American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[B] More with Less.[/B]

[I]U.S. Crude Production Advances Even as Prices Decline

Drillers that unlocked the shale oil boom in the USA Are finding it hard to shut off the nozzle.

USA Crude production rose even as prices slumped to the lowest in more than five years and the number of rigs targeting oil decreased. In North Dakota's prolific Bakken shale formation, output rose in November as the number of new wells coming online fell by 73 percent.

The increases illustrate how improvements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technology may prop up USA Crude production even as companies cut spending, idle rigs and lay off thousands of workers with*oil prices*down more than 50 percent since June.

"We have an oversupply of crude," Michael Hiley, head of energy OTC at LPS Partners Inc. In*New York, said yesterday. "Production keeps going up. There is not a great correlation between the rig count and production because drilling has gotten more efficient over the last several years".[/I]

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-14/u-s-oil-output-advances-to-record-even-as-prices-drop.html[/URL]

They say some wells are now profitable even at $30 barrel and others will be as technology advances.

I say let get serious about exporting oil and natural gas, if we become completely energy independent we can tell countries like Iran, and their ilk to go pound sand as their economies collapse.

Oil and especially natural gas advances have given us an opportunity to increase revenue through exports, this may well be the only chance we have of getting a handle on our nation debt.

LOL. Sometimes it's better to let people be blissfully ignorant.

Lost in all of the rhetoric and noise about Keystone XL is the Canadian decision to tell the US politicians to go pound sand. The Canadians plan to use a combination of new construction, conversion of existing gas pipelines to oil, and reversal of direction to pipe oil all the way from Alberta to the Canadian East. They will use some and export some without being hamstrung by USA politics. The environmentalists need to hope and pray that the price of a barrel of oil stays low, because that is the only thing that will stop oil sands oil from being produced and sent to market.

Tres3.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443420]LOL. Sometimes it's better to let people be blissfully ignorant.[/QUOTE]LOL, probably best to just ignore jackassery as well.


Have a nice day.

Don't worry most intelligent people have been ignoring your MSM jackassery for years. Hegelian dialectic trolls. How 1999.

And dont worry anyone who wasnt shorting the CHF had a great day.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443425]LOL, probably best to just ignore jackassery as well.


Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BadMan;443414]Wow. You honestly believe everything you are told by TPTB.

The bureau of bullshit statistics. No better than the argentinian indec. [/QUOTE]Brilliant analysis. I guess Wall Street and all the economists that base their financial modelling and forecasts on BLS statistics are being duped too, and somehow don't even realize it. Heck, even Jackson posted a link to BLS to support his argument in his last post. What a laugh, keep fooling yourself BadMan.

[B]You really can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what you think![/B]

[QUOTE=BadMan;443426]Don't worry most intelligent people have been ignoring your MSM jackassery for years. Hegelian dialectic trolls. How 1999.
[/QUOTE]But what in the fuck would a pathetic little loser like you know about intelligent people?

Actually 1999 was a pretty good year for me, but wasn't you still sucking on momma's teats and shitting yellow back in the motherland at that time? You know comrade, I'm talking about before you learned to speak English.

I know you at least had to be going by your other name at that time, what was it Blue-boy 13 or something like that.

If there are any trolls here you're surely numeral uno amongst them.

I had hoped when you started posting again that you had changed but you're the the same little prick you always was. Maybe you should start your own forum again, I'm sure everyone will rush right over to join, just like the bad old days. Who knows maybe you can get three members this time.

I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic!

If you want to debate issues fine, but if you just want to engage in childish insults every time somebody disagrees with you, well you can just go fuck yourself for all I care.

I never saw so much spit flying!

[QUOTE=RevBS;443453]I never saw so much spit flying![/QUOTE]Happy New Year Rev.

Looks like 2015 will be another lively year on AP.

Was this drivel supposed to anger me or something? Said alot more about you and your mental state than it ever could about me. You dont even know me.

LOL. Someone needs to take their meds. Dementia is not a good look for you. You really are just as stupid as your posts imply....

[QUOTE=Punter127;443452][B]You really can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what you think![/B]

But what in the fuck would a pathetic little loser like you know about intelligent people?

Actually 1999 was a pretty good year for me, but wasn't you still sucking on momma's teats and shitting yellow back in the motherland at that time? You know comrade, I'm talking about before you learned to speak English.

I know you at least had to be going by your other name at that time, what was it Blue-boy 13 or something like that.

If there are any trolls here you're surely numeral uno amongst them.

I had hoped when you started posting again that you had changed but you're the the same little prick you always was. Maybe you should start your own forum again, I'm sure everyone will rush right over to join, just like the bad old days. Who knows maybe you can get three members this time.

I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic!

If you want to debate issues fine, but if you just want to engage in childish insults every time somebody disagrees with you, well you can just go fuck yourself for all I care.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;443451]Brilliant analysis. I guess Wall Street and all the economists that base their financial modelling and forecasts on BLS statistics are being duped too, and somehow don't even realize it. Heck, even Jackson posted a link to BLS to support his argument in his last post. What a laugh, keep fooling yourself BadMan.[/QUOTE]You seriously believe that wall street really bases its forecasts on bls stats? LOL. You do understand the bls changes their methodology more often than an escort changes undergarments right? Double LOL. And if you are talking about real wallstreet analysis. And not the crap that gets peddled to the muppets. I mean retail investors. You do know in GS' brilliant " analysis " and investment recomendations for 2015, they advised all their investors to short the CHF and predicted GLD would be at 1000 right? They also predicted oil would stay around 80 all year... Smh....Just forget everything I posted and believe the BLS (The Bureau Of Lies And Subterfuge) all you want.

