Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U.S.

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U.S.

Unread postby vox_mundi » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 13:04:19

From the same folks who brought us ‘Truth Isn’t Truth’ ...

Trump Administration Says Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U.S.

Conserving oil is no longer an economic imperative for the U.S., the Trump administration declares in a major new policy statement that threatens to undermine decades of government campaigns for gas-thrifty cars and other conservation programs.

The position was outlined in a memo released last month in support of the administration's proposal to relax fuel mileage standards. The government released the memo online this month without fanfare.

With the memo, the administration is formally challenging old justifications for conservation — even congressionally prescribed ones, as with the mileage standards. The memo made no mention of climate change.
"American businesses, consumers and our environment are all the losers under his plan," ... "The only clear winner is the oil industry. It's not hard to see whose side President Trump is on."

"It's like saying, 'I'm a big old fat guy, and food prices have dropped — it's time to start eating again,' " said Tom Kloza, longtime oil analyst with the Maryland-based Oil Price Information Service.

"If you look at it from the other end, if you do believe that fossil fuels do some sort of damage to the atmosphere ... you come up with a different viewpoint," Kloza said. "There's a downside to living large."

How much the U.S. economy is hooked up to the gas pump, and vice versa, plays into any number of policy considerations, not just economic or environmental ones, but military and geopolitical ones, said John Graham, a former official in the George W. Bush administration, now dean of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University.

"Our ability to play that role as a leader in the world is stronger when we are the strongest producer of oil and gas," Graham said. "But there are still reasons to want to reduce the amount we consume."

Image

Meanwhile ...

BIG TROUBLE BREWING AT THE BAKKEN: Rapid Rise In Water Production Signals Red Flag Warning
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3939
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 14:56:59

A "red flag" warning in the Bakken? No, it isn't: it's a condition fully anticipated by anyone knowledgable of oil production operations. This same phenomenon has happened in every newly developed trend of water drive oil reservoirs. Early on most of the wells produce no or very little water. But as a trend continues to be developed wells drilled early on begin producing more water as they deplete. But new wells are producing more oil. But eventually the NUMBER of the older wells (with ever increasing water production) begin exceeding the number of new wells brought on line. And simple arithmetic explains why the total water production in the trend starts exceeding the total oil production. It is inevitable and always has been. And this differential can show a very big jump should the number of new wells deceases significantly. As might happen if oil prices fall and activity decreases.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 15:03:27

And at no time as long as I've drawn breath have I felt conserving oil in the US was an "economic imperative". At least no after gasoline prices began to drop. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Pops » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 18:32:20

Not sure why the big font, is anyone surprised?
Don't look for logic, there is none beyond dismantling every forward thinking idea since, say, Goldwater.
It's called reactionary for a reason.
just read the hat
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 19:08:06

I just posted about this on the LTG thread, as it seems to indicate they have no idea that fossil fuels will eventually become scared, that there are limits.

Yes Pops, this crowd in office are dumb shits.

Now there are two questions....
1- Are American voters stupid enough to believe this?
2- is the Democrat party smart enough to put forward a decent alternative or just another shill?

Put differently...
Will we be given an effective choice?
Will we vote for it?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12374
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Pops » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 20:38:16

If the "they're all the same" refrain survived 2016 I'm pretty sure it will continue, Newf

The best thing about trump is he drew the line between DnR brighter than it's been in a while.
I'll not list the ways (it would only bring 12 replies of "Yeahbut whaddabout...")

Ds like to fall in love, Obama, Clinton, Carter were all fresh faces. Clinton II was anything but, so she lost.
I'd like to say Bern or Pocahontas because I like their good old fashioned pro-labor, "anti-monopoly" chops, but they're old hat.

Gonna be someone we've not heard from much. Like I said somewhere else, probably off-white, 50% chance female, late 40s maybe 50.

There is gonna be lots of pussy hat, me too, BLM, America (not russia) first, Pro-Intel (of all things), Law n Order (but fair sentencing) ... crimeney, who knows? It's like a campaign manager goodie bag!

Likely not the Ukrainian kind, lol

.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 19 Aug 2018, 22:20:33

I think it's crazy, too. But I must point out that Pops and I own pickup trucks, and those are not fuel-efficient vehicles. Newf I don't know about.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5984
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 08:29:52

Nissan Pathfinder, true 4wd SUV on a pickup frame, so I can get to my property. We have 4 properties, one in center city with NO parking, 3 on dirt (on a good day) roads. We’ve always treated our Ford Tarsus wagons as pick up trucks, and they looked it. For us a vehicle is a necessary tool, to haul materials for projects.

Driving up here is crazy. 3 miles to a gallon of milk, 25 to a 2x4, 40 to a town of under 10,000, 130 or so to the airport.

