Posted on 02/15/2013 3:34:20 AM PST by Kaslin
A new report from the UK research team at Price Waterhouse and Cooper confirms what we knew all along: We’re right and they’re wrong.
Really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong if grading on the scale the rest of us are subject to.
Grading on the liberal scale, however, it’s just normal, everyday, run of the mill errors in judgment, math, worldview, physics and fluid mechanics that liberals deal with all the time in an effort to “wish” the world to Utopia while their leaders are busy creating Dystopia for all but a select few.
This latest discovery that we are right and they are wrong, shouldn’t shock us.
It joins a long list of things liberals have been pantsed on.
For example: We were right about Obamacare all along. It won’t decrease costs, it won’t cover all Americans and it won’t preserve the private insurance market. And with due respect to Justice John Roberts and the Supremes- do-whop, do-whop- its not even constitutional.
Oh, and that’s not all we were right about.
We were right about the stimulus, we were right about jobs, we were right about Obama being a socialist of the Euro variety; we were right about Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Benghazi.
We were right about Libya being a pretty bad idea; we were right about Dodd-Frank’s suckyness and the mortgage mess being caused by bad liberal policy; we were right about Obama wanting to raise taxes on everyone, taking guns from everyone and having contempt for the constitution.
But on this latest error, I say again: We are really right, and they are really wrong; once-in-a-lifetime, disastrously wrong.
The London branch of Price Waterhouse Cooper has released a report on shale oil and gas that has the Left afraid.
Here’s the frightening truth: “Shale oil (light tight oil) is rapidly emerging as a significant and relatively low cost new unconventional resource in the US,” writes PWC in its February, 2013 report Shale oil: the next energy revolution. “There is potential for shale oil production to spread globally over the next couple of decades. If it does, it would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy security at lower cost for many countries.”
And of course the Left can not afford that kind of nonsense. Jobs and economic growth? Where does it all end?
Oh, but it gets worse for the envro-whackos.
PWC estimates that if shale oil is fully developed, US Gross Domestic Product could grow an additional 2-5 percent per year, greatly reduce the influence of OPEC, lower global energy prices, and with NatGas thrown in, add at least a million jobs to manufacturing that are now just going to energy costs.
That means- I’m saying this, not PWC- that we could significantly reduce the deficit, without drastically cutting benefits for a generation of Americans who have planned to count on it. It means- I’m saying this, not PWC- we don’t have to raise taxes. Actually it means we could go to some sort of a simplified tax code, like the fair or flat tax.
Here’s what I wrote a year ago about US shale oil development in The GOP Can Add 10 Million Jobs and $15 Trillion to US Economy without Spending a Dime–kind of a prescient title if one considers the president’s SOTU message:
And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.
PWC estimates the GDP increase to be between 2-5 percent in the US. Using today’s GDP figures that’s between $300 billion and $750 billion, with my estimate being a nice midway point in the PWC estimate.
As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone pipeline issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the “green” economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse.
It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.
From the UK’s left-wing Guardian:
"Digging up and burning new reserves of fossil fuels can only exacerbate the huge negative impact on the global economy of climate change," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace, in an emailed statement.
"Any short term price gains for consumers will ultimately be dwarfed by the impact of rising temperatures on every aspect of economic life."
Tony Bosworth, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, similarly warned of the environmental problems increasing fracking could cause, adding that governments should instead focus investment on green technologies.
"We've already got more than enough fossil fuels - more than we can afford to burn if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change," he toldBusinessGreen. "The UK has a huge renewable resource and if we want [to meet climate targets] we should be investing in those."
Because, yeah, that’s really working out well.
The website Green Corruption lists 23 bankruptcies and 29 troubled companies that took advantage of Obama’s green energy financing schemes…and counting
None of those messy jobs, or economic growth there.
Just the way liberals like it.
Yep, we can ruin that scheme.
The article is spot on. The socialists can’t stand that we have relatively low cost oil and nat gas. Because their “green” energy sources can’t compete at these prices.
The supply of oil is plenty. We have it in the USA.
The people will have jobs and need fewer government handouts.
Yep, it foils their plans...
This article makes perfect sense, why would you treat it with derision?
Instead of attacking (Alinsky style?), why not point out the errors?
We disagree, but FReepers sometimes, every once in a while, may do that.
Cheers.