And actually Jacksons previous posts acknowledged just how cooked those statistics are. The difference is he blames it on the administration du jour.

Read and open your eyes. Just kidding. I know you won't which is why its pointless to post any links but ill humor you. But if you want to stop fooling yourself, read some real analysis and get a clue.

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/03/15/government-wrong-on-jobs-and-wages-again/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2013/11/19/fake-unemployment-report-shocker/[/URL]

I'm not going to post more interesting links. They would go over your head. But seriously, keep believing what you want. I love muppet slaughter just as much as the next guy.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443452][B]You really can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what you think![/B]

But what in the fuck would a pathetic little loser like you know about intelligent people?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Punter127;443452]
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic!

If you want to debate issues fine, but if you just want to engage in childish insults every time somebody disagrees with you, well you can just go fuck yourself for all I care.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Punter127;443452]
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults.[/QUOTE]I just don't understand why people don't look at the man in the mirror before they launched these partisans attacks. Many on all sides including independents attack, its not a one way street.

However, this is just like in politics where its do as I say and not as I do, and criticize the other side for doing exactly you and your side are doing. The is just so hypocritical and having been on the receiving end of a similar attack from you before when I never 'turned to insults', I'd say you do have more than anger issues to get this worked up so often. I do have my armor on and am prepared for your next attack.

Guys / dudes, fellow mongers can we lower the insult ratio, stop the swear words and have an 'intelligent' discussion about politics.

I'd like to finish out my Keystone discussion with the envitable outcome. The Republican controlled House and Senate will pass the bill; President Obama will veto it and the GOP will try to get enough Democrat Senators to override. But they will fall short of the 67 votes needed, and the bill be dead until the next time.

[B]I was not nor am I angry. [/B]

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443463]I just don't understand why people don't look at the man in the mirror before they launched these partisans attacks. Many on all sides including independents attack, its not a one way street.[/QUOTE]I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. I am still allowed to have an opinion aren't I?

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443463]
However, this is just like in politics where its do as I say and not as I do, and criticize the other side for doing exactly you and your side are doing. The is just so hypocritical and having been on the receiving end of a similar attack from you before when I never 'turned to insults', I'd say you do have more than anger issues to get this worked up so often. I do have my armor on and am prepared for your next attack.[/QUOTE]It's true I have disputed your post in the past but please show where I attacked you personally. The worst thing I can find that I ever said about you was that you and another member were "birds of a feather" and that the two of you were tag teaming me, both statements were meant to be humorous, and that was after [U]you[/U] suggested I was a liar. You see I debate and dispute post but I don't normally attack the person, [U]but I do however respond to personal attacks with counter attacks, and once you open that door all bets are off.[/U] There is a difference between personal attack and disputing or debating a post.

The three quotes that you quoted are from one post in which I was responding (counter attack) to a personal attack by badman. The dislike between badman and me goes back several years, long before you joined the forum. His most recent claim that I don't know him is wrong as usual, he has over 1500 post, we all know him very well, at least those of us that have been around awhile. Oh BTW I have met him in person as well, we were introduced in a restaurant in BA a few year ago by none other than Jackson himself. He may not have known I was Punter 127 because we were introduced by our real first names only, but considering the number of people who made a point afterwards of tell me he was badman, I suspect he was told who I was as well. Or perhaps there's a medical reason he doesn't remember, it happens.

So unless you can show where I attacked you in the past I suggest we get back to talking about politics.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;443472]I'd like to finish out my Keystone discussion with the envitable outcome. The Republican controlled House and Senate will pass the bill; President Obama will veto it and the GOP will try to get enough Democrat Senators to override. But they will fall short of the 67 votes needed, and the bill be dead until the next time.[/QUOTE]You may be right, that would be the expected outcome, but I'm not so sure this time. I think you will see more Dems turning on Obama on issues like this that have strong public support because they need to get reelected, Obama doesn't.

The US part of that pipeline isn't going to be built anytime soon. There is simply no money in it at the current price of oil. There is simply no money in fracking unless its tax payer funded and refinanced by junk bonds. Its a bubble. And yes it destroys the environment. The Russians who invented fracking were some thoughtless idiots.

The only people who want the pipeline are frackers and those investing in that ponzi scheme and more so now that the price of oil is so low. If they can skim an extra 4-8 dollars on trasportation costs per barrel, they will jump at the chance. To the detriment of everyone else.

On the flipside, I don't see this pipeline becoming a reality anytime soon, especially with 46 bucks a barrel and with the drone emperor in office.

You've read my posts and you met me at a dinner once, that doesn't mean you know me. You must be delusional. And look back at the thread before telling bold faced lies. I never once quoted or insulted you. You quoted me and implied " jackassery " whatever that term means. So please stop living in a parallel world where everyone is " attacking " you. You started it. And then as most paranoid schizophrenics do you lashed out on some tourette syndrome induced rant about " sucking on mommas teats " " shitting yellow " etc.

You've apparently done this before to other posters and as you said, you will do it again. I'm assuming you're quite old so this should be pretty embarrasing on your part.

And if I ever did meet you at a dinner. I apparently didnt care about the encounter enough to remember it. I've met a few people from the forum at dinners. I only consider a few my friends and worth remembering or even treating with. Get back on your meds and try to stay on topic.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473][B]I was not nor am I angry. [/B]

I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. I am still allowed to have an opinion aren't I?

It's true I have disputed your post in the past but please show where I attacked you personally. The worst thing I can find that I ever said about you was that you and another member were "birds of a feather" and that the two of you were tag teaming me, both statements were meant to be humorous, and that was after [U]you[/U] suggested I was a liar. You see I debate and dispute post but I don't normally attack the person, [U]but I do however respond to personal attacks with counter attacks, and once you open that door all bets are off.[/U] There is a difference between personal attack and disputing or debating a post.

The three quotes that you quoted are from one post in which I was responding (counter attack) to a personal attack by badman. The dislike between badman and me goes back several years, long before you joined the forum. His most recent claim that I don't know him is wrong as usual, he has over 1500 post, we all know him very well, at least those of us that have been around awhile. Oh BTW I have met him in person as well, we were introduced in a restaurant in BA a few year ago by none other than Jackson himself. He may not have known I was Punter 127 because we were introduced by our real first names only, but considering the number of people who made a point afterwards of tell me he was badman, I suspect he was told who I was as well. Or perhaps there's a medical reason he doesn't remember, it happens.

So unless you can show where I attacked you in the past I suggest we get back to talking about politics.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BadMan;443476] And look back at the thread before telling bold faced lies. I never once quoted or insulted you. You quoted me and implied " jackassery " whatever that term means. .[/QUOTE]Bullshit!

You started by post this right behind one of my post.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443420]LOL. Sometimes it's better to let people be blissfully ignorant.[/QUOTE]I jokingly followed with this. (Notice it started with "LOL" just as you did.).

[QUOTE=Punter127;443425]LOL, probably best to just ignore jackassery as well.

Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]If you don't know the meaning of jackassery how could you be insulted by it? You then attacked with this.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443426]Don't worry most intelligent people have been ignoring your MSM jackassery for years. Hegelian dialectic trolls. How 1999.

And dont worry anyone who wasnt shorting the CHF had a great day.[/QUOTE]I don't see where I "implied jackassery" anymore then you implied " blissfully ignorant". We've seen your games before, nothing new here.


Btw I'm finished arguing with you, you can have the last insult.

I await the arrival of Dickhead, Moore and hunt99. Exon123 as d'artagnan.

[QUOTE=Doggboy;443479]I await the arrival of Dickhead, Moore and hunt99. Exon123 as d'artagnan.[/QUOTE]The good old days.

Why don't you two give the mudslinging and mutual accusations a well deserved rest?

Tres3.

So back to fracking and the pipeline. Can anybody give some real figures as far as profits in the industry versus debt? Also what is the environmental impact of fracking? And since when did taking the environment into account, when you exploit it, become only the realm of environmentalists?

There is alot of " windbaggery " going on in this thread and posting links to other peoples opinions but very little hard facts being posted or even debated. Hopefully we can get some clarification from the proponents and opponents. It would make it a much more worthwhile discussion. It would make it a real discussion actually.

Here is a simple point I would like someone who knows what they are talking about to refute intelligently, for the year end reports for March 31,2014 for 127 oil companies, cash input for the fracking division was 677 Billion USD while revenue from operations only totalled 568 billion USD. Please explain how this means profitable?

These are solid figures. The only way these companies are able to stay in business is more zero interest loans, paid for by the taxpayers since all printed money gets put on our tab, ie federal income tax. That and junk bonds that only lead to more derivatives. And while everybody was busy demonizing Russia over the Ukraine and we passed the Freedom for Ukraine act. At the same time the government passed the December 14th budget that had a provision that repealed the Lincoln Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, which protected depositor funds by requiring the largest banks to push out a portion of their derivatives business into non-FDIC-insured subsidiaries.

Thanks to JP Morgan and Co and their paid and bought politicians, the US taxpayers could be on the hook for these oil derivatives when the fracking bubble bursts. And it will burst. That means bank bail ins for the rest of us.

Sleight of hand and misdirection for the masses. And here we are debating a pipeline in a pre planned hegelian dialectic that will lead nowhere except to where those behind the smoke and mirrors want it to.

Good luck drinking the kool aide fellas. Those in the know, know. Those who don't. Well it will be muppet slaughtering time.

[URL]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tres3;443481]Why don't you two give the mudslinging and mutual accusations a well deserved rest?

Tres3.[/QUOTE]I'm not slinging mudd. Someone has a problem controlling their outbursts on the forum. For whatever reason that may be. Its not my problem. The dude wants to spit bile. Let him. The breakdowns are quite entertaining to say the least.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443483]
Here is a simple point I would like someone who knows what they are talking about to refute intelligently, for the year end reports for March 31,2014 for 127 oil companies, cash input for the fracking division was 677 Billion USD while revenue from operations only totalled 568 billion USD. Please explain how this means profitable?[/QUOTE]A lot of the cash spent is for "capital" expenditures so it flows directly to the balance sheet, and does not flow to the income statement. Presumably, the companies are buying some type of asset that has value with that cash and therefore provides some form of collateral for the borrowed cash. It is somewhat akin to you borrowing more than you make to buy a house. Of course that is an oversimplification of a complex issue.

Tres3.

Investing in capex? That is your reasoning why fracking isn't profitable? I haven't seen those figures, have you? Do you know what portion is capex and what portion is opex? And how much just goes to servicing bad debts in order to keep refinancing said bad debts?

Now can your assumtion be verified? And even if it can be, how can a company continue to stay afloat if every year they spend more than they make. 100+ billion more? And im not talking net profit. Im just saying that 100+ billion more goes out than comes in every year.

From what I know of the fracking industry is that most of their money goes into opex. Its extremely expensive to keep drilling hundreds of wells and disposing of all the toxic waste associated with drilling. And every year these wells become less profitable so they have to keep drilling an ever increasing amount of wells. With QE and 100 bucks a barrel they could keep this ponzi scheme going. At 46 a barrel and no QE, I don't see this as a reality.

Can you show a break down of these figures capex opex etc so as to verify the merit of your argument?

