hopes-rust-belt-181047095.html)

Ohio shale drilling spurs job hopes in Rust Belt

A rare sight in hard-luck Youngstown, a new industrial plant, has generated hope that a surge in oil and natural gas drilling across a multistate region might jump-start a revival in Rust Belt manufacturing.
The $650 million V&M Star mill, located along a desolate stretch that once was a showcase for American industry, is to open by year's end and produce seamless steel pipes for tapping shale formations.
It will mean 350 new jobs in Youngstown, a northeast Ohio city that is struggling with 11 percent unemployment.

V&M Star's parent company Vallourec, based in Boulogne-Billancourt, France, hopes increased interest in shale formations will produce a ready-made market.

Vast stores of natural gas in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations have set off a rush to grab leases and secure permits to drill. Industry estimates show the Marcellus boom could offer robust job numbers for 50 years.
Similar hopes are alive in Lorain, Ohio, where U.S. Steel will add 100 jobs with a $100 million upgrade of a plant that makes seamless pipe for the construction, oil-gas exploration and production industries. Erin DiPietro, a company spokeswoman in Pittsburgh, said the expansion will make the Lorain operation more competitive and help it tap into expanding shale developments.

The mayors of both Ohio cities see a chance to revive manufacturing through shale drilling.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/29/data-cooling-on-global-warming/

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/27/376197/media-flawed-study-climate-sensitivity/

I'd be interested to see an example of what you said. Even though the first is fox, I've found generally that their print is of a higher integrity. I think it's in the last 100 years that the temp is about 6 degrees celsius cooler.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2011/12/08/us-shale-oil-seen-rising-fast (http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2011/12/08/us-shale-oil-seen-rising-fast)

US shale oil seen rising fast

The boom in North American shale oil could expand even faster than forecast if the crude is produced responsibly, energy experts say.

The National Petroleum Council recently forecast that some 3 million barrels per day of shale oil could be produced in North America by 2035 if regulations were favorable to the industry.     

The shale oil surge in Bakken, North Dakota and other areas of the country are estimated to be about five years behind the natural gas shale boom. Rapid advancements in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and directional drilling have boosted output of both fuels.     

The surge could threaten Saudi Arabia’s dominant role in world oil markets, and it also eases the urgency to develop the kingdom’s own reserves, its state energy company said last month. 

Hahahahahhahha! Like that'll ever happen! Who are those energy experts so interested in producing crude responsibly? BP?

http://www.freep.com/article/20111225/NEWS07/112250429/Shale-gas-puts-some-energy-independence-within-reach-for-U-S (http://www.freep.com/article/20111225/NEWS07/112250429/Shale-gas-puts-some-energy-independence-within-reach-for-U-S)

Shale gas puts some energy independence within reach for U.S.

TOWANDA, Pa. -- Ever since Richard Nixon's 1973 promise to attain energy independence, successive U.S. presidents all have pledged the same goal -- even as foreign supplies composed a larger and larger share of the U.S. energy mix.

Now, almost 40 years later, a measure of independence is within reach. But as this booming town in northeastern Pennsylvania shows, the quest for independence involves both opportunities and trade-offs.

It may surprise many, but in less than a decade, the U.S. could pass its 1970s peak as an oil and natural gas producer. If that happens -- and many analysts think it's possible -- the U.S. would edge past Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's top energy producer

it sounds great, but at what cost? fracking fucks up the water and this will eventually make areas unstable..and how is this renewable? isnt that the goal here?

I don't get this need of yours to destroy the earth and rape every last resource there is, while making the area inhabitable.. just exactly where do you think we are going to get fresh water when fracking poisons all the watte around the  Marcellus Shale? where do you plan on living after the grounds have been pillaged to the point where everything has been pushed to extinction and it's a barren wasteland ?

funny, you would be Commander Taylor's son Nathan.. only you're not selling the world away for spite and anger.. you're doing it for an ideology..

sure, lets gamble.. I mean we can leave this rock if we do fuck it up.. right?

