Archive

Posts Tagged ‘United States’

Natural Gas Glut: Shame on US

April 16, 2012 Leave a comment

It wasn’t long ago that the United States realized that it had a huge problem: the amount of natural gas we used for utilities was too large for our production numbers to shoulder. We couldn’t produce enough Natural Gas to meet a growing demand so we were looking at importing natural gas at record high prices.

Prices trended upward long before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the Gulf Coast. At the time before the storms, natural gas demand rose because of economical growth and the increase of electricity produced using natural gas.

2005 marked a rise in costs that made us sweat. Futures’ prices had risen from $6.00 per MMBtu to $9.00 per MMBtu. An increase of 50% was realized before August of the same year. Following the storms, which, in effect locked up GOM production, prices rose an additional 65%, eventually rising to the point where $6.00 per MMbtu reached $16.00 for the same volume in the same year. (The MMBtu equivalent to mcf is 1 MMBtu=0.9649 mcf…the equivalent price was $15.44 per mcf).

The equivalent would be if gasoline prices went from $3.90 in 2012 to $5.85 by August before rising to $15.56 per gallon, all in the same year.

According to this report from FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), we were scrambling. Part of FERC’s strategy included approving “applications for a substantial expansion of the Nation’s LNG terminals for overseas gas.”

We geared up for imports at sky high costs because there was no alternative that could effectively meet the demand. Such was the price of power and growth. According to FERC, natural gas prices had been “spiky” by nature and the upward sweeping trend was expected to grow throughout the winter when gas usage increased.

The prospect for natural gas and its relationship with the United States was terrible because we needed it as a supplier of power. Natural gas use seemed to be going the same path as oil: increased imports to feed our growing energy needs at high cost to the US.

Then, something unexpected and extraordinary happened: We learned that the fear associated with our growing need to import natural gas was for naught.

We discovered the equivalent of “two Saudi Arabia’s worth of natural gas” beneath our feet. We saw that there would be no need to import all of the expensive foreign fuel. We’d be enabled to produce all of the natural gas we needed and much, much more. Almost overnight, we had a method to extract massive quantities of natural gas. Instead of importing natural gas, we’d be capable of exporting out of the abundance of our native supply.

This meant energy, cheap energy. Our production caused our natural gas prices to be among the lowest on this earth.

So, we started producing natural gas in record volumes. Productions numbers repeatedly surpassed geological estimations. Natural gas became the largest contributor to the total primary energy (TPE) in the United States virtually overnight.

The industry specific growth created tens of thousands of new, high paying jobs; this amidst the devastating recession that came home to roost as a result of the housing bubble in 2008. Despite this recession, the natural gas industry continued to thrive. We were going to be able to meet our increasing demand for power and create new money when the economy was on the ropes.

All of this was the result of Hydraulic Fracturing. Things were looking great. We had a great answer to our great need and now, for the first time, we were more than capable of satisfying our growing need for cheap power. This was phenomenal news. The natural gas industry was a bright spot in a dismal world.

Then a film called GasLand came out showing flaming tap water and residents whose lives appeared to have been destroyed by water contamination. The NYT ran an entire series of stories penned by yellow journalist Ian Urbina. The press jumped on board a destructive train and began to malign the industry. They said we took advantage of land owners with our fast talking land men. They said we lacked accountability for our lax safety practices and that we were the environmental titan hell bent on profiteering at the cost of mother earth and her residents.

The EPA (a government agency) joined in and began its quest; not to neutrally assess the risks associated with Hydraulic Fracturing but to prove that Hydraulic Fracturing contaminated groundwater.

The industry was forced into a corner and stuck in a defensive posture.

Then BP spilled a bunch of oil in the Gulf of Mexico and natural gas producers were lumped in with the rest of the O&G industry. Our public persona was tainted even worse than it had been previously. Obama declared a moratorium in the GOM and the bar for penalty was set far too high.

The wonderful potential of natural gas was lost in the mire and the press and our government was to blame.