[QUOTE=Tres3;443485]A lot of the cash spent is for "capital" expenditures so it flows directly to the balance sheet, and does not flow to the income statement. Presumably, the companies are buying some type of asset that has value with that cash and therefore provides some form of collateral for the borrowed cash. It is somewhat akin to you borrowing more than you make to buy a house. Of course that is an oversimplification of a complex issue.

Tres3.[/QUOTE]

Nothing that happened in 2008 has been fixed. The only difference is, this time it won't be only the housing bubble that bursts but the derivatives in the commodities markets, ie the fracking ponzi scheme and their junk bonds, as well as others. And the tax payers will still have to bail them out. Only now the banks can take the bail out directly from deposits, ie bail ins, FDIC insured my ass.

[URL]http://time.com/3631398/bank-derivatives-swap-congress/[/URL]

Fracking has nothing to do with some stupid pipeline to nowhere. The devil is in the details.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473][B]I was not nor am I angry. [/B].[/QUOTE]You sure sound angry to me and to others below. Most people who resort to profanity and insults do so when they are angry as in your post. If we were having a face to face discussion and you responded in person the way you do here, my take away would be that you're angry.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473]

I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. I am still allowed to have an opinion aren't I?].[/QUOTE]The attacks occur on all sides, that you see more from the side you're opposed to has more to do with ideology and that perhaps you see what you want to see.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473]
It's true I have disputed your post in the past but please show where I attacked you personally. The worst thing I can find that I ever said about you was that you and another member were "birds of a feather" and that the two of you were tag teaming me, both statements were meant to be humorous, and that was after [U]you[/U] suggested I was a liar. You see I debate and dispute post but I don't normally attack the person, [U]but I do however respond to personal attacks with counter attacks, and once you open that door all bets are off.[/U] There is a difference between personal attack and disputing or debating a post.
[/QUOTE]We were having a discussion about your political affiliation. I did not suggest you (personally) were a liar, I said you could not be classified as an independent voter (despite your claim of being registered that way) because you would never vote for a democrat, (a point that you conceded) and offered some facts and a well accepted logical theory which you summarily dismissed as bullshit and elevated the tone of your post with profanity and callous dismissiveness without any insults from me.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443473]
So unless you can show where I attacked you in the past I suggest we get back to talking about politics.[/QUOTE]The post is there for you to see, I won't quote it anymore. You do have this gift of sounding angry when you say you're not and being hypocritical as I pointed out then and in that last post, its similar to what we see in American Politics today.

You guys need to get Laid.

Me Too.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443492]You guys need to get Laid.

Me Too.[/QUOTE]I propose a BDSM session as therapy. And a surrogate for Inadequacy.

BadMan, Tres' explanation is good, although, as he says, simplified. There are kernels of truth in what you say, combined with a lot of confusion. Yes, capex is higher than operating cash flow for oil and gas companies that predominately exploit shale, using hydraulic fracturing. No, this is not abnormal for any company in any industry that's growing rapidly. The reason, increases in working capital required to grow the business, like increased inventories and accounts receivable, reduce operating cash flow. Most companies that grow reasonably fast will either have to take on more debt or sell equity to do that. That said, yes, many of these oil and gas companies did borrow more than they should, and did drill in places that don't make sense if the price of oil is $45 per barrel. The less profitable companies are like rats on a treadmill, having to continually drill more wells to just replace production, and, prior to the drop in prices, having to go deeper into debt to satisfy Wall Street's obsession with reserve and production growth. While you are correct that operating expenses are higher than capital costs, the ratio of capex to opex is higher for oil and gas than for the majority of industries. Oil and gas is very capital intensive.

I strongly disagree with you on a couple of points. With respect to the environment, there's been a lot of scaremongering. It's not as bad as you think. The "toxic waste" generated is insignificant. Hydraulic fracturing has been a plus for the environment, if you believe global warming is real. The reason, natural gas has replaced a lot of coal as a result of frac'ing, and that has reduced emissions of CO2 in the USA much more than renewables have. Also, it's easy for you to say this was a big boondoggle for some companies, which indeed may go bankrupt, given that you know the price of oil is now $45/ barrel. That's the nature of companies that produce commodities. They're subject to booms and busts. The overall effect of exploitation of shales, along with things like the Keystone pipeline, would be to make North America self sufficient in energy, if the politicians allow it to happen. That would reduce our trade deficit. We wouldn't be mortgaging America to the Chinese, the Saudis and other big exporters to the extent we are now. And the politicians wouldn't feel as compelled to become involved in wars in places like the Middle East to protect the supply of oil.

I tend to agree with you about the "0" interest rates, although I'm not as knowledgeable about that as others here.

First lets tackle the environmental issue since you seem to have glossed over it by saying it's insignificant. Let me ask you. How much fresh water is used in hydraulic fracturing? 150,000 gallons a day per job sound about right? Of course insignificant. And what happens to that water after the process is completed? And once that water becomes toxic waste, where does all that toxic water go?

I'm from California. I'll tell you where alot of this " insignificant " toxic waste goes.

" California Halts Injection of Fracking Waste, Warning it May Be Contaminating Aquifers ".

[URL]http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2014/fracking-10-06-2014.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.propublica.org/article/ca-halts-injection-fracking-waste-warning-may-be-contaminating-aquifers[/URL]

[URL]http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/kern-gusher/x634489929/State-poised-to-shut-down-11-local-oil-injection-wells[/URL]

Also please tell me about the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that made the shale boom possible by exempting the new horizontal drilling technology from the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act? I mean this isn't " scare mongering " (a quite odious and anti intellectual term if I ever heard one). These are facts and repeating facts to the public when their health and safety is at risk isn't scaremongering. It's one of the reasons we pay taxes (not to fund the shale oil boom). So that we are told when our fresh drinking water is being poisoned by industrial waste.

