Why was there a Republican wave this last Tuesday (November 4, 2014) when ALL the economic news is good. Why didn't the Republicans face a penalty for doing nothing, for shutting down the government, for not enacting background checks for guns when more than 80% of those polled wanted it, for not raising the minimum wage when more than 50% of those polled were for it, for the House's failure to vote on the Senate immigration reform bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes, eight more than needed. In view of slow employment increase, why was there no infrastructure bill? Why was there no penalty for the Republicans doing nothing?
The problem is that the employment numbers , in spite of the large increases, are only back to where they were when President Obama took office, and the steep decline in the numbers of jobs started before he took office but continued for some months after he took office. And wage increases are not only not keeping up with inflation, but household income has actually dropped. In states with better economies, like North Carolina, the Democratic Senators only lost narrowly, but in states where the economic recovery was poor, like Arkansas, Democrats did poorly.
And then, white male Democrats do not seem to turn out for mid-term elections for reasons not known by me. Blacks and Hispanics did come out and Democratic women did come out for Democratic politicians if not in the percentages as they do in presidential elections. Would Democratic candidates have done even more poorly if they had come out for the advances in medical care and lowering of medical inflation? Would they have done more poorly if they had strongly noted the increase in the economy and job recovery even if there is a long way to go yet?
Well, there seems to be some optimism that now that Republicans control both houses of congress, we will see more bills passed, something on immigration, for example. But the Senate bipartisan immigration bill was never voted on in the House and thoughts are that it would have passed with sufficient Republican votes if a vote was allowed. It is expected that the Keystone XL pipeline will now pass (as I believe it should), and I would expect our Center Right President to sign it. Not mentioned is drilling in ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge) as I think should occur under some stringent conditions. We don't really know if there is even any economic amounts of oil there. How much of the religious agenda of the religious Republican Party will be pursued? The Republican party has become such a religious party that I even wonder if it is even a legal party. And will Republicans get rid of cloture in the Senate to get their bill through?
Well, let's be optimistic and think that now that the Republican are in control of congress, they will agree to some things they formerly opposed. I tell myself that they will, but I can't help but wonder if they even know how to. I'm a little more optimistic about the Senate than the House Time will tell.
Showing posts with label ANWR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ANWR. Show all posts
Friday, November 7, 2014
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
I'M SITTING OUT THIS ONE
I've decided I'll sit out the ISIS (ISIL if you prefer) War. I usually record news programs like Morning Joe so I fast forward through the ISIS parts. I may miss something else, but so be it. If the news program is not recorded, I toggle between Soundscapes and the news program to avoid the ISIS War.
I went along with al Qaeda being very bad. After all they actually killed nearly 3,000 people in this country. Maybe more if you count those who are delayed in dying from smoke inhalation. I felt we had to do something and invading Afghanistan to get al Qaeda was fine (remember Afghanistan tribes provided the first "boots on the ground."). Now we are told that ISIS is even worse. And the other day I heard of yet another organization that is considered even worse than ISIS in that their aim is to destroy the U.S.(Khorasan).* And there are also those who say that Hamas is just as bad as ISIS.**
Now during most of my life (and I'm 83) the standard was to say that a group or individual was"worse than the Nazi's." It is interesting that this analogy is no longer used. After all, the Nazi's were defeated almost 70 yrs ago. We've had two or three generations grow up since then. I guess there is a feeling that ISIS is worse than the Russians. Remember when it was Assad that had to go? For the minute we'll ignore him, but I'm sure we'll get back to him some year.
To begin with, we won't put "boots on the ground" though special forces or the CIA don't count. President Obama wants other Arabs or Muslims to do this. I have to wonder why they haven't already done this? They don't seem to worry about ISIS being a threat to them. We always seem to align ourselves with a group of people that don't want to fight for their land. Remember Vietnam and the Iraqi military divisions that collapsed when they were first threatened and armed ISIS by abandoning all their equipment? How many years did we train Iraqi troops - 8 yrs at least, I think. Who trained the North Koreans (well maybe the Soviets), North Vietnamese, Taliban and ISIS forces? They seem to be self trained and better than all our training of their opponents Hey the Americans will do it for us, calm down!
I don't remember the Korean War very well (though I was of age to be called up with the draft), but before we entered the Korean War, it seemed like the North had almost pushed the Southern forces into the sea.** It used to be that the first thing we would do was send in 5,000 Marines and then regretfully build up from there. It is interesting, however, that since we were kicked out of Vietnam, they want to be our trading partners, and we have no residual forces there. Can you imagine that? And Indonesia is still a non-Communist country. Remember the Domino Theory where if South Vietnam would fall to the communist North, then the other SE Asian countries would fall, including Indonesia.
