From the GWPF and Dr. Benny Peiser
World Awash In Oil Shields Markets From 2008 Price Shock
The US shale boom is shaping a new kind of Democrat in national politics, lawmakers who are giving greater support to the oil and gas industry even at the risk of alienating environmental groups, a core of the party’s base. The trend comes as oil-and-gas production moves beyond America’s traditionally energy-rich states, a development that also is increasing U.S. geopolitical influence abroad. It is a theme playing out ahead of November’s midterm elections, with some Democrats trying to balance environmental groups’ concerns about climate change and an industry they see as carrying economic benefits. –Amy Harder, The Wall Street Journal, 12 August 2014
In the run-up to this fall’s midterm elections, Democrats seem to be stifling some of their green sensibilities and embracing the recent U.S. energy revolution. Fracking has completely transformed the American energy landscape in just a few short years, and environmentalists, a key component of the Democratic base, aren’t happy. Fracking is opening up new oil and gas plays all across the country, and Democrats who previously might have vocally criticized fossil fuel production are finding plenty of reasons to hop on the shale bandwagon. Stay tuned; this is a narrative to watch during this year’s midterms. –-Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, 12 August 2014
Fighting across Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Gaza, and an accelerating economy, should mean higher oil prices. Yet crude is falling. Six years ago, oil soared to a record $147 a barrel as tension mounted over Iran’s nuclear program and the world economy had just seen the strongest period of sustained growth since the 1970s. Now, West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark price, has traded below $100 for 10 days and Brent, the European equivalent, tumbled to a 13-month low yesterday. What’s changed is the shale fracking boom. The U.S. is pumping the most oil in 27 years, adding more than 3 million barrels of daily supply since 2008. –Lynn Doan, Grant Smith and Moming Zhou, Bloomberg, 13 August 2014
Coal imports to the U.S. are rising sharply even as coal mines close throughout Central Appalachia. A big reason: price. Total U.S. coal consumption is expected to increase 3% to 862 million tons this year. The expected rise reflects frigid weather earlier this year, which boosted demand at all power plants, including those relying on coal. —John Miller and Cassandra Sweet, The Wall Street Journal, 13 August 2014
Energy companies are taking their controversial fracking operations from the land to the sea — to deep waters off the U.S., South American and African coasts. Offshore fracking is a part of a broader industrywide strategy to make billion-dollar deep-sea developments pay off. The practice has been around for two decades yet only in the past few years have advances in technology and vast offshore discoveries combined to make large scale fracking feasible. Fracking in the Gulf of Mexico is expected to grow by more than 10 percent over a two year period ending in 2015. –David Wethe, Bloomberg, 7 August 2014
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It seems some Democrats remember the old adage, “people talk about a lot of issues but they vote their pocketbooks”.
Those closed coal mines will reopen as the climate cools. Energy independence requires fossils fuels until our transportation system runs on alternative energy sources.
I will welcome that day since fossil fuels are far too valuable to burn .
You mean the well-being of our economy and national security is driven by politics? say it ain’t so.
latecommer2014 says:
August 14, 2014 at 1:15 pm
That’s especially true of petroleum.
latecommer2014
Keeping a mine in a dormant state is very expensive. That is the alternative to running a mine or closing one down. If you close a sub-surface mine down, the odds are, depending on conditions, it will never re-open. Flooding will kill a mine as will extensive rockfalls. Capital costs are likewise onerous.
The USA has coal imports? Unbelievable. What next, Saudi Arabia imports sand?
Energy companies are cashing in. But, the consumer probably will not. NG prices continue to surge, and the price of refined gasoline is now as dependent upon EPA rules than the base price of crude. In any event, the Democrats who brought us to this impasse now are counting on the low-information voters to fall for their new found love affair with fossil fuels. There’s nothing like an upcoming mid-term election to get a Democrat talking like a Republican.
Too little too late, unless they also denounce what the EPA is doing.
I’ll believe it when they vote out Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. Until then it is nothing but talk by a few of them.
The very real possibility of having freezing constituents gett hammered with high electricity bills because Obama’s EPA squeezed coal in the coming 5 years ought to scare the bejeezers out of Democrat pols. The voters will know who to blame if that happens.
immediately followed by…..
U.S. Democrats Condemn Shale Boom Immediately After Midterm Elections
“lawmakers”? really. How about policy makers? Or trustees?. no no no…. how about hacks?