Instead of developing new ways to utilize this resource, create more jobs, lower fuel prices, and save money, we’ve instead chosen to ignore the potential of our resource.

Now, in 2012, natural gas prices have dipped to an ten year low. It is becoming financial suicide to continue producing natural gas. This is a hard pill to swallow considering that oil wells contribute to the glut by producing natural gas as well as oil.  We have so much natural gas that we are plugging wells, moving equipment off of production sites, and curbing our production.

Demand for power has never been higher, nor has the supply of natural gas.

Instead of creating outlets for this abundance, we are choosing to spend $3.907 per gallon for regular, $4.046 for mid-grade, $4.178 for premium, $4.147 for diesel, and $3.338 for E85.

We currently pay $4.13 per mcf of natural gas.

The equivalent of 1000 cubic feet to US liquid gallons is (1)mcf=7480.519 US liquid gallons.

7480.519 gallons of regular gasoline (at $3.90) costs $29,174.02.

7480.519 gallons of diesel (at $4.14) costs $ 30,969.34.

1000 cubic feet of natural gas costs $5.45.

Instead of changing the infrastructure to supply fleet vehicles and long range truck with fueling stations, we are sticking with gasoline and diesel. We are using coal fired power plants instead of a much cleaner fuel source. We keep investing billions in failing solar and wind companies. We pay farmers to grow corn to create a corrosive fuel in ethanol that destroys the engines in which it fires by gathering moisture and melting seals and rings.

We should not have a glut of natural gas.

With all of the need for power, we should be using this resource to meet that need. The economic benefits are tremendous.

A glut of natural gas is a tragedy. We have the means to provide the kind of power we’ve always dreamed of. Our desperate needs are capable of being met with our own resources and rather than using them, we are moving in a direction of forgetting they exist.

Shame on us.

Other countries like Japan and Spain hold natural gas so dear that they are willing to pay $18.00 per mcf. Rather than exporting this resource, (because we’ve refused to use it) we’re doing nothing pending more environmental impact studies. The nearest export facility could potentially come online no earlier than 2015 pending FERC’s approval.

Shame on us. Shame on the US.

Ethanol, Wind, Solar: Green Energy that Burns Green

April 10, 2012 Leave a comment

Science Fairs are funny.

Between the rows and rows of insulated foam core tri-fold backboards stand students proudly perched in front of their respective science projects, awaiting the appraisal of the slowly pacing judges; many of them teachers, with baited breath. Undoubtedly, among the throng of young pupils, stands one of two projects that seem a requirement for each and every science fair held worldwide.

The first has absolutely nothing to do with the second and neither of them have anything to do with winning a science fair. They are the guaranteed “last placers” but they’ll gain the credit needed for the grade for those reluctant participants.

They’re known in lofty scientific circles as:

1.) “The Volcano”

2.) “Electricity from a Lemon” (some of those deprived of citrus fruits will do the same project with a potato; they will not however, avoid scurvy)

The volcano project is simply a volcano project.

Its requirements are simple. It must resemble a volcano more than a pimple and it must spray or bubble something from the mouth/vent/caldera and that liquid must not blast the judge(s). The method is irrelevant as long as there is a mound of brownish/greyish/blackish/mountain-ish rock or clay with a hole in the pinnacle of the finger-printed cone through which synthetic magma turned lava spews. Some over-achievers are creative and paint streams of orange and red down the sides of the volcano. They use food coloring, they make messes that stain. There is another school of thought that lends itself to utilizing the chemical reaction found in the mystery of that sweet cold relief known to old-schoolers by the jingle: “Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, Oh! What a relief it is!” Alka-Seltzer. There has never been a more simple volcano than an Alka-Seltzer volcano. Bury half a cup into a blob of brown clay, pour a little water into the cup and throw that white fizzy disk into the water and watch a jacuzzi happen. This doesn’t go over well with the judges because of how utterly simple and lazy it is. There is a large problem with all of the presenters though (no, not the fact that their parents actually do most of the work) and it is quite plain: a volcano is a volcano and people can’t simulate it in any way that does that spectacle justice. Television broadcasting destroyed an imagined comparison. When molten rocks erupt from the earth with cataclysmic force spewing up-swirled dust and ash and liquid death, there is no reproduction for it in any setting, let alone a child’s science fair. This project fails unless someone loses an eye and torches the gym, then it would probably result in an expulsion with a consolation arrest.

