re: Obama's Farewell Address and what you will remember him for.

quote:

---

Stifling the shale revolution when EVEN IN HIS SPEECH TONIGHT HE TALKED ABOUT HALVING DEPENDENCY ON FOREIGN OIL WHEN HE DID LITERALLY NOTHING TO HELP IT, EXTENDED ZERO FEDERAL LEASES, AND IF HE DID WE MIGHT EVEN BE COMPLETELY OFF FOREIGN OIL.

---

Currently, the US exports 1.6 million barrels of oil each day. The US imports about 13 million barrels of oil each day. If we increased domestic oil production by 13 million barrels of oil per day, we would not stop importing oil because that's not how markets work. The market would reach a new equilibrium, but US oil imports would not drop to 0. The US would continue to import millions of barrels of oil each day.

Are you a communist? I must ask because the only way the US could have ended its "dependence" on foreign oil is if it nationalized the oil industry. Should we follow Venezuela's example?

If we're going to have a world with industry and irrational consumerism, we should have more planning involved -- to be clear, this wouldn't be nationalism as gov't shouldn't exist as it exists. Big topic. Seemingly contradicting. Won't be able to explain it here.

If people are really concerned with getting off foreign oil dependency, the answer isn't more US oil -- the answer is decentralizing the energy industry. If you understand the beginnings of the oil industry and the criminal activity to make oil the primary energy product and push out better alternatives, you'd see how easy it would be to greatly reduce our oil usage.

Another angle, people complain about foreign oil dependency but don't want to understand how important the Petro Dollar is to the US economy. Most people don't know that we force other nations to buy/sell oil in US Dollars, which obviously has a huge impact on our economy.

quote:

---

Fair point. Oil is a globally traded commodity. I think my sentiment would more be appropriately explained along the lines of "dependence" on foreign oil and I conflated the concepts. My fault. However, I still contend that if the United States had a pro-oil and gas economic policy the last 8 years, our dependence on foreign oil would be much much smaller.

---

Maybe. When the government subsidizes something, you get more of it. That's why farmers grow so much corn. If the government subsidized the oil and gas industries, oil and gas prices would be lower, but enough to make our "dependence" on foreign oil much, much smaller? I'm skeptical. The Saudis have flooded the international oil market with cheap oil for the last few years. That did far more to slow down domestic oil production (particularly shale) than anything Obama ever did.

As for the gas industry, I don't like fracking. I'm not an environmentalist, but I'd kill anyone who fracked land near enough to me to cause any problems. And if I feel that way about my land, I assume most other people feel that way about their land. If you want to frack, find places that aren't anywhere near peoples' homes, then I couldn't care less. If you bribe politicians to get permission to frack near my land despite my objections, then I won't just kill you, I'll kill your entire family.

quote:

---

Not a communist. Just a petroleum engineer that believes our tax policies, off shore moratoriums, and our regulations have had a terrible impact on our energy use in this country.

---

A petroleum engineer? Now your perspective makes more sense. It's a shame you entered an industry that's in decline. I'm an electrical engineer (with a MS in Power) who figured it wouldn't be a good idea to pigeonhole himself. I've got experience working with solar, wind, coal, and gas (no nuclear, unfortunately). It's nice to not feel the need to lobby for government subsidies to keep the industry I work in from dying.

I don't see this "terrible impact on our energy use". That's probably because I'm not a petroleum engineer.

quote:

---

As for the gas industry, I don't like fracking. I'm not an environmentalist, but I'd kill anyone who fracked land near enough to me to cause any problems.

---

This is where me-centrism issues really fricking annoy me.

If that's how you feel about fracking, you should be outspoken and active against the practice regardless if it's 5 miles from you or 500.

quote:

---

If people are really concerned with getting off foreign oil dependency, the answer isn't more US oil -- the answer is decentralizing the energy industry.

---

Bingo.

quote:

---

Maybe. When the government subsidizes something, you get more of it. That's why farmers grow so much corn. If the government subsidized the oil and gas industries, oil and gas prices would be lower, but enough to make our "dependence" on foreign oil much, much smaller? I'm skeptical. The Saudis have flooded the international oil market with cheap oil for the last few years. That did far more to slow down domestic oil production (particularly shale) than anything Obama ever did.

---

I mean, they didn't really cut production and let the global oil glut happen. And that lowered prices because US production was so high. The US "flooded" the global market with our production lowering the prices to what they are at now, the Saudis stayed pretty constant.

quote:

---

As for the gas industry, I don't like fracking. I'm not an environmentalist, but I'd kill anyone who fracked land near enough to me to cause any problems. And if I feel that way about my land, I assume most other people feel that way about their land. If you want to frack, find places that aren't anywhere near peoples' homes, then I couldn't care less. If you bribe politicians to get permission to frack near my land despite my objections, then I won't just kill you, I'll kill your entire family.

---

Most fracing happens well outside of people's home, and it's perfectly safe. Fracing has been happening for 70 years, and people have survived. I think oil companies need to be liable for the consequences of cementing wells poorly, and poor disposal wells, but the science behind fracing is very safe, has happened for years in the middle of cities and near water supplies, and nothing has happened. I don't think you should be able to ban fracing because you have an irrational fear of it.

quote:

---

A petroleum engineer? Now your perspective makes more sense. It's a shame you entered an industry that's in decline. I'm an electrical engineer (with a MS in Power) who figured it wouldn't be a good idea to pigeonhole himself. I've got experience working with solar, wind, coal, and gas (no nuclear, unfortunately). It's nice to not feel the need to lobby for government subsidies to keep the industry I work in from dying.

