Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Howdy Richard, Just a couple of thoughts: The Kiplinger Letter's recent comments regarding 100 bb'o'crude. black gold reserves stashed away under ND certainly caught my eye. I'm puzzled over the fact that I do not personally recall anyone in the Vortex list ever mentioning the existence of this potential natural resource – and there are some pretty smart cookies here. Has this North Dakota resource ever been discussed here? I must confess that I do not have at my fingertips the current daily consumption of oil within the good'ol U.S.A. I wonder if Mr. Rothwell or Mr. Beene might know those figures. In my experience, The Kiplinger Letter is comprised of a fairly conservative group of reporters who go by the creed of never directly quoting their sources, nor do they directly name their sources – not ever. This anonymity seems to give the their reporting staff a certain level of access to information within inner Washington circles for which other news sources would not necessarily be privy to receiving. What they seem to be good at is digging up and reporting on Washington gossip about national states of affairs – taking the basic temperature of political machinations. They seem to be good at reporting on both international and internal events that will become more generally known to the public in subsequent months. While they do report on interesting and occasionally fascinating technological developments (not yet privy to the general public) it's been my experience that I've rarely read anything in this newsletter that might be considered to be earth shaking in its ramifications. That especially is the case when it comes to the energy front, and what our nation is doing (or not doing) about it. They are extremely conservative in the reporting of our country's energy assessments. That was another reason their reporting on the North Dakota 100 bb'o'oil surprised me. The Kiplinger staff welcomes comments from their paying subscribers (I've been a subscriber since the 1980s) – and they really do respond to individual inquiries! When the Ethanol debate was first brought up here in Vortex I emailed the Kiplinger Staff with a comment or two in regards to what our Vortex group had discussed, particularly how inefficient corn based ethanol production is under current circumstances. I asked their staff if it might be possible for them in the future to report in more detail on the accuracy of whether ethanol production would really help make our nation more energy independent, or not. One of their analysts replied that (and I'm not quoting directly here!) indeed, the ethanol debate was in many ways a politically induced farce that will do absolutely nothing in regards to making us more energy independent. I could tell from the tone of letter that their staff must occasionally get incredibly frustrated with what they uncover and must subsequently report on since from their perspective they can put two and two together and see the rapidly approaching cliff - while many of the anonymous sources they contact appear incapable and/or unwilling to see the same cliff themselves. It's not Kiplinger's job to tell their readership what is politically correct or what is the most sensible action to take. Their job is to report as accurately as possible on what is going on within inner Washington circles and the decisions they are making that will ultimately affect us all for better or worse. BTW, and to their credit, they did eventually report numerous times on how incredibly inefficient corn based Ethanol production really is in regards to creating the illusion energy independence. Based on what I've read I'm convinced some of those anonymous sources have occasionally come from the inner most circles of government including White House staff. This became evident to me during the build up to the eventual ill-planned invasion of Iraq. When we first invaded Afghanistan the Kiplinger Letter stated quite clearly from the very beginning that Iraq was next on the agenda. They told their readership to prepare to start hearing the drumbeat on the need to take care of the Iraq situation. Again, their job is to report on what they uncover, not on the wisdom of what they uncover. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
--- OrionWorks wrote: The Kiplinger Letter's recent comments regarding 100 bb'o'crude reserves stashed away under ND certainly caught my eye. I'm puzzled over the fact that I do not personally recall anyone in the Vortex list ever mentioning the existence of this potential natural resource ... Well, there are two things going on in this report, and one of them is thinly disguised political spin... From a quick googling -- it looks to me like Kiplinger is talking about the Williston Basin. But first - we need to realize that Kiplinger has a political agenda, which they try very hard to keep under wraps; but obviously being pro-business often means being pro-big-oil and pro-status-quo and so on ... Many here, of either political persuasion, might prefer that they be ONLY pro-business (small to medium sized business) without being pro-big-oil since most small businesses are harmed by high oil costs. That too is another spin but anyway Part of this oil field has been in production for over 50 years, so it is not a new discovery. It is deep oil, from one to 1.5 miles deep; and at $20 barrel it is too costly to extract or even to get a good idea of how much is there; but now at five times the price, almost any oil, no matter how deep, can be exploited profitably. It is very likely that they have simply increased the estimates on how much is recoverable at $100/ barrel. Was the estimate scientific or not? IOW there is nothing here new except new spin on an old story ... or is there something I am missing ? BTW- it is very much in the interest of those who wish to maintain the status quo politically- to make calming and unprovable claims in order to ease the fears of voters about looming problems. Fearful voters favor change. That kind of politically motivated spin has some bearing on the truthfulness of the new estimates. Where exactly did the estimates come from is one question? (did it originate or was it influenced by the White House or not?) We will probably see more such talk (i.e. that all is well)coming from any candidate in any race - who wishes to convince voters that staying the course of the present administration is preferable to change. Convincing voters that we do not face huge problems with energy is part of that tactic. There are many reasons to hide the fact that (alluded to in Jack's recent post) that we are in Iraq primarily to secure the oil, and that the invasion has nothing to do with war on terrorism. If we wanted a real war on terror we would invade Saudi Arabia. Isn't that where all of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Mostly correct but the Bakken is not a deep formation but a tight shale (no permability) that is saturated with oil but is very reluctant to give it up. It has been know forever it is basically everywhere under the Williston basin; you see it in every well drilled so that is great if it will produce in economic amounts... I don't know what new techniques are available for recovery