2.) Electricity from a lemon is another standard project. Two inches of gloriously shiny copper wire, two inches of a steel paper clip, straightened of course, and also stabbing fruit. Roll the lemon on the table, impale the posts into the lemon near one another, side by side and place a human tongue on the electrodes. The slight tingle one feels in their tongue is .7 volts of electricity. It’s the citrus equivalent to Frankenstein without all of the lightning and Igor.

This lemon battery is actually a voltaic battery, or a battery that converts chemical energy into electrical energy.  Substances that contain free ions (which makes a substance electrically conductive) like acids are the reason the battery works. The copper and paperclip play the role of electrodes as the current (or the movement of electrons through a conductor) flows from the negative to the positive terminal. The tongue closes the circuitous track.

Unlocking the electrical current present in citrus fruits is something that any first grader can do for fun as most science textbooks include this or the synergistic (multiple lemon power) version of this project in the pages for children to learn about electricity.

It’s not really a bad idea. Lemon Energy.

The possibilities are endless, in theory.

Lemons are a renewable resource.

They are, from a baby-sized lemon, the simplest of voltaic batteries. This means less moving parts; all that’s needed is come copper wire and some steel or zinc and the electrons will do what electrons do: create a current, though small, that can work in concert with other lemons to increase the production. With enough electrolytes (electricity producing solution), America can power more than just football teams in hot weather. Citrus is the answer, it is a good thing here. The Ancient Egyptians figured this out with citric acid and gold. Grab some acidic electrolyte looking to fling a bunch of electrons around and BAM, instant renewable energy.

This is, theoretically, a decent enough idea. So is the perpetual motion machine, turbines that turn because of opposing magnetic fields, and the flux capacitor but the present feasibility of the previously mentioned projects is worthy of ridicule.

Ethanol ringing a bell yet?

There is a lot of innocent corn out there, struck down in its prime for the sole purpose of creating a “Green” alternative to fossil fuels. Turns out, ethanol is one giant bust. The fuel is corrosive so storage an use is a continual problem. It is simply one of the most economically insane ideas ever BUT, at some point the movers and shakers worked into a tizzy and decided that it would be wise and prudent to start mandating its integration into American fuels. Farmers paid more for corn because they were threshing it to make that fuel instead of feeding people. It takes a lot of land to grow enough corn to produce 62.2% of the world’s ethanol fuel, which is exactly what the USA did in 2008.

A lot of people bought into it as pretty little blades of green grass appeared magically betwixt the emblems of major car companies and on the signs at gas stations. Ethanol was well marketed, it still is.

But, it is undeniably impractically demented in the mostly costly of fashions and Americans have little to no say about whether or not they would like to pump it into their engines. In some states, there is no requirement to include it’s usage in fuel sources; even though using 10% ethanol blended fuel will invalidate some warranties on engines because ethanol is hygroscopic. This means that ethanol attracts and holds water molecules from the surrounding environment. Ethanol is also quite corrosive. An excellent solvent, ethanol dissolves rubber, fiberglass, and plastic. Ethanol doesn’t have much of a shelf life and its price is going up. Farmers are paying more for fuel that comprises 10-85% of gasoline mixtures at the cost of harvesting crops for the purposes of food. This drives the prices for food up.

There is a trend in green energy that looks a lot like this: “Green Energy” is referred to as such because it burns money to operate.

Solar Companies burn money and go Bankrupt; Wind Turbines have exorbitant maintenance costs and terrible power production. The UK learned this the hard way.

Green folks condemn fossil fuels but they fail to provide energy solutions that involves light after dark or cool air in the summer. A solution to fossil fuels is the only thing we need out of anyone willing to have that conversation. Unless there is a realistic alternative that can successfully step up to the plate and shoulder the same workload, the conversation should be irrelevant.