Of course the big focus on the Middle East concerns oil. I had supported oil exploration of ANWR on the north slopes of Alaska and fracking, and the Keystone XL Pipeline to make us independent of Middle East oil and allow us to withdraw from there, but it hasn't worked. Importing some oil from Canada, Mexico, and Valenzuela would be OK.
I yearn for the good old days of Carter and Reagan and Clinton when all we had to worry about were Embassy kidnappings, war with the island nation of Grenada, and fly by shooting of Iraqi radar posts.**** I'm going to sit out this latest war.
* http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-khorasan-group-airstrikes-isis-islamic-state-2014-9
** http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/israeli-government-propaganda
*** http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war
**** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/09/good-old-days.html
I went along with al Qaeda being very bad. After all they actually killed nearly 3,000 people in this country. Maybe more if you count those who are delayed in dying from smoke inhalation. I felt we had to do something and invading Afghanistan to get al Qaeda was fine (remember Afghanistan tribes provided the first "boots on the ground."). Now we are told that ISIS is even worse. And the other day I heard of yet another organization that is considered even worse than ISIS in that their aim is to destroy the U.S.(Khorasan).* And there are also those who say that Hamas is just as bad as ISIS.**
Now during most of my life (and I'm 83) the standard was to say that a group or individual was"worse than the Nazi's." It is interesting that this analogy is no longer used. After all, the Nazi's were defeated almost 70 yrs ago. We've had two or three generations grow up since then. I guess there is a feeling that ISIS is worse than the Russians. Remember when it was Assad that had to go? For the minute we'll ignore him, but I'm sure we'll get back to him some year.
To begin with, we won't put "boots on the ground" though special forces or the CIA don't count. President Obama wants other Arabs or Muslims to do this. I have to wonder why they haven't already done this? They don't seem to worry about ISIS being a threat to them. We always seem to align ourselves with a group of people that don't want to fight for their land. Remember Vietnam and the Iraqi military divisions that collapsed when they were first threatened and armed ISIS by abandoning all their equipment? How many years did we train Iraqi troops - 8 yrs at least, I think. Who trained the North Koreans (well maybe the Soviets), North Vietnamese, Taliban and ISIS forces? They seem to be self trained and better than all our training of their opponents Hey the Americans will do it for us, calm down!
I don't remember the Korean War very well (though I was of age to be called up with the draft), but before we entered the Korean War, it seemed like the North had almost pushed the Southern forces into the sea.** It used to be that the first thing we would do was send in 5,000 Marines and then regretfully build up from there. It is interesting, however, that since we were kicked out of Vietnam, they want to be our trading partners, and we have no residual forces there. Can you imagine that? And Indonesia is still a non-Communist country. Remember the Domino Theory where if South Vietnam would fall to the communist North, then the other SE Asian countries would fall, including Indonesia.
Of course the big focus on the Middle East concerns oil. I had supported oil exploration of ANWR on the north slopes of Alaska and fracking, and the Keystone XL Pipeline to make us independent of Middle East oil and allow us to withdraw from there, but it hasn't worked. Importing some oil from Canada, Mexico, and Valenzuela would be OK.
I yearn for the good old days of Carter and Reagan and Clinton when all we had to worry about were Embassy kidnappings, war with the island nation of Grenada, and fly by shooting of Iraqi radar posts.**** I'm going to sit out this latest war.
* http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-khorasan-group-airstrikes-isis-islamic-state-2014-9
** http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/israeli-government-propaganda
*** http://www.history.com/topics/korean-war
**** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2014/09/good-old-days.html
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
BAKKEN FORMATION OIL
There are e-mails circulating writing about vast oil resources in the Bakken Formation in the Williston Basin that includes parts of North Dakota and Montana. There are implications that this resource has been kept secret and some say that environmentalists have stalled development of Bakken formation oil. Well, I am sure there are conspiracies around, but oil in the Bakken Formation is not one of them. There certainly is and will be oil production from the Bakken Formation, but it will not eliminate our increasing need for imported oil.
Bakken Formation oil has hardly been a secret. Interest in it started as long as 35 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation The article mentions Leigh Price, who I knew when I worked in Denver in the 1970s. The Bakken Shale (as it was known then) has always been his hobby horse. Too bad he did not live long enough to see all the hysteria on it today.