I make ammends by not driving 6 months a year. Except for an occasional cheap rental.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12374
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Pops » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 09:16:53

The Beast is just misplaced macho at this point, a beached white elephant.
I've worked at home for many years. I walk 2-4 miles daily but we only drive occasionally, maybe a few miles a week and that's usually in a Hyundai.
I'd recommend Metromile, insurance by the mile, for anyone who doesn't drive much.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 12:03:43

Newfie - I hate to pick on you but you did have choice to not town property in the country. Just as folks who work 30 miles from their office. They may have even had less choice then you if that was the only decent paying job they could find. Like they Rocman didn't.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 13:11:54

Rock,

I was not complaining I was commenting and explaining.

I drive considerabky less now than when I was living in center city Philadelphia and working in the burbs. Sure, For a while I could walk to the office, but I was traveling for work a lot. Up at 5am to catch AMTRAK to DC or NYC. Or fly to Orlando or Chicago.l or Boston. But also drive to various meetings all over the damn place. Like Rochester. Gets old.

And I’ll trade driving 100 miles up here with 10 miles in cc any day. 3 mile trip to Home Depot would take 2 hours minimum.

No doubt we need to get better at planning our shopping trips. It will slow down once I get the basic tools and supplies laid in. And it’s only 6 months a year. And the scenery is stunning.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12374
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 16:15:50

Newfie wrote:I just posted about this on the LTG thread, as it seems to indicate they have no idea that fossil fuels will eventually become scared, that there are limits.

Yes Pops, this crowd in office are dumb shits.

Now there are two questions....
1- Are American voters stupid enough to believe this?
2- is the Democrat party smart enough to put forward a decent alternative or just another shill?

Put differently...
Will we be given an effective choice?
Will we vote for it?

Probably if you're going to call people names re their intelligence, it would be better to proof read enough to see that "scared" isn't "scarce". (Plenty of dumb shits on BOTH sides of the aisle, IMO).

Has the Democrat party EVER been smart enough to put forward a "decent" alternative that could actually win? I don't see the mainstream D candidates lining up to propose a credible CO2 tax, resulting in, for example, much higher gasoline taxes -- even though that would be the right thing to do, IF wagging their fingers at the mean old GOP's energy policies actually MEANS anything more than trying to get more votes.

I would say that by and large, we WON'T vote for an effective D choice (if it would actually change things in a meaningful way), which is why we don't GET such a choice.

...

Disclosure: I don't like substantial parts of BOTH mainstream parties' behavior, which is why I'm a moderate, and vote on candidates, not parties.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6641
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 16:24:44

ROCKMAN wrote:Newfie - I hate to pick on you but you did have choice to not town property in the country. Just as folks who work 30 miles from their office. They may have even had less choice then you if that was the only decent paying job they could find. Like they Rocman didn't.

I just saw a CNBC piece about a guy commuting 2 hours a day (each way), to avoid the (on average!) $4500 a month rents in SF, but be able to work there. He works there because, that's where the good jobs in his profession are, according to the piece.

So living 70 miles away, and taking 3 modes of transportation requiring 4 hours total a day saves him nearly $3,000 in rent, less $150 in transpo costs.

But what caught my eye was that there are now over 3% of workers who are "hyper-commuters", commuting 90 minutes or more each way to work. And the trend for this number is rising over time.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/pr-rep- ... -rent.html

Not exactly a good trend re saving energy, especially those folks driving their SUV's from the exurbs on a daily basis.

Somehow, I think BOTH R's and D's are missing the boat BIG TIME, when they don't push hard to have far more knowledge workers telecommute. It's not like the technology to support that isn't improving all the time. That would save on energy and on infrastructure -- considerably over time.

Something like tax credits could encourage it, without being coercive.

But I guess that doesn't rally voters like doing nothing and insulting the other side.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6641
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 16:33:04

Newfie wrote:No doubt we need to get better at planning our shopping trips. It will slow down once I get the basic tools and supplies laid in. And it’s only 6 months a year. And the scenery is stunning.

About a month ago, I got a form from State Farm, my auto insurance company. Apparently their underwriters find it inconceivable that a retired person in a top 100 US city drives under 7500 miles a year, and thus qualifies for that price break on their auto insurance.

To the extent that they demanded I fill out a form with my odometer reading (but having the good grace to pay for mailing it themselves).

I have other reasons (other insurance policies in the past) to know that, at least to some extent, State Farm underwriting is run by complete morons living in the past, but still.

What next? Demand I prove it? If they do, all they need to do is have my agent (or minion) drive to my house and look at the odometer themselves. If they want me to do the driving -- they can damn well PAY ME for my time, or look for another customer.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6641
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Pops » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 16:36:33

People have been commuting from the Central Valley to SF for decades, which is why Stockton was a poster child for the housing bust. "Drive to qualify."