Now after these companies are done horizontally fracking the hell out of these sites what happens to the land? Is it stable to use for other purposes? Are giant sink holes a side effect of fracking? Higher instances of earthquakes maybe?

I could go on but by the general tone of your post I can see you don't really know much about the science behind all this " scaremongering " as you call it. So I'll leave this aside for now. Though I would really like to debate these points with knowledgeable individuals that have actually read the studies and don't have blinders on. Not saying you do but the insignificant and scaremongering comments lends to that perception.

We can go back to the overal economics of fracking. Although I will admit I'm not an expert on the oil industry. I'll defer to T Boone Pickens on that one. I do understand how it works. My question was mainly rhetorical. And I guess your answer is they can show huge deficits on the books for various reasons and still be able to make a profit in real terms. I can understand that. But I also know that these fracking companies, all of them, were barely breaking even. I mean how profitable can you be if you're sinking in debt. Or is that the new normal? And that was with QE3 just giving away money to investors at zero interest rates, these companies selling 600 billion in junk rated bonds and 100 bucks a barrel oil. All these factors and these companies could barely break even on the books. Now tell me how are they going to do that now? How can these companies keep operating without FREE money? Keep giving any industry free money and they can keep operating and paying off the interest on its debts. Let them sell their extracted product at inflated prices and I'm sure the books won't look so bad. Allow them to keep refinancing those debts and let them sell junk bonds in the billions and sure, they will stay afloat. But that doesn't make them profitable and more importantly, what happens when you take those things away? I would like an honest answer.

Now lets be honest. At 45 dollars a barrel, the fracking industry isn't profitable. It simply isn't. Yes I know some wells have lower extraction costs but the reality is those wells are drying up. The cheapest oil is usually the first to be extracted. After that you are looking at anywhere between 70-120 USD in order to be " profitable " with an average of 85 a barrel.

Last question. Do you as an investor believe that oil prices will recover to that level in the next 12-18 months? Do you understand all the economic and geopolitical factors involved in order for that to become a reality? I'm just asking because I sure don't.

Bottom line. At 100 bucks a barrel you could make an argument for the fracking industry (obviously omitting the junk bonds and free QE money in your analysis). But at current prices, it just doesn't make any sense. It cheaper to buy the oil from our " buddies " in the GCC. What good is energy independence if it bankrupts our economy? Or creates a bubble so big that when it bursts it could bring down our entire economy with it? Wasn't 2008 a lesson for anyone?

I think the only hope these industries have left right now is QE4. And we all know who ends up footing the bill for that. But then again what's another 3 trillion among friends.

I guess it's true what someone told me the other day, the market doesn't really care about fundamentals anymore (or technicals or sentiment for that matter). The market only cares about what the FED will do next.

You can't have true capitalism with the Federal Reserve and you can't have a true free market with Quantitative easing. They distort and manipulate everything for the financial benefit of the few. To the detriment of the rest.

End rant.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;443495]BadMan, Tres' explanation is good, although, as he says, simplified. There are kernels of truth in what you say, combined with a lot of confusion. Yes, capex is higher than operating cash flow for oil and gas companies that predominately exploit shale, using hydraulic fracturing. No, this is not abnormal for any company in any industry that's growing rapidly. The reason, changes in working capital, like increased inventories and accounts receivable, reduce operating cash flow. Most companies that grow reasonably fast will either have to take on more debt or sell equity to do that. That said, yes, many of these oil and gas companies did borrow more than they should, and did drill in places that don't make sense if the price of oil is $45 per barrel. The less profitable companies are like rats on a treadmill, having to continually drill more wells to just replace production, and, prior to the drop in prices, having to go deeper into debt to satisfy Wall Street's obsession with reserve and production growth. While you are correct that operating expenses are higher than capital costs, the ratio of capex to opex is higher for oil and gas than for most other industries.

I strongly disagree with you on a couple of points. With respect to the environment, there's been a lot of scaremongering. It's not as bad as you think. The "toxic waste" generated is insignificant. Hydraulic fracturing has been a strong plus for the environment in the USA, if you believe global warming is real. The reason, natural gas has replaced a lot of coal as a result of frac'ing, and that has reduced emissions of CO2 much more than renewables have. Also, it's easy for you to say this was a big boondoggle for some companies, which indeed may go bankrupt, given that you know the price of oil is now $45/ barrel. That's the nature of companies that produce commodities. They're subject to booms and busts. The overall effect of exploitation of shales, along with things like the Keystone pipeline, would be to make North America self sufficient in energy, if the politicians allow it to happen. That would reduce our trade deficit. We wouldn't be mortgaging America to the Chinese, the Saudis and other big exporters to the extent we are now. And the politicians wouldn't feel as compelled to become involved in wars in places like the Middle East to protect the supply of oil.

I tend to agree with you about the "0" interest rates, although I'm not as knowledgeable about that as others here.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BadMan;443497]
I could go on but by the general tone of your post I can see you don't really know much about the science behind all this " scaremongering " as you call it. So I'll leave this aside for now. Though I would really like to debate these points with knowledgeable individuals that have actually read the studies and don't have blinders on. Not saying you do but the insignificant and scaremongering comments lends to that perception.
[/QUOTE]I probably know the science and engineering better than anyone who will read your post. I share your desire not to debate the issue with individuals who aren't knowledgeable.