Instead, the United States government has decided to mandate increased inclusion of ethanol, solar, and wind power with total disregard to the simple fact that powering a country based on solar, wind, and ethanol would require all the land in the US to be covered with solar panels, wind turbines, and planted fields whose crops are distilled into fuel.

Until technology progresses to the point wherein these power sources are improved toward practicality (ethanol) or evolve to be capable of creating and storing enough power to make sense (wind and solar), the US needs to stop burning their much needed money on failed project after failed project. Commerce depends on fossil fuels. Trains and big rigs cannot run on batteries.

Businesses that repeatedly invest poorly, betting on losing horses tend to go out of business before long. When the commitment to losing horses continues long after the onlookers know the score, one can only wonder about the intentions of the CEO of the business and whether or not he would like to see it succeed. So, what can one assume about a similar enterprise when the business is the government and its energy policies and the CEO is the commander in chief?

Failure begets failure and not one company on earth can perpetually operate from the red. With a growing glut of natural gas in the United States and the faulty science used to detract from its benefits falling short, it is time for our policies to enable the citizens to make money rather than penalizing the successful by allocating money that provides no current benefits.

Believe it. Green Energy is a waste of time and money. Prove that it can do more work, invent systems that make that possible without siphoning government monies before crashing (what happens to all those tax dollars when government backed companies go bankrupt?) and then this is a conversation worth having. Live in the real world.

Hydraulic Fracturing Series: The “Frack” Ban

September 28, 2011 Leave a comment

If you are a regular here at the Frac Tank then you will know that this post is the second in a series we’ve called our “Hydraulic Fracturing Series”.

This series is all about dealing with the issues that fractivists have with Hydraulic Fracturing or their proposals on how to deal with Hydraulic Fracturing.

Last week, we endeavored to put the Green’s water usage arguments into perspective.

This week, we will address the issue of the Fracturing Ban. Why are we addressing the “Frack Ban”?

If you look around for images associated with the Fractivist movement that regularly marches around with signs and speaks through megaphones at Oil and Gas conferences all over the country you will notice a common theme.

“Ban Fracking!”

The all out ban seems to be the only option in the playbook of the Greens who oppose Hydraulic Fracturing. They don’t trust regulations. They report that there are no regulations or not enough inspectors to regulate. They report that there will never be sufficient regulation nor can there ever be sufficient regulation.  They don’t believe in technological advancement, meaning they don’t believe that technology could ever create safe practices that wouldn’t require an all out ban. And finally, they don’t trust these O&G or E&P companies to move towards safer practices.

They don’t believe in reason or realistic strategies either.

Would anyone like to take a crack at what the grave economic results of an instant “Frack Ban” would be?

When has technology regressed in the history of the world because inventors wanted to make something work less efficiently?

According to DEC’s website (this is for the State of New York alone) there are currently 14,000 active wells in New York State. The extraction of Oil and Gas in these wells provides the state with half a billion dollars each year.

The DEC says

“DEC’s Division of Mineral Resources administers regulations and a permitting program to mitigate to the greatest extent possible any potential environmental impact of drilling and well operation.”

The DEC says they regulate the wells.

They also say

“In addition, the Division protects the correlative rights of mineral owners and ensures that oil and gas reserves are developed such that a greater ultimate recovery can be achieved. This is accomplished through well spacing and compulsory integration.”

They claim not only to regulate Oil and Gas drilling in the state of New York but that they also defend the owners so that they can achieve maximum profitability.

According to the American Petroleum Institute:  281, 267 jobs were supported by the Oil and Gas Industry in 2009 stating “These jobs annually add 36.3 billion to the gross state product, or 4.8% of its wealth. ”

Those figures are from New York alone, a state familiar with Fractivists and currently hamstrung in terms of production in the Marcellus.

On a national level, America’s O&G industry supports 9.2 million jobs (7.5% of GDP) with the annual salary being more than double the national average at $96,844 or $47.00 per hour.

