Posted on 03/07/2018 5:44:48 PM PST by Hojczyk
Decreased regulation. New infrastructure. Increased demand in the 3rd world. Russia stagnating again. Gas prices holding firm. It seems all the ingredients for another US oil boom are here.
LOl....see #13.
Miss that crotchety old oiler at times.
My home area has had three booms in 60 years.
Just one more and we PROMISE we won’t screw it up again!!
Pooty-Poot and the CPUSA?
It is pretty obvious that Odunghole wanted us, and the rest of the world, to be dependent on the Arab muslim oil supply.
And, if Felonia von Pantsuit had been elected we would have been in thrall to the muslims for eternity.
“But analysts attributed the growth in U.S. production to market factors rather than Republican policy”
That is soooo weak.
Here in MA, instead of building a short pipeline to the endless natural gas in PA, we import Yemen gas shipped here on French ships.
Stupid and expensive.
Does anyone buy into the theory of abiotic oil?
Oh yes, Obama supported the gas industry, that is why the swamp creatures at the EPA came up with all those new regulations that would help.
The only thing of note he did to help was allow exports.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html
Hydrocarbons are found on Titan. I don’t think oil comes from dinosaurs or plant life.
Come on into LaVaca County TX we are ready
I see trade leverage right there.
You are all very welcome.
Good!
Not sure about oil—perhaps gas is legit.
Subduction of tectonic plate edge carries a lot of carbon bearing rock and water deep into the Earth’s mantle. Hydrogen from water, carbon from limestone, and ample heat energy might cook up some natural gas. Whether that leads to heavy hydrocarbons awaits more evidence.
A company claims a solvent process is viable to extract oil from tar-sands at $22 bbl. The sand is cleaned and possibly available as frack sand grade, little to no water is involved with the process, and the first commercial project is poised to commence in Utah. Will see.
“(In reality, Obama promoted natural gas as part of an “all of the above” energy strategy and his signature climate change regulation would have benefited the fossil fuel.)”
This is a POLITICAL STATEMENT, not journalism.
This CONVINCES me that the article was proof-read and marked up by someone from the Obama Administration (or DNC), which is a HUGE VIOLATION of journalistic ethics.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing unethical about getting opposing opinions, but when they’re presented as FACT, with the words “In reality”, that is unethical. The PROPER way to note this opposing opinion would be something like “A former Obama Administration official noted that development of natural gas was a key part of President Obama’s effort to fight climate change.” - Much, much, different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.