There are costs and risks associated with all energy sources. The risks associated with natural gas are less than with the only current, realistic alternative, coal. And there's currently no alternative to oil for transportation fuels that's not outrageously expensive. Do you believe people are willing to pay $1000 a month for their monthly electric bills and to forego travel on airplanes? Because that's what it's going to take to create the world you want. Maybe there are a lot of people in California and Germany willing to make the sacrifice. Most of the rest of the world is not.

I'm assuming here that you're not a hypocrite, who believes it's great if Texans have gas wells in their backyards to produce the natural gas you consume. But you shouldn't have the view outside your kitchen window obscured by a windmill. If that's what you believe, then this isn't going to make much sense to you.

Probably huh? Too bad you can't seem to answer any of the questions I posed other than to say " I know it all " and " there is risk involved with all energy sources ". How utterly disappointing. But I guess it's better than to have to hear you try and wing it.

[QUOTE=BadMan;443499]Probably huh? Too bad you can't seem to answer any of the questions I posed other than to say " I know it all " and " there is risk involved with all energy sources ". How utterly disappointing. But I guess it's better than to have to hear you try and wing it.[/QUOTE]OK, you got it.

1. If a disposal well operator knowingly injected oilfield waste into an aquifer used for drinking water, he should be put in jail. And the regulators in charge should be fired. That said, I don't believe this is common. As to your articles, two of your sources are about as unbiased as ExxonMobil and I can't read the piece from the Bakersfield newspaper.

2. The environmental considerations for horizontal drilling are no different than considerations for vertical wells. Period. If state regulators are incompetent, as would appear to be the case in California if your sources are correct, then maybe the EPA should be involved. In states with lots of oil and gas history (actually including California) the state regulators usually know what they're doing better than the EPA. You belief in the infallibility of the federal government and that Washington should call the shots in, say, Oklahoma, is misguided.

3. The land does not become unstable after frac'ing. You don't create sinkholes -- that's laughable. Frac'ing doesn't cause earthquakes, unless you define minor tremors as earthquakes. Salt water injection wells have caused some earthquakes, mostly low magnitude. Again, this gets down to relative risks. The risk and damage caused by saltwater injection (contamination to drinking water, earthquakes, etc.) is miniscule compared to the harm to people and the environment caused by coal.

As to the economics, you're rambling and I don't know what you're getting at. Low priced natural gas and oil are going to bring down the economy because of some sort of conspiracy that the Fed's involved with? The federal government's going to bail out the oil companies? (Yeah right, fat chance.) Since part of the acreage that's been exploited using hydraulic fracturing won't be economic, frac'ing should be outlawed? There are areas where the Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Wolfcamp will make money with $50 oil. There are companies that will make money. The inefficient and overleveraged operators will go bankrupt. That's capitalism. This is not going to be like the mortgage crisis. Low oil and gas prices are going to be good for the economy -- they will cause about a 0. 4% boost in GDP in 2015 according to the economists.

Your reply is what you call scientific and informed? Really? No links. No stats. No referenced studies. Nothing. Sounds like a standard reply to me. Nothing in depth. I was expecting more. As far as what's happened in California, what do you mean my sources? I picked the first links that came up on google. This news was all over the tv and internet a couple months ago. I guess that means you're not as informed as you think.

And to think this is an isolated event is naive at best. The environmental considerations aren't the same. Too much water and energy being used. Too much land being ruined. Too much polluted water to dispose of. Companies just inject it back in to the ground half the time because its cheaper than disposing of it properly. They got caught in California in the middle of a draught. Other than that I'm sure it would have gone unnoticed.

I notices you glossed over the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and what this deregulation has meant for fracking and the environment. I'm guessing you've never read it.

Fracking does cause sink holes. It's not laughable at all. Unless you can disprove it by scientific method. It's funny you seem to use the appeal to authority method in all your arguments yet you post nothing that can back up your premise. Literally nothing. You've appointed your self some sort of authority on the matter. LOL.

[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/20/are-humans-causing-more-sinkholes[/URL]

[URL]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2399929/Incredible-moment-Louisiana-sinkhole-swallows-40ft-high-trees-swamp.html[/URL]

And as far as earthquakes and tremors. Now were parsing and debating semantics. Yes it causes them. Large or small and the frequency is increasing.

As to the economics. You clearly didn't understand anything I posted so you called it ramblings. What conspiracy did I write about? Do tell. That when massive speculative bubbles burst, that will bring down our economy? LOL. That's exactly what happened in 2008. And if oil prices don't start climbing asap that's what's going to happen again. No conspiracy.

[URL]http://internationalbanker.com/comment/fracking-bubble-waiting-burst/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11259411/US-shale-boom-is-same-as-dotcom-bubble-says-Russian-oil-executive.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article48786.html[/URL]

Those darn conspiracy theorists. And just to clarify, these aren't my sources, just the first links that came up in a search. I wouldn't post my sources that would apparently be biased.

Im sure there is alot that you know but I'll stop now because it's clear you know and understand much less than you think you do. And simple science and theory becomes " laughable " and environmental hazards are " miniscule ". Let me guess, you must own stock?

Fsio.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;443500]OK, you got it.

1. If a disposal well operator knowingly injected oilfield waste into an aquifer used for drinking water, he should be put in jail. And the regulators in charge should be fired. That said, I don't believe this is common. As to your articles, two of your sources are about as unbiased as ExxonMobil and I can't read the piece from the Bakersfield newspaper.

2. The environmental considerations for horizontal drilling are no different than considerations for vertical wells. Period. If state regulators are incompetent, as would appear to be the case in California if your sources are correct, then maybe the EPA should be involved. In states with lots of oil and gas history (actually including California) the state regulators usually know what they're doing better than the EPA. You belief in the infallibility of the federal government and that Washington should call the shots in, say, Oklahoma, is misguided.

3. The land does not become unstable after frac'ing. You don't create sinkholes -- that's laughable. Frac'ing doesn't cause earthquakes, unless you define minor tremors as earthquakes. Salt water injection wells have caused some earthquakes, mostly low magnitude. Again, this gets down to relative risks. The risk and damage caused by saltwater injection (contamination to drinking water, earthquakes, etc.) is miniscule compared to the harm to people and the environment caused by coal.

As to the economics, you're rambling and I don't know what you're getting at. Low priced natural gas and oil are going to bring down the economy because of some sort of conspiracy that the Fed's involved with? The federal government's going to bail out the oil companies? (Yeah right, fat chance.) Since part of the acreage that's been exploited using hydraulic fracturing won't be economic, frac'ing should be outlawed? There are areas where the Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Wolfcamp will make money with $50 oil. There are companies that will make money. The inefficient and overleveraged operators will go bankrupt. That's capitalism. This is not going to be like the mortgage crisis. Low oil and gas prices are going to be good for the economy -- they will cause about a 0. 4% boost in GDP in 2015 according to the economists.[/QUOTE]

Badman, about your California links, if some factories illegally dump waste into rivers, you don't close all the factories in the USA and move the jobs and production to China. This is not a hydraulic fracturing problem by the way. It's an oilfield waste problem that, in California, has very little to do with frac'ing. While hydraulic fracturing has been around for 60 years, it never took off in California like it has in some places in recent years.

The idea that hydraulic fracturing would cause sinkholes is hilarious. Sorry about the authority thing, but unless you want me to start posting links to textbooks and unless you're going to read them, I don't know exactly how to convince you. Basically sinkholes occur where you have karst. You don't frac karst, you don't need to -- flow rates from karsted reservoirs are among the highest in the world. You frac intervals that have very low permeability. The fracture doesn't result in a giant gaping hole. It results in a small parting of the earth, which is propped open by sand grains included in the frac fluid. And oftentimes the fractures close despite the sand grains. The width of a hydraulic fracture is a fraction of an inch.

Your main complaints aren't against hydraulic fracturing, they're against water injection, which is associated with all oilfield operations, regardless of whether the wells have been frac'ed. You appear to want a world with "0" risk, where no tremor is going to knock a glass off your table or no crooked or incompetent operator will inject oilfield waste into an aquifer. But you're probably not willing to live with the results, by giving up your car powered by gasoline, or air travel. And you'd probably be very unhappy with your electric bills if it were all generated by solar, wind and hydro. The renewables suffer from some of the same shortcomings that you attribute to oil and gas by the way, for example, the footprint on the land. There's no free lunch, and you're not willing to pay the price for what you want.

[QUOTE=Jackson;443389]More propaganda from the King of Propaganda.

First, as we've all discussed in the past, the official unemployment rate is an inaccurate count of the number of people who claim to be looking for work. In other words, if everybody without a job just stopped looking for a job tomorrow, we'd have an unemployment rate of ZERO. The only number that counts is the percentage of citizens who are working, and that number is at 62.7% for Dec 2014, down slightly from 62.8% in Dec 2013.[/QUOTE]I understand the jobs and GDP numbers hurt, Jackson, because they provide irrefutable proof that what Fox News and Republicans told Americans about the ACA was a Big Lie. But calling the numbers propaganda isn't going to help your cause. These numbers are established metrics that have been calculated essentially the same way for decades across both Republican and Democratic presidents. They are widely followed in business and financial circles as measures of economic performance. If you said that other metrics like the LFPR are also important then that would be reasonable. But to say the numbers I mentioned don't count is a clearly farcical attempt at deflection. Man, you are going to have a tough time dealing with all the "propaganda" because it isn't just coming from the BLS but from numerous other sources like Gallup.

Mentions of Jobs as Top USA Problem at Six-Year Low
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/181136/mentions-jobs-top-problem-six-year-low.aspx[/URL]

In his further attempt at deflection, Jackson says we should be talking about Obama not attending the march in Paris. The most shallow and superficial story we've seen in years, peddled by serial Obama denigrators, and a handful of entertainers and media desperately competing for ratings. Apparently, the strong economic numbers don't count, but Obama missing a photo-op does. Folks, this is simply laughable. And if Obama had attended, we all know their story would then be that Obama wasted taxpayer money flying overseas for a symbolic photo-op.

With the unemployment rate now down to 5.6%, and 2014 the strongest year of job creation since 1999, it is clear that Americans were lied to by Fox News and Republicans about the ACA impact on jobs.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;443491]We were having a discussion about your political affiliation. I did not suggest you (personally) were a liar, I said you could not be classified as an independent voter (despite your claim of being registered that way) because you would never vote for a democrat, (a point that you conceded) and offered some facts and a well accepted logical theory which you summarily dismissed as bullshit and elevated the tone of your post with profanity and callous dismissiveness without any insults from me.[/QUOTE]I wouldn't really call it a discussion, I would describe it as you trying to make me look like a liar and browbeat me in to accepting your definition of an Independent voter, at least that's the way it came across to me. I made a statement and you insisted that what I had said was wrong because it didn't meet some criteria that you apparently dreamed up, you claim it's "accepted logical theory", accepted by who, you? Of course the key word is "theory" and you offered nothing to support your "theory" other than your own thoughts. I offered facts and I eventually even presented Wikipedia's definition of an Independent voter as support. But I guess we were supposed to blindly take your word over theirs.

My being registered as an Independent is not a claim it's a fact and I have a voters registration card to prove it. Sorry I can't show it to you here for obvious reasons.

I don't believe I ever said I would "never" vote for a Democrat or conceded such a point, I believe that's just simply untrue. If you can find where I ever made that statement please quote it so we can all see it, otherwise please acknowledge that you misspoke.