These figures are for one year: 2009.

Other facts that Fractivists don’t report is that O&G companies spent $58 billion dollars on low and zero carbon emissions technologies between 2000-2008.

They spent $1.7 trillion since 2000 “in U.S. capital projects to advance all forms of energy, including alternatives, while reducing the industry’s environmental footprint.”

Greens could never generate the amount of money that the O&G industry spends to support their token causes. The O&G industry is more of a proponent of low and zero emissions and clean energy than they could ever be.
Why?
They have the money to spend and they spend it because good regulations, low emissions, and developing a sound American Energy Strategy are in their best interests too.
BP would like to have the billions of dollars back that they’ve spent on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Problems like that cost these companies large amounts of money and better regulation keeps this from happening. They benefit more from fixing these problems than anyone and they are then willing to spend that money to improve technology for lower emissions and green energy.
Chesapeake just spent $155 million to gain a majority interest in a company that creates green fuel.
ridiculous (adj.) : arousing or deserving ridicule : extremely silly or unreasonable : absurd, preposterous.
The above definition was provided by Merriam-Webster and they should have a picture of a fractivist next to it.
What Fractivists don’t realize is that Hydraulic Fracturing is not utilized solely in Natural Gas production. Its use is widespread and this form of stimulation is used in many wells including oil wells.
Imagine a widespread, federally enacted Fracturing Ban that would cripple the 9.2 million jobs O&G supports and decimate that 7.5% GDP with a current unemployment rate of over 9.0%.
Is that really what is best for America?
No, it is ridiculous and it would cause our economy to literally spiral out of control and be entirely irrecoverable because this world runs on money and O&G makes money.
We are currently one of the Top Five producers of Oil and Gas in the world.
Without Hydraulic Fracturing, this would be impossible. Without Hydraulic Fracturing we would not be able to enjoy America the way we currently do.
Fractivists simply haven’t considered the full consequences of what they fight for and we would argue that it would be impossible to do so.
Imagine all of the companies that would have to leave the table for greener pastures if the US ever approved a Fracturing Ban. Want to guess what it would mean for the American Economy if companies like Exxon Mobil, Chesapeake, Schlumberger, Halliburton, Baker-Hughes and Weatherford couldn’t proceed with frac’ing in the US?
It would be no less than catastrophic.
So, the next time you see a Green marching around with a “FRACK NO!” sign, ask them if they have any idea what they are doing.
Because if they do have an idea what a “Frack Ban” would do to our country, then they should be tried for treason because a ban like that would do nothing less than cause our current unstable economy to crash.

Hydraulic Fracturing Series: Water Usage Objections

September 21, 2011 2 comments

As the debates concerning Hydraulic Fracturing heat up and the protestors circle with brightly colored signs and chants, we thought it would be a good idea to take each objection/issue presented by “Fractivists” to give them a treatment and present some thoughts about their objections.

We will take on each issue individually, taking care to ask some important questions of them.

This is the first blog in what will be a series.

1.) Water Usage Objections

There are objections in the anti-fracturing community about the usage of water in the fracturing of wells.

The arguments hoist water up as the sacred life blood of the earth and they treat the water as if it is in poor supply. They report that millions of gallons are used to Frac each well and then they attempt to explain how this is such a terrible waste of a precious natural resource.

They are accurate in their report that millions of gallons of water are used in the fracturing of a well.

What they don’t report, which I am beginning to believe is the greatest crime they commit, is how much water fracturing utilizes in comparison to other uses for water.

A million sounds like a lot when we think in terms of human consumption.

Drinking a gallon of water a day means drinking a lot of water and a family with 12 people in it would only consume 12 gallons of water per day. Millions of gallons of water compared to human consumption (which outside of industry is really the only reference point we have for water usage) is a staggering comparison.

But, when we consider both normative human usage and consumption and then compare the millions of gallons of water used in hydraulic fracturing to other non fracturing usages, there is no comparison.

