Posted on 10/06/2013 12:51:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There is left wing rhetoric, right wing rhetoric, and reality.
The lefties think Obama is no different from the Clintons. He's a DLCer, a third way compromising new democrat, a war mongering interventionist, and a corporate/Wall Street suck up.
Good post.
I quite sure I covered your last point in my post #17.
You have offered no reasonable proof that Obama likes NG.
So says the EPA.
This is not to say that clean coal technology is not BACT.
The cost of clean coal can't compete with the current low price of natural gas. If and when the price of natural gas goes up, clean coal can and will become competitive.
As for Obama loving natural gas, I'll go back to what I said in reply #16.
Do a google search of Obama natural gas and look for words love, embrace, promote, praise.
And while you are there, try to find articles where it says that Obama hates natural gas, or is trying to curtail natural gas, or prefers something else. Point them out to me.
the US is shipping refined gasoline products — not crude — mostly to latin america.
However, a couple percent of US natural gas output mainly from the eagle ford formation—is going to Mexico. that percentage is likely to grow for the next couple of years. mexico has lots of natural gas but its oil companies don’t have the technology to exploit it. they don’t have the legal and regulatory framework to allow foreign companies to extract their natural gas. they’re currently working on modifiying their laws enable natural gas extraction by foreign companies
I used to be opposed to shipping oil and natural gas overseas. But lately I have become convinced that the US needs to produce and export as much gas and oil as possible while the prices remain high—now I believe prices will remain high — overseas for 5-10 years because of falling production and rising demand. that is only the USA canada and iraq around the world are raising production. most other fields face falling production. economic growth feeding oil/gas demand remains strong.
While both russia and china have enormous shale gas and oil reserves —its going to be a decade before they master the technology and create the infrastructure to move the oil and gas.
Meanwhile there are some seriously disruptive technologies just over the horizen in the form of electric cars and fourth generation portable nuclear power plants that could just kill the hydrocarbon industry. This is not a certainty—or even a probability. but only a medium level possibility at this point. We’ll know more in 3 years. For example if tesla comes up with a 30k electric car. or if for example a couple companies come out with beta portable lftr nukes in 3-5 years.
Yeah those chats by the fire side on national TV wearing a sweater telling Americans to turn down those evil thermostats to save on energy cost when people were freezing already back in the late 70s.
That would be one way to cut down our debt...
If Obama and his minions found that increasing coal production somehow would increase his political power we could count in days if not hours how long it would take for industry stifling restrictions on our nation's most plentiful energy reserve (109 Billion Proved Recoverable Tons). Suddenly coal would be considered the new green energy. Of course since the United States has the world's largest coal reserves and the left still feels that the best way to keep their hand on the jugular of the world's economies is by restricting and taxing energy sources I don't expect any change in policy in the near future.
"If Obama and his minions found that increasing coal production somehow would increase his political power we could count in days if not hours how long it would take for industry stifling restrictions to be lifted on our nation's most plentiful energy reserve (247 Billion Proved Recoverable Tons)."
245 Billion Tons means there is approximately 1.7 million pounds of coal for every man, woman, and child currently living in the United States.
How would you like to use your 1.7 million pounds of coal? You could burn it to generate electricity, or you could convert it to a liquid fuel to put in your car. You could also convert it to to a gas to heat your home in a furnace. Regardless... 1.7 million pounds will probably last you for quite a while. Maybe you could trade part of it to the Chinese to buy an extra iPhone or new computer.
Cue EPA A$$holes making sure we can’t utilize any of it because it might hurt the Panda bears. Or something.
Run against Obama/dems by running against the EPA.
But it is all being driven by court decisions. Everything the EPA does gets litigated, and often it is like ping pong. A particular court decision generates a second lawsuit, which when decided by the court, generates a third lawsuit. And so on.
