Democrats and Shale

[James Regan + 1,776]

Simple question what will change if the Democratic Party got elected in 2020, would the US continue to eradicate its strategic oil reserves?

[TXPower + 643]

4 hours ago, James Regan said:

Simple question what will change if the Democratic Party got elected in 2020, would the US continue to eradicate its strategic oil reserves?

Depends on what end of the spectrum that Democrat(if able to win)is on.  Much of the current shale oil boom, well, what’s left of it, was under the Obama administration.  

If a Democrat from the AOC or Gov. Inslee spectrum, you can immediately expect government regulation that will choke an industry that is already gasping for air.  

I suspect a Democrat from the wrong or right end of that parties spectrum, depending on your perspective, would certainly hasten what massive debt and unprofitability has started.  The economics of it will surely slow if not altogether stop plundering of our last known significant available oil.

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2019 by TXPower
Clarification

[Oil_Engineer + 86]

5 hours ago, James Regan said:

Simple question what will change if the Democratic Party got elected in 2020, would the US continue to eradicate its strategic oil reserves?

Are you referring to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, oil held by the government in case of emergency, or simply petroleum under US soil?

[Meredith Poor + 897]

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

 The economics of it will surely slow if not altogether stop plundering of our last known significant available oil.

Huh?

At this point our 'oil supply' is basically equal to our supply of sunlight. Maybe not at current prices, but certainly at less than $140 per barrel.

[Meredith Poor + 897]

5 hours ago, James Regan said:

Simple question what will change if the Democratic Party got elected in 2020, would the US continue to eradicate its strategic oil reserves?

Presumably 'elected' means the president.Democrats control the House, but they don't presently control the Senate. 'Elected' would have to mean control of at least one house in Congress as well as the presidency.

As a general rule, the issues an incoming administration faces are not the issues that were addressed on the campaign trail. Bush Jr. didn't discuss terrorism much in 2000. Nixon's concern for the price of oil in 1972 was practically non-existent. Whether the US is flushing it's strategic reserve is likely to be a sideshow by the time the next POTUS swears in.

$ = votes. Watching the flood of money into the Democratic candidates should be a clue. Not necessarily predictive, but suggestive.

[Boat + 1,324]

6 hours ago, James Regan said:

Simple question what will change if the Democratic Party got elected in 2020, would the US continue to eradicate its strategic oil reserves?

The easy answer is yes. The Dems will leverage FF like they always do. They will trade billions in subsities for FF in return for billions in renewables. Its how congress works.

[Illurion + 894]

6 hours ago, James Regan said:

Simple question what will change if the Democratic Party got elected in 2020, would the US continue to eradicate its strategic oil reserves?

There is " NOTHING DEMOCRATIC " about the "Democrat Party"..........

The Democrats are the worlds greatest party-poopers......

If you want something to get totally screwed up,  you ask the Democrats to "fix" it..........

 

The "special interest groups that own the Democrat party"   are all about two things:   POWER  and  MONEY......

 

Should the USA be unlucky enough to have another Democrat President,  or Senate Majority,    you can bet that whatever is done in reference to the "oil reserve",  or anything else,  will revolve around those two things......

 

The current RINO led Republican party leadership tries to do the same thing that the Democats do,  but the RINO's are just not as successful at messing things up as the Democrats are......

Edited March 3, 2019 by Illurion

[TXPower + 643]

18 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

Huh?

At this point our 'oil supply' is basically equal to our supply of sunlight. Maybe not at current prices, but certainly at less than $140 per barrel.

Is it?  I would be interested to learn our oil supply is as inexhaustible as the sun’s rays.  The sun is estimated to continue burning for what, 5 billion years or more at current strength?  Unless some of the far-out theories I have heard about oil constantly replenishing itself underground I doubt our shale or any oil reserves are that plentiful.  