According to an article by Popular Mechanics,

“…of the 9.5 billion gallons of water used daily in Pennsylvania, natural gas development consumes 1.9 million gallons a day (mgd); livestock use 62 mgd; mining, 96 mgd; and industry, 770 mgd.

9.5 billion gallons of water are used everyday.

Only 1.9 million gallons of that water is used in fracturing. Wanna calculate that percentage?

To give this more clarity, we are going to use some round numbers. Feel free to check this.

According the Eartheasy.com, the average American uses 100 gallons of water per day (Shower, Toilet, Sink, Wash, Watering, Drinking etc.) in a normal day.

Using these figures, this is 700 gallons per week per person, or 36,500 gallons per person, per year.

If the average family is four people, these numbers are multiplied by four, which equates to 400 gallons per family per day, 2,800 gallons per week, and 146,000  gallons per year.

According to the US Census Bureau, 12,702,379 people lived in Pennsylvania in 2010.

This math means that, in terms of normal use, Pennsylvanians use 1,270,237,900 gallons of water per day or 8,891,665,300 gallons per week, or 462,366,595,600 gallons per year.

This is for normal usage.

This is showering, using the restroom, brushing teeth, washing hands, doing dishes, washing laundry, watering the garden and the like.

Hopefully your head isn’t swimming with all of the numbers.

Granted, these are ball park figures but there is a question that begs to be asked.

How can Green groups legitimately act like water usage for frac’ing is a problem when the actual usage of water is less than fractional in terms of overall water usage?

People flush more water down the toilet than the Fracturing industry uses to frac wells.

If every person who flushes uses a water friendly toilet at 1.6 gallons per flush rather than the old 5 gallons per flush and those same Pennsylvanians use the restroom the national average of 8 times per day, that is 162,590,451.20 gallons of sewage per day.

The (sewage) contaminated water has to be processed as well, yet they want to interpret what is necessary for life when they protest. They don’t believe Natural Gas is necessary to maintain their quality of life.

When Steel was blowing and going in Pennsylvania, the state had no problem with it. They named a football team after the industry. With the decline of Steel in the state, the water that Steel is no longer using is being utilized by Fracturing companies.

Why don’t they name their football team the friggin’ Frac’ers?

The protestors never provide perspective because as soon as it is provided, their objections are ridiculous.

So, the next time they go to the bathroom and flip on the light (30% of electricity comes from Natural Gas) and use the facilities and use toilet paper (which requires natural gas to make) and flush 1.6 – 5 gallons of waste-water down the toilet (with an average of 8 flushes per person per day) or take that warm shower (also heated by natural gas either through gas powered electricity or water heaters using natural gas) for 8 minutes (at 20-40 gallons per shower), they should think about what the end of fracturing would actually mean.

They should put it in perspective.

It is what they need more than anything else.

Greens Refuse to Compromise

August 31, 2011 Leave a comment

As you may have noticed, there is a heated debate concerning hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale. The debate has thrusted names like Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie into the national arena because of their positions related to hydraulic fracturing.

There are noticeable trends in the conversations on the national stage of public opinion. Al Gore recently compared those who deny climate change (rather, those who deny the severity of climate change he espouses) to racists when he pushed supporters of his movement to stand up to “climate deniers” the same way people stood up to racists during the civil rights movement.

Alex Bogusky of The Climate Reality Project explained the difficulties that Greens experience when arguing with climate change deniers. Gore said “it is no more difficult than it was for Southerners to talk about the evils of racism.”

In response to “climate denier” Texas Governor Rick Perry’s statement that he believes that there are “a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” Gore said “This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole. To attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money.”

The most bothering trend that I have noticed has been that of drastic overstatement for the sake of effect. Al Gore is likening those who disagree with his opinion to racists and he is doing so for the sole purpose of raising pulses. He is comparing those who disagree with him to people who hate other people solely because of the color of their skin and believe that they are superior because their skin is the color it is. He may not explicitly communicate something like “Climate deniers are as evil as racists like the Nazis and the KKK” because he is a politician but that is precisely what he is inferring.

