I'm listening to this press conference and this guy is taking credit for the increase in domestic oil production, even though he says his administration is being blamed for slowing down drilling. Then he admits you can't turn on the spigot overnight...you need years of lead time to get production back up. DUH? I think we on this board really do know this. So which is it? Are you taking credit for increased drilling, something that had to be initiated SEVERAL years ago before you were around? Politicians.........
One more thing...our company better look out. He's now concerned about all those bad old oilers who are just sitting on their reserves...like EVERY single target should be drilled immediately. Does he have ANY semblance of how the Industry and business in general operates?
What I really love is when the Sierra Club sues the Greenies for building wind generators in the nesting grounds of a rare cricket, or when the Greenies try to build a hydroelectric dam on a river etc. Nothing better than watching brain dead liberals attack each other.
Sadly, "green energy" isn't always so green. I live in the Columbia Gorge, and for years now have watched the wind turbines stack up. They've turned the landscape into an industrial looking nightmare. Wind energy has its place, but not as a large scale answer to energy independance. C'mon Obama, i voted for you, make me proud and endorse nat gas for real
As part of our full time living in a motorhome, we regularly travel into National Parks. If you could see the stuff they've spent "Stimulus" money on, you'd be appalled! One, a couple no-hopers off the street employed to straighten headstones in a Civil War cemetery. I watched them sit there with their shovels, talking away with no supervision around. In the same park, what looked to be perfectly good pavement was being removed and replaced with a new topcoat of asphalt. And the list goes on....
Yup, we sure got some good stimulus out of that "Stimulus" money. Natgas conversions would surely have been a better way to spend AND stimulate at the same time. But then...if it ain't "green", it ain't acceptable.
Stimulus money should have paid for them....Heck I see signs that say "this project part of the stimulus bill" all over the place...one was a road leading into a golf course....the other was rebuilding a highway overpass that was just rebuilt 2 years before...The money should have been put to work in a way that would allow us to pollute less,create more jobs, and gain energy independence (Natural Gas Transportation infrastructure)....but they blew it on crap
Agreed, the infrastructure will take care of itself. CLNE is ahead of the game for nat gas vehicles. Contracts are rolling in every month and the word is getting out there...despite the gov's reluctance to consider nat gas as an alternative energy source
Actually Slabman infrastructure isn't as big of a deal as people would make it, taking just 4% of the current $28.4B energy bill or roughly $1B and on a cost-share basis funding 1/3 the cost of basic 2 pump stations you could add about 8,000 stations to the current ~1,300 stations in operation. Following Kevin Costner's "Build it and they will come" motto and we could finally see a movement towards mass production of CNG vehicles. Currently there are ~110,000 CNG vehicles in the U.S. out of ~12M worldwide or 130M cars & trucks in the U.S.
Honda Civic GX - only publicly available factory equipped CNG vehicle w/ 1-2k produced annually
Ford - Optionally equipped E-150 and Transit models as "CNG Ready", offers CNG to fleet vehicles also. Has many CNG vehicles in Europe.
Chevy - Fleet vehicles - Silverado P/U, etc
Fiat - Moving to America, leading builder of CNG vehicles in Europe
Toyota - Built a prototype CNG Camry Hybrid 3 years ago. - http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/08q4/toyota_camry_cng_hybrid_concept-auto_shows
VW, Audi, BMW and others
The list is growing and I'm sure I only scratched the surface, here is an example of how to incorporate the tanks w/o sacrificing trunk space, note this is a bi-fuel vehicle - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FoXyvaPSnVk/TLdVHE8W2JI/AAAAAAADbBY/srygspmwXRQ/s1600/2011-VW-Passat-26.JPG
Study of the TCO's on alternate fuel vehicles - http://www.bcg.com/documents/file15404.pdf
While natgas may be viable, the immediate problem is infrastructure.....how many "Gas" stations would need to be set up and who pays for them? The current FEDS would want to spend on "Green" energy in lieu of natgas, so this presents a near-term problem. And, of course, we'd need our cars to be converted to the new fuel. Bottom line...it's a lot easier to continue with the status quo.
President Obama is an idiot. Good to see the American dream is still alive where any idiot can grow up and be President of the United States! Hail to the Chief...even if he is a brain dead moron
One important thing to remember is that the current $100 oil is not caused by shortages, it's caused by fear. If Obama (like Bush did) announced he was going to lift restrictions on oil production (which he won't) the fear would be gone and oil prices would fall.
Now ask yourself how profitable or desireable an investment MHR would be with $50-60 oil?
And he always just throws NG after wind, solar and biofuels. What the heck?
He also took Pickens quote completely out of context. He left out the part about Pickens saying we need to convert to natural gas.
Ask Spain how subsidized wind and solar are working out for them now.
What's really scary about Obama is the oil-haters he has surrounded himself with. His energy secretary, at his confirmation hearing, said he wanted to see 10 dollar a gallon gas to help push people away from oil. The Obama administration is shot through with people like this. They don't want to wait for the market to work; they want to push us off oil NOW by making it expensive. That New York Times series on wastewater is part of the effort to drive oil costs up. And make no mistake, the Times is continuing to ride this hobby horse.
Almost every day there is new iteration of the threat dirty wastewater poses. The Times appears to view the new frac technology as a threat to the broader effort to get the country beyond oil. They are trying hard to stop this technology. People with influence and knowledge need to be defending against the Times campaign, as that is what it is becoming.