My lib-in-law frequently says “oh, you just blame everything on liberals, don’t you” in trying to dismiss any pointing out of yet of “we’re right, you’re wrong”.
My answer is “yes, and rightly so - care to tell me how they AREN’T responsible?”
ENERGY = life and liberty.
Both things the left opposes.
I have great faith in ingenuity, "if" it is allowed to work. Unfortunately, pretty much every notion promoted by the leftists seems designed to actively prevent such activity.
Dirty little secret is that Democrat State and Local Politicians in PA, OH and other politically sensitive areas have already spent the money from this new revenue stream for the next decade on out. Obama risks a full-blown intraparty Civil War if he tries to screw with this.
I didn’t say there was an error, just that the “told you so” perspective was tiresome across the breadth of article’s subjects. The article was spot on.
“the technical accuracy is a bit lacking, too.” - t45
You agreed with thackney’s lame attack on the article, or so I thought.
Thanks for claifying with: “the article is spot on”
I should have addressed my post to thackney also.
Thack you’re using verifiable facts again.
That’s rare these days on FR.....
thackney backed up his comment with the data he posted @ #13, a chart he’s previously posted or at least one similar to it. I’d seen it before and understood the context of his comment on the article trying to make horizontal drilling and fracking seem less expensive than it is when compared to the steep decline curve on flow rates.
Yeah, I get that a lot too, and they don't like my answer because it's the same as yours.
But the conclusion that almost everybody is interested in:
If it does, it would revolutionise global energy markets, providing greater long term energy security at lower cost for many countries.
The shale fields using hydraulic fracture are NOT going to lead a significant and lasting decrease in price. If the supply out runs the demand pushing the price low, we will see the same result we have already seen in the Gas Drilling in the US.
The investors will quit spending so much to drill and complete these expensive wells when the payout falls dramatically, just like we have already seen in the gas drilling. And given the quick fall off in the production curves, it will not take long to see the supply to fall and cycle the boom/bust again.
For those not aware of the steep fall in drilling rigs going after gas in the last couple years:
U.S. Natural Gas Rotary Rigs in Operation
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/e_ertrrg_xr0_nus_cm.htm
Since you plucked that chart out of a presentation that is very positive about Bakken drilling, don’t you feel the slightest bit funny about using to bolster an argument against Bakken drilling?
The very next page of the presentation in the linked PDF talks about the strong positive economics of these wells. Each well with 540,000 barrels expected to be produced, making an expected profit of $20 million. (Not to mention all the other salaries, taxes, and fees the revenue from these wells generate.)
I think that adds to the dependability of the chart. I am not arguing against Bakken, Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, Utica, etc in any way. I think the production is going to continue to grow, jobs are going to grow, imports are going to shrink, energy independence is going to grow.
What I do argue against, is a dramatic and lasting price drop because this technology. The Supply/Demand curves are real and if we see a significant, lasting price drop, the drilling will drop and following that, the productions will start to drop. Just like Natural Gas in the country.
The very next page of the presentation in the linked PDF talks about the strong positive economics of these wells.
Did you see any basis of that economics using a falling price? Those number are based on current pricing.
I agree that these wells will not dramatically drop the price of oil/gas. I think they will stabilize the price.
The benefit to the US economy will be dramatic, and positive.
I also think that the “green” energy approaches are dead in the water, due to this relatively low-priced domestic source of energy.
Green energy cannot compete at these prices.
The socialists are upset their pet (crony) projects in their central planning economy are failing. (Their solution is to heavily tax oil based energy and give tax credits to “green” projects. It still won’t work, because of the relatively low-cost of Bakken and other tight formation oil and gas.)
We agree
The benefit to the US economy will be dramatic, and positive.
We agree
I also think that the “green” energy approaches are dead in the water, due to this relatively low-priced domestic source of energy.
We don't agree. While I think money from the Tax Payers is wasted on the initiative with next to nothing to show for it, I don't believe the liberals have given up. Nor do I believe sufficient number of people going to the ballots place that as a priority.
Green energy cannot compete at these prices.
Not compete fairly, but the subsidies haven't ended.
The socialists are upset their pet (crony) projects in their central planning economy are failing.
I agree, but I have not seen the conservative take over the legislature and executive branches of government lately. In some areas, but not enough and not at the Federal Level.
ok - have a good one
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.