Here's what a review of our post reveals.

The question was;.

[QUOTE=RcCollins;441558]
What are the chances you will vote for a democrat in the [highlight]next election given that their policies will always be liberal[/highlight] and appear to be in direct contrast to your postings?[/QUOTE]The answer:

[QUOTE=Punter127;441596]

The chances of me voting for a Democrat are slim to none, but I do not accept that their policies are and always will be "liberal". In fact I don't think todays Democrat party is "liberal" at all, it's progressive totalitarian (aka: nannyism) and that's a far cry from being "liberal". [highlight]Show me a Democrat that meets the following definitions of "liberal" and I'll consider voting for them.[/highlight]

1. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.

2. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

3. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.

4. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:

Individual freedom or rights, get it?[/QUOTE]The question was limited to the next election and the answer was a far cry from " never vote for a democrat. " As a matter of fact I even gave you a list of what it would take for me to consider voting for a liberal (Democrat). Those five definitions of a true liberal came from a dictionary, no "theories" just facts. Being an independent simply means you have no party affiliation nothing more nothing less. There have been many Independents in the history of our country as far back as George Washington (I). Today U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats, what do you think the chances are that he will vote for a Republican? Did you tell Senator Sanders that by "accepted logical theory" he's not really an Independent? The truth is, if I was going to align myself with any party it wouldn't be the one you tried to put me in, it would be the Libertarian party, but I prefer to remain Independent.

I truly hope your memory is just foggy, and that you didn't intentionally mis-state my words. I'll let the readers decide that for themselves. However, I do find your refusal to quote the post... Well lets just say it's interesting.

It's unfortunate that you don't like the way I write or the language I use, I don't much like the way you write either. However I can deal with it and apparently you can't. May I suggest you put me on your ignore list, then you will never see what I write. Just a suggestion.

[QUOTE=Punter127;443523]I wouldn't really call it a discussion, I would describe it as you trying to make me look like a liar and browbeat me in to accepting your definition of an Independent voter, at least that's the way it came across to me. I made a statement and you insisted that what I had said was wrong because it didn't meet some criteria that you apparently dreamed up, you claim it's "accepted logical theory", accepted by who, you? Of course the key word is "theory" and you offered nothing to support your "theory" other than your own thoughts. I offered facts and I eventually even presented Wikipedia's definition of an Independent voter as support. But I guess we were supposed to blindly take your word over theirs.

My being registered as an Independent is not a claim it's a fact and I have a voters registration card to prove it. Sorry I can't show it to you here for obvious reasons.

I don't believe I ever said I would "never" vote for a Democrat or conceded such a point, I believe that's just simply untrue. If you can find where I ever made that statement please quote it so we can all see it, otherwise please acknowledge that you misspoke.

Here's what a review of our post reveals.

The question was;.

The answer:

The question was limited to the next election and the answer was a far cry from " never vote for a democrat. " As a matter of fact I even gave you a list of what it would take for me to consider voting for a liberal (Democrat). Those five definitions of a true liberal came from a dictionary, no "theories" just facts. Being an independent simply means you have no party affiliation nothing more nothing less. There have been many Independents in the history of our country as far back as George Washington (I). Today U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is officially an Independent, but caucuses with the Democrats, what do you think the chances are that he will vote for a Republican? Did you tell Senator Sanders that by "accepted logical theory" he's not really an Independent? The truth is, if I was going to align myself with any party it wouldn't be the one you tried to put me in, it would be the Libertarian party, but I prefer to remain Independent.

I truly hope your memory is just foggy, and that you didn't intentionally mis-state my words. I'll let the readers decide that for themselves. However, I do find your refusal to quote the post... Well lets just say it's interesting.

It's unfortunate that you don't like the way I write or the language I use, I don't much like the way you write either. However I can deal with it and apparently you can't. May I suggest you put me on your ignore list, then you will never see what I write. Just a suggestion.[/QUOTE]The answer is right here for you and my memory is fine. I will not be bothered to go search for a post that is readily available for you and all to see. Slim to none is as close to never as one will get but you are free to camouflage this issue as you like and the only mis-stating here is you but since you have shown that you will readily say one thing but do another as you did on two separate occasions that I pointed out to you, your mis-stating is hardly surprising. The language issue is about courteous posting, why do you have to spit fire and launch attacks when you disagree, that's my point but spin that however you like.

Wiki is the last source you should use to support any claim, no peer reviewed there, but its about your mind set not the legal definition. Bill O'Reilly also claims to be an independent but at every turn he attacks Democrats and look the other way at Republican's failures. No Democrat will try to convince him to vote for them as he is locked in for the right despite his claim, he also is not an undecided voter. Good to see you CAN respond without elevating the temperature of your post, even if it had to be pointed out to you, although you introduced points not in evidence. However, I will offer you your own suggestion of the ignore list as it may do well for your anger issues as you have issues with other posters here as well (beyond the policy disagreements) but I guess they're all wrong too. I take none of this seriously or personally so I have no need to put you or anyone else on any list. Nothing being said here will affect my life to the point where I need to elevate my blood pressure or attack anyone.

[QUOTE=BayBoy;443402]President Obama needs to have a pen with a lot of ink in it because he will be vetoeing a lot of bills from the GOP led House and Senate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter 127;443405]
Yes and that way he can build a legacy of being the President of no, now even the low information voters will be able to see who's really the do nothing obstructionist in Washington.[/QUOTE]

Of course an Independent who ignored his GOP years of being the party of no and obstructionists would now preemptively call out the other side for doing the same his party did for years. Yes, that too is hypocritical.