In reality if shale was $140 a barrel, hell even $100 a barrel, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the economics of it would work out.   Easily recoverable oil is one thing.  Fracking has made strides but most companies in the shale plays are NOT profitable.  Current shale PPB, recovery method costs, and current/possible future costs due to government regulation make it less economically feasible.  

Our current shale reserves, a finite commodity at any price, isn’t  increasing and economically may well become less feasible under a Democrat controlled president as already pointed out.  Why not buy and burn other countries oil and leave ours in the ground for the day when geopolitics and/or greater scarcity abroad necessitate it?

  

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

Is it?  I would be interested to learn our oil supply is as inexhaustible as the sun’s rays.  The sun is estimated to continue burning for what, 5 billion years or more at current strength?  Unless some of the far-out theories I have heard about oil constantly replenishing itself underground I doubt our shale or any oil reserves are that plentiful.  

In reality if shale was $140 a barrel, hell even $100 a barrel, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the economics of it would work out.   Easily recoverable oil is one thing.  Fracking has made strides but most companies in the shale plays are NOT profitable.  Current shale PPB, recovery method costs, and current/possible future costs due to government regulation make it less economically feasible.  

Our current shale reserves, a finite commodity at any price, isn’t  increasing and economically may well become less feasible under a Democrat controlled president as already pointed out.  Why not buy and burn other countries oil and leave ours in the ground for the day when geopolitics and/or greater scarcity abroad necessitate it?

  

Better yet, convert our large vehicles to natural gas or biogas and save some of the oil for future needs. This will also give more time for other renewables and storage technology to advance.

Related story http://www.ngvglobal.com/blog/natural-gas-fuel-in-sweden-is-91-renewable-0302#more-110054

[ronwagn + 6,290]

10 hours ago, James Regan said:

Simple question what will change if the Democratic Party got elected in 2020, would the US continue to eradicate its strategic oil reserves?

The economy would crash. It is thriving on lower regulation. Democrat regulation combined with overspending on new social spending would destroy all hope of reducing our national debt, which is currently akin to a large snowball just starting its descent on a very large slope. Republicans are not innocent in this debt but the new Democrats would only seal our fate. 

The leftists are using the Cloward and Piven Strategy do destroy America

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/organizations/clowardpiven-strategy-cps/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

The old adage about giving a man a fish versus teaching him how to fish has been updated by a reader: Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his 'basic rights.' Thomas Sowell
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/thomas_sowell_557674?src=t_vote

Edited March 3, 2019 by ronwagn

[John Foote + 1,135]

The question was to the Strategic Oil Reserves, and lot of us fail to RTFQ.

The Trump answer is to sell pieces of it, so I don't see how a Democrat could seriously shrink them more. Maybe an extreme greenie, which I don't believe we'll see, would inadvertently preserve them. 

There are plenty of reasons to be worried about Democrat party.

Selling off the Strategic Reserve, is not one them. 

[Meredith Poor + 897]

3 hours ago, TXPower said:

Is it?  I would be interested to learn our oil supply is as inexhaustible as the sun’s rays.  The sun is estimated to continue burning for what, 5 billion years or more at current strength?  Unless some of the far-out theories I have heard about oil constantly replenishing itself underground I doubt our shale or any oil reserves are that plentiful.  

In reality if shale was $140 a barrel, hell even $100 a barrel, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the economics of it would work out.   Easily recoverable oil is one thing.  Fracking has made strides but most companies in the shale plays are NOT profitable.  Current shale PPB, recovery method costs, and current/possible future costs due to government regulation make it less economically feasible.  

Our current shale reserves, a finite commodity at any price, isn’t  increasing and economically may well become less feasible under a Democrat controlled president as already pointed out.  Why not buy and burn other countries oil and leave ours in the ground for the day when geopolitics and/or greater scarcity abroad necessitate it?

  

Keyword search 'carbon engineering', or navigate to carbonengineering.com

[Boat + 1,324]

So there is around 700 mb of oil in reserve and they may reduce it by 11 mb. Lol I am not sure what the fuss is about along with silly projections about what the Dems would do with the 690 left. 

Think about those thousands of drilled but uncompleted wells. We as a nation have never had so much oil.

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 3/3/2019 at 2:53 PM, Oil_Engineer said:

Are you referring to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, oil held by the government in case of emergency, or simply petroleum under US soil?

The US regional oil has been considered strategic reserves for 30 years, the Permian basin is not a new find, hence the US thirst for exploiting foreign reserves so no not what the US has stored in tanks or salt caverns.

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 3/3/2019 at 6:01 PM, mthebold said:

We no longer import much oil, and we'll soon be a net exporter.  Why should our tax dollars continue paying for the same size SPR? 

Actually the US still does and will have to continue importing oil, US crude  is light and requires heavier oil to blend to produce all the products gained from fractional distillation. As for a net exporter this is a loose political spin which is based on a very short term vision. US Shale is under huge pressure both internally and overseas. In general shale is not considered a long term sure thing, the investors and bankers are controlling an over spent and in debt segment of the Industry. Not a healthy looking business plan. 

[Oil_Engineer + 86]

1 hour ago, James Regan said:

The US regional oil has been considered strategic reserves for 30 years, the Permian basin is not a new find, hence the US thirst for exploiting foreign reserves so no not what the US has stored in tanks or salt caverns.

That’s what I thought you meant. 

[James Regan + 1,776]

2 minutes ago, mthebold said:

The SPR is for national defense.  To decide its size, we should look at likely scenarios, both now and in the future, to decide what is required to defend ourselves:
1) We import and export because it's more economical to do so, but we could make greater use of light oil at modest additional cost. 
2) A scenario where we couldn't import/export would spike the price of oil, instantly resolving shale's financial & longevity problems.  I.e. the economics of shale during peace time are not relevant to the use of shale during emergencies. 
3) As time passes, our oil situation will improve. reducing the need for SPR.  Efficiency, fuel-switching, recycling of carbon-based materials, and electrification are reducing the West's oil demand as we speak.  The increase in demand is coming from Asia and developing nations, which are not relevant to the SPR. 

I would argue that our oil situation has dramatically improved and will only continue to improve.  Therefore, it's reasonable to reduce the SPR.  We certainly still need some SPR, but not so much.

One might argue that we may as well keep it around, but the SPR costs money.  If it no longer serves a clear purpose, why waste money on it? 

Good reply, will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next few years. IMO some are spoiling for another war in the Middle East in reality just Iran left to complete the Northern Persian Gulf full house.

[Oil_Engineer + 86]

26 minutes ago, mthebold said:

The SPR is for national defense.  To decide its size, we should look at likely scenarios, both now and in the future, to decide what is required to defend ourselves:
1) We import and export because it's more economical to do so, but we could make greater use of light oil at modest additional cost. 
2) A scenario where we couldn't import/export would spike the price of oil, instantly resolving shale's financial & longevity problems.  I.e. the economics of shale during peace time are not relevant to the use of shale during emergencies. 
3) As time passes, our oil situation will improve. reducing the need for SPR.  Efficiency, fuel-switching, recycling of carbon-based materials, and electrification are reducing the West's oil demand as we speak.  The increase in demand is coming from Asia and developing nations, which are not relevant to the SPR. 

I would argue that our oil situation has dramatically improved and will only continue to improve.  Therefore, it's reasonable to reduce the SPR.  We certainly still need some SPR, but not so much.

One might argue that we may as well keep it around, but the SPR costs money.  If it no longer serves a clear purpose, why waste money on it? 

I think the SPR has outlived its usefulness.  The SPR was implemented as a buffer against oil embargoes when the US was getting 70% of its imported oil from OPEC member states, but since that time the tides have turned and only 1/3 of imported oil comes from this association.  nearly half of our imported oil comes from Canada, which is unlikely to use its oil exports to harm the US economically, so the SPR has become an expensive insurance policy for a risk that has been greatly reduced.