Racism is one of the most radioactive issues in the United States today because of the racism that was so prevalent in this country before the civil rights movement and because of how evil racism is. Anyone labeled a racist is evil because of the crime that racism is to human beings. The problem with Gore and Greens like him is that the planet is being equated in value to that of human life.

Don’t miss that.

That is ultimately at the bottom of the argument. If Earth is equal to the value of human life, then she should be defended in kind. But not everyone agrees with that environmentally charged position, and those people shouldn’t have to feel bad about that.

When Al Gore talks about the attack on the scientific community as a whole, he can’t be honest because there are members of the scientific community who disagree with him. BUT, if he can successfully vilify those who disagree with him and paint them as those guilty of the blatant racism present during the Civil Rights movement then…why would anyone listen to those aligned with racism?

That is the strategy generally employed by Greens. Vilify those who disagree with the “do absolutely nothing to Mother Earth” policies. Create an image of them that looks like giant conspiratorial business partners willing to kill Bambi and Captain Planet and create a business plan that is entirely inconsiderate of ecosystems and inhabitants and make it easy to hate an entity that selfish.

What is Gore subtly suggesting with his statements? He is suggesting that those who disagree with him are not the scientific community. He is suggesting that those who don’t agree with him are “Powerful polluters …(who) see it as a useful strategy to try to convince the public that the scientists are liars and that they’re greedy and they’re making stuff up. All in the service of their overarching strategy of creating enough doubt to persuade people that there shouldn’t be any sense of urgency about addressing this crisis.”

Arguments similar to these are extremely familiar. They are the same types of arguments that are employed by Greens everywhere because they are eluding to the fact that industry is committing crimes. Crimes against Mother Earth, crimes against precious water, crimes against people. They are a group of stagnant thinkers who have no more colors to paint with in their palette than a green crayon.

They say “Hydraulic Fracturing is evil. It pollutes the groundwater, destroys aquifers, emits toxic fumes and drives honest people from their homes.”

If any person or industry really did all that they claim, then the case against said companies would be open and shut save for one little truth.

One Little Truth= They are intentionally inaccurate so that they can give a skewed picture of the truth. These are old school mud-slinging tactics and they haven’t changed.

Greens don’t listen. They don’t care about more environmentally friendly processes and increasingly green technology.

No, in a blanketing fashion, they believe fossil fuels are inherently evil and not for use…even though they drive cars and use plastics and watch television and live in a world created on a molecular level of petroleum based products.

It is either all or nothing with no celebration of cleaner processes. The devil of frac’ing can do no right in their eyes and will never be able to…regardless of how technology advances to meet to eco friendly standards, or how many billions are paid in taxes and earnings, or how natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline…rather than embrace a cleaner alternative they seek to disprove the claims that Natural Gas burns cleaner than gasoline.

Greens don’t want compromise, they want to rule. Someone should tell them and Al Gore that this is a Democracy and those of us out here who make our dollars in the Oil and Gas field are not mindless idiots or insensitive seal clubbers. We are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just like they are.

Disagreeing with them will never place me on the same level of shame as a racist and Al Gore better watch who is comparing large groups of people to because disliking large groups of people just because they are different is?…

How Apple and Oil and Gas are Similar

August 26, 2011 Leave a comment

After 14 years,  Steve Jobs resigned as  the CEO of Apple.  His resignation letter was short and sweet.  With the inventions of the ipod, itunes, iphone, ibook, imac, and ipad, Apple is responsible not only for transforming the way we listen to music and the way we make phone calls, they are responsible for creating a standard that other companies have to contend with.

Another thing that Apple has done is create new businesses as a result of their products. Well known companies have popped up all over the country to create accessories for Apple  and software companies have made their bread writing apps for the iphone and the ipad.

Apple’s stocks are some of the most valuable on earth, behind only one: Exxon Mobil.

Apple has created jobs. According to entrepreneur.com,

In 1997, the company and its world-wide subsidiaries had just 8,437 regular employees, and an additional 1,739 temporary or part-time contractors and employees, according to SEC filings. As of last September, Apple had approximately 46,600 full-time equivalent employees and an additional 2,800 full-time equivalent temporary employees and contractors.