Although environmentalists (who are often blamed) might like to stop the drilling, they are notably unsuccessful. North Dakota, for example, has offered a tax break to anyone who will drill. Prior to the recession, there were hundreds of drill rigs operating on the Bakken, but I believe interest has dropped because of the economic conditions.
The e-mails have been carelessly put together. You don't drill 1,000 ft but more than 10,000 ft, Then you have to turn the drilling to horizontal and drill along a thin dolomitic unit between two shale units. Then you have to "frac" (fracture) the rock by some process such as putting water down the hole under very high-pressure pulses (hydrofracking). While all this is technologically possible, it is difficult and expensive. To the best of my knowledge, none of the major oil companies have been involved in this endeavor. They are more interested in deepwater drilling. The smaller Marathon Oil company has been involved, however, but a major - Conoco Phillips - entered the fray in 2010.
At the present time, the best producing field in the Bakken is in Montana (Elm Coulee Oil Field) which is actually producing (53,000 bbl/day in 2007).
But don't get too excited about the potential of Bakken oil because production from America's largest oil field - Prudhoe Bay - on the north slope of Alaska is declining rapidly so the first thing new oil production must do in the U.S. is to replace the declining production from Alaska. And the problem is worse than that because soon the production from Prudhoe Bay will decline to the point where the oil must be degraded (watered) to form sufficient volume to keep the Alaskan pipeline open. Fortunately, exploration is going on full tilt in the adjacent (to the West) National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) that might help in Alaskan north slope production. If we could bring ourselves to explore the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)* to the East of Prudhoe Bay, it would also help extend the life of north slope oil. But natural gas in the Prudhoe Bay deposits (formerly used to help drive out the oil) is now available for use and plans are afoot for a gas pipeline coming down through Alaska and Canada to the lower 48 states.
Incidentally, when I was a young geological engineering student back in the early 1950s, I saw a drill core from a producing limestone in the Williston basin and was amazed that it just looked like a solid rock. The word reservoir conjures up a vision of a cavern or something, but that is not the case. The reservoir is solid rock. Oil production from the Williston Basin has gone on for more than 50 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williston_Basin
*Actually there is a moderate-sized oil field adjacent to ANWR in Prudhoe Bay called the Sourdough Field. Two holes have been drilled with oil showings in sight of ANWR. Some of the oil drawn from this field would come from under ANWR. Development of this field has been held up, however, because of a dispute between Sarah Palin (when she was governor of Alaska) and George W. Bush (when he was President of the U.S.) over how the production profits would be divided between the state of Alaska and the U.S. government. Now with a new governor of Alaska and a new president of the U.S., perhaps the dispute can be solved.
Bakken Formation oil has hardly been a secret. Interest in it started as long as 35 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation The article mentions Leigh Price, who I knew when I worked in Denver in the 1970s. The Bakken Shale (as it was known then) has always been his hobby horse. Too bad he did not live long enough to see all the hysteria on it today.
Although environmentalists (who are often blamed) might like to stop the drilling, they are notably unsuccessful. North Dakota, for example, has offered a tax break to anyone who will drill. Prior to the recession, there were hundreds of drill rigs operating on the Bakken, but I believe interest has dropped because of the economic conditions.
The e-mails have been carelessly put together. You don't drill 1,000 ft but more than 10,000 ft, Then you have to turn the drilling to horizontal and drill along a thin dolomitic unit between two shale units. Then you have to "frac" (fracture) the rock by some process such as putting water down the hole under very high-pressure pulses (hydrofracking). While all this is technologically possible, it is difficult and expensive. To the best of my knowledge, none of the major oil companies have been involved in this endeavor. They are more interested in deepwater drilling. The smaller Marathon Oil company has been involved, however, but a major - Conoco Phillips - entered the fray in 2010.
At the present time, the best producing field in the Bakken is in Montana (Elm Coulee Oil Field) which is actually producing (53,000 bbl/day in 2007).
But don't get too excited about the potential of Bakken oil because production from America's largest oil field - Prudhoe Bay - on the north slope of Alaska is declining rapidly so the first thing new oil production must do in the U.S. is to replace the declining production from Alaska. And the problem is worse than that because soon the production from Prudhoe Bay will decline to the point where the oil must be degraded (watered) to form sufficient volume to keep the Alaskan pipeline open. Fortunately, exploration is going on full tilt in the adjacent (to the West) National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) that might help in Alaskan north slope production. If we could bring ourselves to explore the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR)* to the East of Prudhoe Bay, it would also help extend the life of north slope oil. But natural gas in the Prudhoe Bay deposits (formerly used to help drive out the oil) is now available for use and plans are afoot for a gas pipeline coming down through Alaska and Canada to the lower 48 states.