Tele is still increasing, I had thought it was falling after the initial blush

Image
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 17:10:59

Pops wrote:People have been commuting from the Central Valley to SF for decades, which is why Stockton was a poster child for the housing bust. "Drive to qualify."

Tele is still increasing, I had thought it was falling after the initial blush

I was just surprised by how much that trend is growing. Stockton was cited in the article I referenced as THE top super commuter cities (in the chart) saying super commuters are an astounding 10% of the workforce. (Well, I found it astounding).

(I think I mistakenly used the term hyper-commuter in my post above for the super commuter term the article uses, but I meant the same thing).

...

It's good to see that telecommuting is still increasing, because there HAS been a lot of corporate push-back.

1). Claims it causes productivity problems in teams.

2). Many companies in I/T such as IBM and HP greatly curtailing or eliminating it.

3). One reason (IMO) has been to get people to quit. HP started a scheme where they'd move someone's job thousands of miles, and then do it AGAIN in several years. And of course, not pay any moving expenses, etc. Not hard to see how that gets old rather quickly, when telecommuting isn't allowed.

4). IMO, witnessing telecommuting and who chose to do it, a lot of the problem was bad management. If you have bad employees who do as little work as they can get by with, deal poorly with change, etc. -- they are NOT good candidates for telecommuting. Punishing everyone instead of the bad workers is all too typical of big corporate management.

I still think the right tax credits could help a lot, and given the costs to the environment, the infrastructure, and the energy used by commuting -- could actually SAVE the government net money. So, like smart government in action. But we can't have THAT, so never mind.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 6641
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 19:38:43

The last company I worked for, 40,000 employees, engineering, did lots of things to save money, they were very good at running the business (even if they didn’t understand the business.). One thing they did not do was telecommuting. We had conference calls, which are a real joy when dealing with 5 or 7 different nationalities with different heavy accents. I ran a conference call once, managed to set it up in my laptop. But that was the level of effort.

Even our conference room AV stuff never worked right. Corporate would refuse to send anyone to fix it. Eventually one of our guys would spend a few hours, charged to some job, in order to make it work. The IT guys were in a separate “cost center” and we not about to spend a dime on our office which did t have a local IT guy.

We had execs flying 4 days a week in a regular basis. Sometimes meetings in 3 cities in one day. Just insane. One guy had, I think, over a half million miles in one year. Domestic.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 12374
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby Pops » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 20:25:08

Back in the day I owned a little ad biz with a partner, he was the A/V guy and I was graphics. This was in the 90's and it was like pulling teeth to even get him to set up a little net in the office, eventually he went digital.

But anyway, I told him that one day the company would be "distributed" and we would connect via the web: the video post guy would be in Illinois where he was from, I'd art direct from Colorado, my partner would do radio from Tahoe, the account and media people wherever and the only people still in the area would be the sales reps.

I said we'd still meet all the time but it would be via the net, and since we'd be working from our bedrooms like Brian Wilson we'd be in our PJs — on the occasions we'd "meet" with clients, we'd each slip on our suit-dickeys. 8)

I was right, we are distributed but we're all freelancers now, lol
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby dissident » Mon 20 Aug 2018, 21:48:31

ROCKMAN wrote:A "red flag" warning in the Bakken? No, it isn't: it's a condition fully anticipated by anyone knowledgable of oil production operations. This same phenomenon has happened in every newly developed trend of water drive oil reservoirs. Early on most of the wells produce no or very little water. But as a trend continues to be developed wells drilled early on begin producing more water as they deplete. But new wells are producing more oil. But eventually the NUMBER of the older wells (with ever increasing water production) begin exceeding the number of new wells brought on line. And simple arithmetic explains why the total water production in the trend starts exceeding the total oil production. It is inevitable and always has been. And this differential can show a very big jump should the number of new wells deceases significantly. As might happen if oil prices fall and activity decreases.


You are omitting the show stopper detail about the time of arrival of higher water cuts. The Bakken is evolving on a timescale noticeably shorter than conventional plays of substance. So at the end of the day, it ends up being a side show with lots of hype that made sound like some 2nd coming of the oil production of the 1960s. The estimates for the peaking of the Bakken in the next 10 years are looking more and more realistic. And the cherry on top will be the faster decline post-peak.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Conserving Oil is No Longer an Economic Imperative for U

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 21 Aug 2018, 13:04:59

d - That's the nature of horizontal wells producing fractured reservoirs: the timelines for all aspects are greatly accelerated. A fact any competent reservoir engineer would have anticipated. Consider my conventional field that began producing in 1946 and then a significant water cut in 1955. But still a few wells still producing economically 70 years later. That's an 80+ year life span. Had hz wells developed it the lifespan would have been closer to 10 to 15 years.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Next

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests