<b>Unconventional Oil and Gas Reserves Stimulating Economic Growth</b>

There is really no way to know where all of this will go. We could either end up being an energy producing superpower, (along with the industries that use lots of energy), or we could end up being in a state of, "Energy energy, everywhere, but not a drop to use".

It's unfortunate that we have an administration that is, (at best), schizophrenic. Publicly, we hear about the exciting times ahead that all of this new energy will bring; behind the scenes, however, it's a different story. The same people are taking steps to make sure that fracking never happens, large scale. It's a total coin toss.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-backdoor-attack-on-fracking/article/2504809

What's most interesting to me is that it is happening. Fracking has boomed, maybe more so in ND than could be said for other parts of our nation and what is quickly read over in your article is the opposition to the Keystone Pipeline. At some point when inflated costs to produce electricity hit a larger population we will find more reason to tap unconventional US oil reserves along with domestic imports from Canada. We need to bridge the next hurdle which is that these resources are seemingly land-locked and there is a dire need to establish a transport mechanism, "pipeline."

Personally, I think that oil is less important than our natural gas reserves. We should be going full bore on the development of either CNG/LNG, (or both), types of vehicles.

This study flew in the face of what was expected, and, I think, the desired outcome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/nyregion/hydrofracking-safe-says-ny-health-dept-analysis.html?_r=0

With all of this energy so close, I'm not convinced that government won't manage to tie our hands behind our backs.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Bureaucracy-could-Kill-the-U.S.-Shale-Gas-Industry.html

The reason I used the term "schizophrenic" in my last post, is because as all of this is going on, (and as I pointed out in a recent thread), the government is busy reconfiguring the DHS, as well as all other government agencies, to make CO2 and climate change, priority #1. I don't understand how we are going to simultaneously gain energy independence through fracking, while at the same time, putting all of the efforts of the federal government into stopping or slowing CO2 output.

To me it's a bit of indifference in which petrol fuel we extract as is can be later refined to the end product in need, be it propane or oil.

New York's legislature that mitigates production in Utica shale deposits is only a small fraction of our national output and the green initiative to lower carbon dioxide is justified but, whether we import OPEC petrol or produce our own has no impact on that initiative.

I'm all for electric vehicles, a smaller carbon foot print as well as energy independency. It's a shame that the opportunity to stimulate economic growth which would in turn foster development of renewable energies is over shadowed by concerns with utilizing our own resources, and the petrochemical market in consumer goods is as wide as the corn market in processed foods.

We are consumers and not necessarily smart shoppers.

After thinking about it further, I'm betting that we are going to see widespread fracking.

For one simple reason: The one thing that politicians care about more than anything else, is money. The potential revenue to the government that can be brought in through fracking, puts the cap and trade scam, and everything else, to shame. Saving the planet will likely be shelved for quite some time.

Or we could build refineries where the pipelines currently end, anywhere from Oklahoma to Central Illinois. That is about in the middle of the population center of the USA. That would be my preference. We can export all that Texas crude. Texas has a great lobby and a lot of pull. They want all the business.

That is an old story. Obama has now nominated a pro natural gas Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, and a pro natural gas EPA head Gina McCarthy. I guess he wants to see some income to tax. Here are references:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/03/09/will-secretary-moniz-put-energy-back-into-the-department-of-energy/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/04/why-gina-mccarthy-for-epa-could-be-obamas-most-important-nominee/

They both sound like reasonable pragmatists to me, and will enforce best practices in fracking et all. Hope I am right.

I hope so too, but if they won't sign off on any permits, it won't matter who gets nominated.

So what part is the unconventional part?

Both the gas and oil come from what are normal oil and gas bearing geological formations and are processed the same as they have always been plus the concept and practice of directional/horizontal drilling has been around since the 1930's and 40's.

Or is it unconventional being that the oil and gas sources are US land based opposed to being in volatile foreign places?

It is unconventional in that we are using new methods; e.g. coal gasification & hydrofracking, to extract petroleum products that would otherwise cost more to extract than we would produce. Now that upstream costs no longer overburden the net gain we are producing petroleum products that would not have been economical to harvest with conventional methods.

I'm still waiting for that cheap gas all of this is supposed to give us. Of course, building the Keystone XL Pipeline so that oil can be shipped to China won't help Americans out very much, but it will help the Chinese.

The cost to produce a barrel in some places can exceed 60$... We will never see prices fall to what they once were, but if we support North American Oil & Gas we can wager in on the supply and demand of global petroleum dropping costs as much as 10$ a barrel... and I'd be happy paying 2.50 a gallon... China is playing catch up in the unconventional oil and gas market but may be another exporter as they develop the capability to do so...

Natural gas has already become so cheap that there is barely a profit margin in it, which is why they are looking to export.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/10/should-the-us-export-natural-gas

I'm a little torn on exporting, but I come down on the side of not doing it, although I don't think the government should restrict it.

The best thing we could do right now, is lower corporate tax rates, cut red tape and regulations that make no sense, build natural gas power plants, and get back to being the world's #1 producer. Natural gas would still be inexpensive in the US, but the sheer volumes being sold would make up for it.

But alas; we are ruled by idiots.

By gas I guess you mean gasoline not natural gas. You can get CNG natural gas for under a dollar per gallon equivalent in some areas. If you burn a lot of fuel it is time to convert to CNG, if it is available in your area.

Until public financing of campaigns replaces the legalized bribery of campaign contributions, we will not see decisions being made to benefit the U.S. citizenry. Multi-national corporations do not need a tax break. Most of them, especially in the oil and gas industry, are experiencing record profits. I would be all for pipelines and other subsidies, even for oil companies, if they were regulated as a utility and required to keep the oil here instead of selling to the highest bidder (ie: China) on the international market. We are quickly becoming the colony of China; they only want our natural resources. On a related topic, what we really need is to return to the 200 year old practice of placing import duties on imports and return to sovereignty by immediately exited the W.T.O. You offset the benefits of slave wages and the ability to pollute without consequences in places like China with stiff import duties on these goods when they try to send them to the U.S. market. Make it more expensive to manufacture there than it is here and watch the factory jobs suddenly return, tax revenues increase and deficits shrink. It's too common sense and honest for the "whoards" of lawyers in Washington.

There are lots of things we could be doing differently. Unfortunately, the out of control spending and debt that has been accumulated by the morons we elect to office, has placed us in a precarious position. We are not in a position to call the shots, with China or anybody else. It looks like we might as well get used to a global position which will only continue to diminish with time.

Your comment "Until public financing of campaigns replaces the legalized bribery of campaign contributions, we will not see decisions being made to benefit the U.S. citizenry." is right on.

The big problem with solving that is that those who need to design the bill and vote for it are the same ones who are gathering the millions for their campaigns (and for other uses, as we find out every so often).

You can sign petitions to overturn the "Citizens United" decision which eliminated accountablity and limits on campaign financing. They need to feel pressured by their constituents (money buys ads, but not votes). That is a start. I would love to see Mitch McConnell replaced also - he sued the federal government when the McCain/Feingold Act limited campaign spending, saying that money equals free speech and the Supreme Court decided in his favor! I agree that the government is out of control corrupt at this point. What we need is more people to become educated and active. That is the only thing I know to tell you. Giving up is not an option.

Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

.

The above link is a place to start.

They got it exactly backwards. Rather than giving more power to corporations, they should have eliminated the influence of unions.

By 'they', you mean SCOTUS?

Decent and honest politicians? unicorns?

If you managed to find those mythical creature, one sure way to corrupt them would be to remove SCOTUS... without the judiciary to keep the legislative in check (though recently the job has been rather unremarkable) things would quickly devolve.