Some of these issues take decades to resolve in the courts. Congress passed New Source Review in the late 70s. The case was in and out of court numerous times but it was not until 2007 that SCOTUS made a decision that supposedly finalized it. Then Texas found another avenue to go to court, and they will delay it in Texas for a while longer. But the rest of the nation moved on.
Sometimes these coal plants get cancelled for other reasons. The White Stallion coal plant in Texas fought off the enviros and nimbys, only to lose a legal battle with the rice farmers over water rights. The coal plant was cancelled because they couldn't get the water to run it.
It is more complicated than that:
Crude oil exports are restricted to:
(1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska's Cook Inlet;
(2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil;
(3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada;
(4) shipments to U.S. territories; and
(5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries.
See notes at the bottom of the page at:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbbl_m.htm
- - - - - -
And if the Alberta pipeline(Trans-Canada) to the gulf coast gets built, the export of refined product would increase.
Those refineries are not going to produce more oil due to the Keystone XL pipeline. They will however refine more oil from Canada & North Dakota while replacing oil imported from overseas.
- - - - - - - - -
Also, because of the natural gas shortages back in 2000-2001, several companies were permitted to import natural gas in 2002.
We have been importing Natural Gas for decades and still do today.
U.S. Natural Gas Imports
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9100us2m.htm
Of course it is, but the general thrust is correct.
"We have been importing Natural Gas for decades"
Because some parts of the country had an aversion to buying NG from TX, LA, & OK. They were willing to use fuel oil for home heating and other applications. And beneath the surface, some of the resistance to producing NG in parts of the Marcellus is being driven by that industry.
I admire your attention to detail and early on working in the lab and operations, I did too. But I moved into sales where you don't sweat the details, you just push that off on the engineering dept.
No, because even without those switching from Fuel Oil, we still consumed more Natural Gas than we produced ourselves.
Building pipelines in the existing crowded Northeast is far more expensive than building new pipelines in areas of new construction.
Bravo sir. That was a hell of a post.
You little scallywag! So the poor EPA is being forced to write regulations based on completely disproved studies against their will by the courts. Yea that's it! That's the ticket! You don't seem to understand anything at all.
Do you actually pay attention to current events at all before you start making stuff up??? The EPA is now run by left wing ideologues. Look at the previous head of the EPA Lisa P. Jackson... she resigned to protest Obama’s support of the “Keystone Pipeline”. Obama nominated her because she was a left wing ideologue and she quit because she wasn't willing to accept that a political compromise was being made.
No one has to force the EPA to take irresponsible actions against the citizens of this country. The regs are conceived by people with left wing ideology but the victims do not generally have no political motivation.
Everything the EPA does gets litigated.
That is a lie! That is absolutely not true! The vast majority of people who should be filing lawsuits against the EPA do not. This is because it is basically always futile to to get in a legal battle with an entity with unlimited resources.
My own family found out this the hard way. I am not going to go into detail here, but my parents are in their late 70s. They lost almost everything they had in a legal fight with a Transit Authority who took their land worth approximately $2,000,000 and gave them no compensation.
You are living in a fantasy world. People like my parents are the ones who are victims of EPA actions and they lose everything when they take on the government. For their trouble they get the pleasure of intentionally made out to be villains in the press by the government agencies they have challenged.
Sorry for all of the typos in my last post! One of the biggest challenges we face as a nation is that the agencies that make up our vast federal government are led by left wing idealogues and a majority of government employees are also left wing idealogues.
Obama doesn’t have to make a direct order to shut down monuments to our nation’s veterans; his minions know what he wants. Obmama doesn’t have to tell the EPA to shut down coal fired power plants and the Keystone Pipeline; his minions know what he wants.
The EPA is not governed by science... it is governed by political ideaology. The EPA has become one of the regulatory arms of the left. The funny thing is when the pendulum swings back in our favor... the extreme financial crisis that is being created by irresponsible government spending will give our side all the justification we need to castrate all of these agencies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.