but I imaginr directional drilling FRAC technology are involved. Ron --On Saturday, March 08, 2008 10:05 AM -0800 Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- OrionWorks wrote: The Kiplinger Letter's recent comments regarding 100 bb'o'crude reserves stashed away under ND certainly caught my eye. I'm puzzled over the fact that I do not personally recall anyone in the Vortex list ever mentioning the existence of this potential natural resource ... Well, there are two things going on in this report, and one of them is thinly disguised political spin... From a quick googling -- it looks to me like Kiplinger is talking about the Williston Basin. But first - we need to realize that Kiplinger has a political agenda, which they try very hard to keep under wraps; but obviously being pro-business often means being pro-big-oil and pro-status-quo and so on ... Many here, of either political persuasion, might prefer that they be ONLY pro-business (small to medium sized business) without being pro-big-oil since most small businesses are harmed by high oil costs. That too is another spin but anyway Part of this oil field has been in production for over 50 years, so it is not a new discovery. It is deep oil, from one to 1.5 miles deep; and at $20 barrel it is too costly to extract or even to get a good idea of how much is there; but now at five times the price, almost any oil, no matter how deep, can be exploited profitably. It is very likely that they have simply increased the estimates on how much is recoverable at $100/ barrel. Was the estimate scientific or not? IOW there is nothing here new except new spin on an old story ... or is there something I am missing ? BTW- it is very much in the interest of those who wish to maintain the status quo politically- to make calming and unprovable claims in order to ease the fears of voters about looming problems. Fearful voters favor change. That kind of politically motivated spin has some bearing on the truthfulness of the new estimates. Where exactly did the estimates come from is one question? (did it originate or was it influenced by the White House or not?) We will probably see more such talk (i.e. that all is well)coming from any candidate in any race - who wishes to convince voters that staying the course of the present administration is preferable to change. Convincing voters that we do not face huge problems with energy is part of that tactic. There are many reasons to hide the fact that (alluded to in Jack's recent post) that we are in Iraq primarily to secure the oil, and that the invasion has nothing to do with war on terrorism. If we wanted a real war on terror we would invade Saudi Arabia. Isn't that where all of the 9/11 hijackers came from? Jones
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Howdy Steven, The 2005 estimate USA crude consumption was some 20 million barrels per day and change, in other words, nobody actually knows for sure.. you can estimate the consumption is now some 21-22 mbd and counting. again nobody knows the actual tally ,nor do they know refining amounts and imports of refined fuel.. just guest estimate... its like estimating the number of jobs lost or found. The guv-ment politicos love these statistics cuz they they can perform wonders with numbers while eating cucumber as you noticed this week reports of falling jobs and the roiling of the stock market. This sudden announcement trimmed some 5 trillion off the stock market... it's fun to watch how easily it's done with statistics. The oil under the ground around North Dakota an over into Canada has been well known for a long time... its near worthless cuz it's so hard to get to and it's heavy near like asphalt. The only nearby plant capable of refining is near Billings, Montana until Canada brings on their new refinery for tar sands. Today's game for politicos is to keep the economy from slipping over the edge until after the November election and after it don't matter because the losers will make it happens and the winners will become the losers and the people will blame us. Richard
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Interesting comments from Jones, Richard, and Ron. I would certainly agree with the claim that The Kiplinger Letter is pro-business. I'm sure their main clientele is the Business owner (of both large and small operations) trying to figure out what the hell Washington is going to do next, and how best to deal with the consequences. Granted, this North Dakota claim may be nothing more than a game of political smoke and mirrors strategically brought forth in the midst of the political election season. However, if in the following months when perhaps a bit more information is put out into the public domain, and if in those reports it appears to be technologically possible to economically extract sufficient quantities of crude from the Williston Basin (at, say, $100/pb) I can only hope that we put the borrowed time it gives us to good use. If oil corporations are now banking on the price of oil remaining at current prices, hopefully the strategy will indirectly help grow and mature a plethora of AE technologies to the point that some of them will actually become cheaper to invest in. Maybe we can finally get our s__t together. ...in 20 years, you think One can hope. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
The Kiplinger Letter's comments on ENERGY for the week of 03/07/08 * A new black gold rush is under way, this time in North Dakota. The potential payoff is huge...up to 100 billion barrels of oil. That's twice the size of Alaska's reserves...enough to meet U.S. needs for 20 years. An official government estimate is due out next month. Until now, the obstacles to production seemed overwhelming. The crude oil is locked away in rocks that are buried miles underground in the Bakken Play, a field that stretches into Montana and Canada. But times have changed. High oil prices and new technology make it worth the effort. Marathon Oil, Tristar Oil Gas, EOG Resources and Crescent Point Energy Trust are all interested in some of the action. Figure on at least five years before the oil starts flowing. As for Congress' effort to push alternative energy: Forget it. At least for this year. Expect the Senate to bury the House plan to add a 50¢ a gallon tax credit for ethanol produced from farm waste and forestry, trash, etc. Dead, too, are bigger breaks for buyers of hybrid cars and double credits for home energy efficiency measures. The problem is the cost: $18 billion. Democrats would pay for it by revoking oil company credits, but that'll never get past Republicans. -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Kiplinger Letter: 03/07/08 comments on energy
Howdy Steven, Kiplinger needs to do his math. Search out how much petroleum is consumed in the US daily and divide by 100 billion. Always remember what the politicians give as the answer to what is the business of government. The business of government is business Richard Steven wrote, A new black gold rush is under way, this time in North Dakota. The potential payoff is huge...up to 100 billion barrels of oil. That's twice the size of Alaska's reserves...enough to meet U.S. needs for 20 years. An official government estimate is due out next month.