They represent a foreign owned corporation, who are nothing but imposter’s who fail to fulfill their duties and obligations.
And don’t even get me started on fracking.
Left vs right or democrap vs retardlic whatever, it doesn’t matter, it’s just a two-headed monster.
“The US shale boom is shaping a new kind of Democrat in national politics, lawmakers who are giving greater support to the oil and gas industry even at the risk of alienating environmental groups, a core of the party’s base.”
“They” know what it takes to win an election.
On the other hand there is a horrible track record of Politicians voting differently than they promised during the campaign. Also we know the the Leader of the Senate currently protects Democrats and his agenda by abusing his power and not even allowing certain issues come to VOTE.
We cannot depend on politicians that have suddenly decided to support shale growth. We need to get Control of the Senate into the hands of another party.
more soylent green!
As matter of fact, Saudi does import specialized sand. I also know they import sand for fracturing…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/12/australian-companies-selling-sand-to-saudi-arabia/
The US shale boom is shaping a new kind of Democrat in national politics, lawmakers who are giving greater support to the oil and gas industry even at the risk of alienating environmental groups, a core of the party’s base.
I cannot wait to hear from the Club of Billionaires and the Foundations that control the Environmental Movement and Obama’s EPA.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/30/breaking-senate-report-exposes-the-climate-environmental-movement-as-being-a-cash-machine-controlling-the-epa/
In the run-up to this fall’s midterm elections, Democrats seem to be stifling some of their green sensibilities and embracing the recent U.S. energy revolution.
It seems to me the phrase “green sensibilities” is an oxymoron.
/snark
kenin says:
August 14, 2014 at 1:50 pm
“lawmakers”? really. How about policy makers? Or trustees?. no no no…. how about hacks?
They represent a foreign owned corporation, who are nothing but imposter’s who fail to fulfill their duties and obligations.
And don’t even get me started on fracking.
Left vs right or democrap vs retardlic whatever, it doesn’t matter, it’s just a two-headed monster.
————————————————–
Absolutely agree.
Fracking is saving the US.
Thank goodness for this great technology.
Now if they’ll just agree to nuclear power we could solve some problems here at home.
cn
Political science 101; Whatever your(Voters) concerns are, Oh yes those are my concerns(Candidate)..
Most of todays poll following leaders are Kleptocrats.
We see plenty of evidence that we are currently ruled (not governed) by fools and bandits.
As the cost of this kind of government rises, civilization crumbles as trust shrinks.
Eventually the makers massacre the takers and the cycle begins again.
Or the takers destroy the makers, steal amongst themselves until they starve.
Same result the latter just takes longer.
AKA the rise and fall of civilization.
When money speaks, no one minds the accent. – Alfred E. Neuman
If the government was in charge of the Sahara, there would be a shortage of sand.
Oh sure, they say they support it now, but will they actually do anything like try to keep the EPA under control? Will they even speak out against the EPA? Denounce Obama’s climate and energy plans?
We’re just looking at election-year politicking by a party that’s really behind the 8-ball.
Fossil fuels are too valuable to burn? How am I going to get to work tomorrow? Should I buy a few barrels of oil and bury them in the backyard for my grandchildren to enjoy?
more soylent green! says:
August 14, 2014 at 2:17 pm
Petroleum is chemically very rich, with compounds, taking hundreds of millions of years to form, that can be made into wonderful products. Better that the US run its vehicles on natural gas or LGN, as is common in South America. Some trucks already use LGN.
Those that live by Populist whims die by populist whims…..
JP says:
August 14, 2014 at 1:25 pm
“Energy companies are cashing in. But, the consumer probably will not. NG prices continue to surge”
JP you are wrong. Natural gas prices are between $3 and $4 here in the US. Everywhere else in the world, Natural gas cost between $12 and $16. The US natural gas strategy prior to the shale boom was to ship in tankers of LNG from the Middle east. If it wasn’t for the shale boom we all would be paying three to four times as much to heat our homes.
You’ve missed the point (and the sarcasm as well). If fossil fuels are so valuable, why aren’t they even more expensive? If we move to alternative fuels in the future, won’t demand be less and the value also be less?
That last question takes a lot of pondering. How much supply will be left? If we quit burning oil for fuel today or tomorrow, we still have many industrial uses for oil but the supply would far outstrip the demand. Decades or centuries in the future? Depends upon whether we also have alternatives to replace the non-energy uses of oil as well.