Incidentally, when I was a young geological engineering student back in the early 1950s, I saw a drill core from a producing limestone in the Williston basin and was amazed that it just looked like a solid rock. The word reservoir conjures up a vision of a cavern or something, but that is not the case. The reservoir is solid rock. Oil production from the Williston Basin has gone on for more than 50 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williston_Basin
*Actually there is a moderate-sized oil field adjacent to ANWR in Prudhoe Bay called the Sourdough Field. Two holes have been drilled with oil showings in sight of ANWR. Some of the oil drawn from this field would come from under ANWR. Development of this field has been held up, however, because of a dispute between Sarah Palin (when she was governor of Alaska) and George W. Bush (when he was President of the U.S.) over how the production profits would be divided between the state of Alaska and the U.S. government. Now with a new governor of Alaska and a new president of the U.S., perhaps the dispute can be solved.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Deep Water Oil Production
Everyone should read the article on deep water oil production in today's WSJ (5-Jan-2010). The online article is at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126264987791815617.html
You will only get the beginning of the article if you are not an on-line subscriber, but it is on the front page of the print edition. You can also sign up for two free weeks of the online edition.
The Thunder Horse Field in the Gulf of Mexico has been online for a year or so and is producing around 250,000 barrels of oil per day. The Tahiti project of Chevron in the Gulf came online last May and is producing about 150,000 barrels/day. In reality, this is not an increase in U.S. production but is only replacing the decreased production of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. Bringing these deep water fields on line is terribly expensive. They estimate that the Tahiti project has cost $2.5 billion and has taken over 10 years to bring into fruition. But this is the future of oil production growth or replacement.
The largest deep water oil production comes from Angola (of all places) with around 1.5 million barrels/day. So in the U.S., we are just in the process of ramping up.
But a serious problem remains in Prudhoe Bay. The decline in production can result in the closure of the Alaskan Pipeline because a certain amount of flow is needed to keep it going. There is activity going on in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA) adjacent to Prudhoe Bay to the West to find medium-sized oil fields that could help (One in Prudhoe Bay has been found adjacent to NPRA that is being brought on line.). We seem to be unable to bring ourselves to explore the Alaskan National Wildlife Area (ANWR) to the East; however, there is the moderate Sour Dough Field in Prudhoe Bay that butts up against ANWR. Development of this field has been held up because of disputes between former Governor Sarah Palin and former President Bush over revenue sharing. I don't know whether there is any advance between the current state and Federal administrations.
(Reprinted from Post 316331 in Investment Analysis clubs/Macro Economic Trends and Risks of Motley Fool, 5-Jan-2010)
You will only get the beginning of the article if you are not an on-line subscriber, but it is on the front page of the print edition. You can also sign up for two free weeks of the online edition.
The Thunder Horse Field in the Gulf of Mexico has been online for a year or so and is producing around 250,000 barrels of oil per day. The Tahiti project of Chevron in the Gulf came online last May and is producing about 150,000 barrels/day. In reality, this is not an increase in U.S. production but is only replacing the decreased production of Prudhoe Bay in Alaska. Bringing these deep water fields on line is terribly expensive. They estimate that the Tahiti project has cost $2.5 billion and has taken over 10 years to bring into fruition. But this is the future of oil production growth or replacement.
The largest deep water oil production comes from Angola (of all places) with around 1.5 million barrels/day. So in the U.S., we are just in the process of ramping up.
But a serious problem remains in Prudhoe Bay. The decline in production can result in the closure of the Alaskan Pipeline because a certain amount of flow is needed to keep it going. There is activity going on in the National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA) adjacent to Prudhoe Bay to the West to find medium-sized oil fields that could help (One in Prudhoe Bay has been found adjacent to NPRA that is being brought on line.). We seem to be unable to bring ourselves to explore the Alaskan National Wildlife Area (ANWR) to the East; however, there is the moderate Sour Dough Field in Prudhoe Bay that butts up against ANWR. Development of this field has been held up because of disputes between former Governor Sarah Palin and former President Bush over revenue sharing. I don't know whether there is any advance between the current state and Federal administrations.
(Reprinted from Post 316331 in Investment Analysis clubs/Macro Economic Trends and Risks of Motley Fool, 5-Jan-2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