[James Regan + 1,776]

On 3/3/2019 at 9:37 AM, James Regan said:

Simple question what will change if the Democratic Party got elected in 2020, would the US continue to eradicate its strategic oil reserves?

 

[Brett H + 3]

God help us if the democrats win the WH in 2020! What the Trump has done in two short years is nothing short of outstanding, and what he has to contend with between the liberal media and now new house hard core liberals just adds to how brilliant this man has been. 

If a democrat gets into the WH one of the first actions taken will be an executive order banning exploration/drilling,harvesting our natural resources which they consider an environmental sin.          Brett H. Jacksonville FL.

[John Foote + 1,135]

The shale revolution in oil was under a democrat. Don't let noise created by media and political parties blind you to what really happens. Also, what is it, 33 states have Republican governors. So much of what happens is on a state level. You're from Florida. Don't you block offshore exploration and production, despite Republican governors and senators. 

[TXPower + 643]

3 hours ago, John Foote said:

The shale revolution in oil was under a democrat. Don't let noise created by media and political parties blind you to what really happens. Also, what is it, 33 states have Republican governors. So much of what happens is on a state level. You're from Florida. Don't you block offshore exploration and production, despite Republican governors and senators. 

True, it was under a democrat president but a better description might be happened under a democrat president and in-spite of.  Or, to use his own words, “You(he) didn’t build that.........”

Three points in the article below: 1. The drop in imported oil under the Obama Admin happened at the same time an increase of 4 million bpd of domestically produced oil occurred.  Not heralded by him for obvious reasons(love fest with greenies).  2. The shale boom had already started before Obama entered the Oval Office. 3. The majority of the increase in domestically produced oil on his watch occurred on private land.  He pretty much blocked and stopped any real expansion of oil production on publicly owned lands.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/01/15/president-obamas-petroleum-legacy/#9d5bcac10fdb

 

[John Foote + 1,135]

Clinton and Obama rhetoric was often quite different than actual behavior. Clintons in particular were very pro big biz/Wall Street. I don't think Obama was, but he dealt with the reality of Congress, as a president should, and they wouldn't fund his wishes. Neither B43 or Obama were willing to correct the banking fiascos that came to a head with the financial crises, and both parties kicked the can down the road with free money to mega-finance sector (which helped the shale revolution).

We all (generically speaking) get lost in the culture wars speak that generate votes, and not so much attention to what is being funded or not.

When government land is used, the govt should get top dollar or leave in the ground. I don't really trust our folks to do that, sad to say. Oil and gas will be here a long time. Don't sell short. But yes, do sell when the terms are favorable.

Texas, because of it's Nation of Texas heritage, could set some of the Permian basin lose (not all because of NM), regardless of the Feds. The fact there was already pipelines all over helps too. California goes the other way, still a major producer but doesn't like it, and it's declining. Wyoming will be interesting going forward. A lot of rich tech types retire there, and they are happy to discourage oil. State government matters a lot. Colorado is skitzo, very liberal, and very conservative. Folks here have talked about New York's sitting on unconventional gas, and unwilling to use it. A lot of NIMBY in oil and gas. 

 

 

 

[BillKidd + 139]

On 3/9/2019 at 4:36 PM, Brett H said:

God help us if the democrats win the WH in 2020! What the Trump has done in two short years is nothing short of outstanding, and what he has to contend with between the liberal media and now new house hard core liberals just adds to how brilliant this man has been. 

If a democrat gets into the WH one of the first actions taken will be an executive order banning exploration/drilling,harvesting our natural resources which they consider an environmental sin.          Brett H. Jacksonville FL.

"What the Trump has done in two short years is nothing short of outstanding, and what he has to contend with between the liberal media and now new house hard core liberals just adds to how brilliant this man has been."

Man, we live on two different planets. And I'm not a Democrat. In my lifetime, there has never been a prez so inept, so fraudulent. Nothing but a conman.

Edited March 12, 2019 by BillKidd