So not only did Apple create that type of growth in-house, they created jobs for the companies that popped up to support them. The same can be said about the Oil and Gas Industry and their work with the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.  Industry is creating tons of jobs.

Halliburton alone intends to hire 11,000 new workers in what remains of 2011.

Where are those workers going to live? What are they going to eat? What are they going to wear? What are they going to do in their down time?

These are all questions that companies like those who have sprung up to support Apple can answer.

North Dakota has already experienced the good that Oil Patch activity can provide.

Even the debates on Hydraulic Fracturing and the issues that greens have with the practice can create jobs for the right entrepreneur.

Both Apple and Hydraulic Fracturing companies are innovating. Both are growing. Both are creating new jobs and both are transforming the way that life will be in the America that is to come.

In the same decade both Apple and Oil and Gas companies have altered the way the United States runs. Apple did it with sleek technology, Natural Gas did it by creating the electricity that powers those gadgets at a cheaper cost.

It is no surprise that the top two stocks around right now are Exxon Mobil and Apple…neither of their values happened by accident.

Support the Nat Gas Act

August 19, 2011 Leave a comment

Typically the information that appears in this blog is a running commentary of sorts. We give our opinion on the current state of affairs in the natural gas industry as it relates to the use of hydraulic fracturing.

It also serves as a venue to speak out about the frustrations of those like us (in industry) with those who publicly lambast the practice without the scientific evidence typically required to bury a project.

We believe in Hydraulic Fracturing because we believe in the potential of natural gas.

We would like to imagine the financial impact it could have on our country while we are dangerously flirting with a second recession (and we believe may be unavoidable at this point).

Ultimately, we believe in an ideology that is Patriotic and Pro-American because we believe in patriotism and we are for America. We believe our current energy policy is detrimental to the American Economy and our safety and is therefore, by default, anti-American and needs to be given far more attention. That attention needs to be followed by action.

We believe that Boone Pickens has a good plan in this Nat Gas Act. Let us make ourselves clear: we are not affiliated with Boone nor are we compensated in any way, shape, or form for plugging this plan. We simply agree with what he is trying to do and we believe that he is taking a realistic route to seriously reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

The truth that Boone sees is that a large percentage of the oil that we import comes from OPEC nations. A lot of these countries hate us and have no problem with communicating that or supporting the terrorists who attack us…and yet we’ve paid them $1 trillion dollars in the last decade or nearly $1 million dollars a minute.

OPEC has several military dictatorships in its ranks yet we pay out dearly and do business with them.

If a corporation employs orphaned children in sweat shops because of the demand for clothing, then we have no problem with dealing as harshly as the law will allow by way of boycotts and protests. But if we pay astronomical sums of money to a country who holds guns to its people’s heads so that they will obey the will of the dictator then we…keep paying astronomical amounts of money to them.

We’ve done something like that on a national level for the last ten years. It has been described as the “greatest transfer of wealth in the history of this country.” and the wealth has been transferred to people who are Anti-American.

Well, after a few years and close to 80 million dollars in promotions and 157 sponsors, the hearing for the Nat Gas Act is happening in September.

We have a shortage of oil and a growing need for transportation fuels just like China. Our $3.88-3.96 per gallon diesel shows how this is a problem.

Wind and solar can’t power cars and we aren’t switching to national bicycles. We need programs like these to start steering the ship toward home-grown energy and home grown profitability.

Carter was president from 1977-1981. He called for Energy Independence then as every president since has done.

This is going on 34 years. We are projected to give another $2.2 trillion to OPEC in the next ten years and have already given them $1 trillion in the past decade alone, not counting the costs of the Gulf War.

We need congress to make options like this happen. We need to steer toward energy independence if we are going to remain optimistic about economic growth because Oil is currently the lifeblood of America when it could be Natural Gas.

Support the Nat Gas Act…if it doesn’t get done now, we fear it might not get done at all.