---

The effective tax rates on oil and gas companies are some of the highest in our country. Oil and gas companies don't need "subsidies", and most "subsidies" they do get are nothing like corn subsidies. I know that is an example you mentioned earlier and it's a completely inapplicable analogy. It's the most traded commodity in the world, it doesn't need any help in order not to die. At least not now. Most people are uneducated on the subject, so don't feel bad, but start here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/#2d241a6f1e86

quote:

---

If people are really concerned with getting off foreign oil dependency, the answer isn't more US oil -- the answer is decentralizing the energy industry.

---

What are your recommendations for this? I'm an all over the above energy guy. I think the only thing we can really do long term is expand our nuclear capabilities, and the regulations and capital costs have almost completely squeezing out private capital in the US. Wind farms are solid technology. Solar is not the great thing everyone thinks it is, at least not yet, but it's better than nothing and I don't oppose investments in it. I think the nationalizing of oil companies is one of the worst things we've ever done as humans beings, and the criminal activity related to controlling this vital resource is this is seen all through the insane corruption in Latin America.

Wind and solar is whack in a lot of ways. The way we currently use it probably is far from the best way, but there's certainly ways it can be used.

Alcohol and hemp would be great energy sources. Electricity too. Farmers used to have their own oil field essentially by making their own alcohol fuel, and big cities were using electric taxi's in the 1800s. Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp oil, and parts of the vehicle were made from hemp as well.

There's been a deliberate effort to hide this history from us. The oil cartels ripped up existing infrastructure that would've made it easier for people to forego buying their own vehicle and they continue to lobby against such things. They deliberately destroyed the alcohol alternative and continue to make that a poor alternative to oil. They of course played a HUGE role in making hemp, a non-intoxicating plant, illegal alongside cannabis.

quote:

---

I mean, they didn't really cut production and let the global oil glut happen. And that lowered prices because US production was so high. The US "flooded" the global market with our production lowering the prices to what they are at now, the Saudis stayed pretty constant.

---

Saudi oil production by year:
2009 8,250,000
2010 8,900,000
2011 9,458,000
2012 9,832,000
2013 9,693,000
2014 9,735,300
2015 10,045,600
2016 10,625,000

That's a 29% increase (between 2009 and 2016) for the nation that produces the most oil on the planet. That increase is greater in magnitude than the entire production of any nation outside the top 10 oil producers. And you think that's "pretty constant"? Okay.

quote:

---

Most fracing happens well outside of people's home, and it's perfectly safe. Fracing has been happening for 70 years, and people have survived. I think oil companies need to be liable for the consequences of cementing wells poorly, and poor disposal wells, but the science behind fracing is very safe, has happened for years in the middle of cities and near water supplies, and nothing has happened. I don't think you should be able to ban fracing because you have an irrational fear of it.

---

It's perfectly safe? Nothing is perfectly safe. If I have an irrational fear anything, it's not fracking. It's that I'll get screwed over by a corporate or government entity far more powerful than me. That may happen through fracking or it could be something else. If a company causes damage by fracking near my land, the probability that I would be fairly compensated is minuscule. If I were to be compensated, it would almost certainly be for less than the damage I actually suffered, and it would take me years, if not decades, to receive that compensation.

quote:

---

The effective tax rates on oil and gas companies are some of the highest in our country. Oil and gas companies don't need "subsidies", and most "subsidies" they do get are nothing like corn subsidies. I know that is an example you mentioned earlier and it's a completely inapplicable analogy. It's the most traded commodity in the world, it doesn't need any help in order not to die. At least not now. Most people are uneducated on the subject, so don't feel bad, but start here:

---

I guess they didn't teach reading comprehension at the school where you got your engineering degree. I didn't say oil is subsidized like corn. Corn is an example of a government subsidy increasing the supply of a good. I actually didn't say oil is subsidized at all. You want oil to be subsidized. You call it "pro-oil", I call it crony capitalism. If you want policies you believe are unfair to the oil industry to be changed, but not favoritism or cronyism, then you should say you want the government to be "oil-neutral", not "pro-oil".

quote:

---

Wind and solar is whack in a lot of ways. The way we currently use it probably is far from the best way, but there's certainly ways it can be used.

---

Please expound. I'm an engineer who works in the power industry. I'd love to hear your plan.

quote:

---

Alcohol and hemp would be great energy sources. Electricity too. Farmers used to have their own oil field essentially by making their own alcohol fuel, and big cities were using electric taxi's in the 1800s. Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp oil, and parts of the vehicle were made from hemp as well.

There's been a deliberate effort to hide this history from us. The oil cartels ripped up existing infrastructure that would've made it easier for people to forego buying their own vehicle and they continue to lobby against such things. They deliberately destroyed the alcohol alternative and continue to make that a poor alternative to oil. They of course played a HUGE role in making hemp, a non-intoxicating plant, illegal alongside cannabis.

---

Want to know why gasoline defeated alcohol?
Energy density:
Gasoline 32-34.2
Ethanol 18.4-21.2

In other words, physics.

As for cannabis, I think it's BS that's it's illegal and maybe hemp oil would make a great bio fuel. However, to fully replace gasoline, we would have to convert a massive amount of farmland to bio fuel production. The energy per acre (energy density) is too low. Algae is really the only source of bio fuel that has an energy density high enough to be viable on a massive scale.