Mike, I don't know where you live.. but would you want them 'fracking' around your water source? do you trust it enough for your famliy to drink the water around the fracking areas?

and before you ask..... yes, I would like windmills out in the ocean within sight if need be, and I would put one in my ward as well..

If you do install a windmill in your yard, keep an eye out for this guy.

(http://jaykauffman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Don-Quixote-Windmill.bmp)

There's to much money at stake, to make any real shifts towards being serious about applying anything we currently have of an alternative nature towards lessening oil's interaction in our daily lives.  We're not at that point, technologically, where we can do any major turns...but we could be laying the serious ground work and moving in that direction...but again...it always comes back to money.

America, will be one of the last remaining hold outs and when transition is finally a necessity, it'll be ugly as hell.  Common sense isn't one of our strong suits and it's doubly hampered by the notion that the market place, at all times, dictates when we should make any sort of move.

Shale oil is just the same product, derived from a different source, that is also limited in its amount.  The same item, promising independence, with the clock ticking with a few extra minutes added. Genius!

Fracking does mess up ground water, but with hydrocarbons that are already there and at a depth way below the aquifer levels of well or drinking water.  So that doesn't effect what we drink.

Otherwise North Dakota and parts of Canada would already be dependent on imported drinking water.  That may be the case, but I have not heard of it.

I don't know what to think of a comparison to Taylor's kid.  On the one hand, he was a genius, but  on the other he was totally indifferent to other people.  Maybe the comparison is more apt than I know!

The documentary Gasland already proved that fracking is causing tap water in some cases to be combustible.

Hmmm....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8&feature=player_embedded

What do I think? Anything venture that would request and receive a waiver of EPA requirements (From Dubya, of course) has to know beforehand how dangerous that operation would be to the American people.

fafa's right..

it's a great movie btw..


it's worse than that, they are exempt from the safe water act.. imagine that... and those 'exemptions' have been called the 'haliburton loophole'(per the loophole in 2005 Energy Policy Act and since they coined the technology and are one of 3 largest frackers).... which means 'frackers' and really any oil and gas agency, are (the only agencies) allowed by the EPA to 'inject' hazardous material in and around our water supply..

woo hoo...

but hey, like Mike said..


Fracking does mess up ground water, but with hydrocarbons that are already there and at a depth way below the aquifer levels of well or drinking water.  So that doesn't effect what we drink.

he just didn't answer if he'd want then them 'fracking' next to his and his families drinking supply..  I guess he'd probably want to know what was in the fracking fluid, besides all those good hydrocarbons that are already there, first... but hey, they don't have to tell us that so we can never know... how refreshing!

let's forget it takes billions of gallons of fresh water to do this.. and water is 'trucked' in with hundreds of huge water trucks.. so how much 'enegry' are we expending to get this 'new energy' source? or does that matter when it's gas/oil? I mean, I know it matter when it's 'green' energy like windmills, so I can only assume it matters here?

and that water, after it's contaminated, is pumped back into the ground.. which caused a massive rise in earthquakes..hell we know those aren't dangerous at all. just ask Japan.

but in the end.. like mike says...of course it messes up the water, but it doesn't effect us,.. and hey we can trust haliburton anyway..*rollseyes*

From my friend (and fellow LOST fan) Lee Camp"\

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c_6wvzc7Gkc

I love his comment

Hydro fracking has now been linked to recent earthquakes in Ohio. Exactly how bad does it have to get before we tell these corporations to put their drills back in their pants?


Look, I'm all for natty gas if we can get it without all this secondary bullshit..  but right now we can't. So let's go back to the drawing board on this. We've had to with wind and solar, so why not natty gas?

why must we raped the planet and destroy the water and soil as well..all for what? to pretend to ourselves that this will finally make us 'oil independent?"  wtf? are we that stupid?