Seeking Alpha

Obama takes aim at oil industry in targeting methane emissions

Comments (54)
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (2571) | Send Message
     
    He should take aim at the cows
    28 Mar, 10:56 PM Reply Like
  • ksteiner
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    I'm assuming he's not vegeterian otherwise why would he.
    29 Mar, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (2571) | Send Message
     
    because cows emit methane. better to control the cows than risk losing pac money by controlling people.
    29 Mar, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    How do you propose we control methane emissions from cows??

     

    It's much more practical and less expensive to control emissions from oil production.
    29 Mar, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • PalmDesertRat
    , contributor
    Comments (2571) | Send Message
     
    you can't recognize sarcasm when you see it
    29 Mar, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Raising the minimum wage has a negative effect.

     

    Dollar menu item reductions, has already replaced the double cheeseburger, with the single cheeseburger in many areas.

     

    Less cows eaten = more methane emissions.
    30 Mar, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • miriam ledwith
    , contributor
    Comments (147) | Send Message
     
    He sullies everything he touches. That being said, reducing flaring needs to happen. Maybe the drillers should all just stop and let ng go to 6 or 7 bucks. Would that make everyone happy?
    29 Mar, 07:28 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8135) | Send Message
     
    Change You Can Believe In!™
    29 Mar, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    Bush did sully everything he touched... 6 Years of Obama and we are almost back at full employment.
    29 Mar, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • Energysystems
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    Unless of course you're aware of LFPR...which you obviously aren't.
    29 Mar, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    So how is Obama to blame for younger people staying in school longer and boomers retiring? Did you know that accounts for 99% of the LFPR decrease? Of course not.
    29 Mar, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Energysystems
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    Actually, the boomer anti-retirement spits reality on your whitewashing. Fwiw, the LFPR is lower for every age pertinent group. 16-24, 25-34, 35-44, and 45-54 are all down...the outliers is 55-64, and 65+. So how about you attempt to spin it now? Any mention of the increase on Americans on entitlements? Of course not, the reality of the situation shows how much of a failure Obama is.
    29 Mar, 05:13 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Reduced flaring? What is the point of that? If you send that gas to market it still gets burned.....
    29 Mar, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (9797) | Send Message
     
    Actually used as a feedstock, the pollution is much, much less.
    29 Mar, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    That makes no sense, if the problem is incomplete combustion then just mandate better flarestacks.

     

    Oh, just noticed it says on public lands. Shouldn't really matter much in that case.
    29 Mar, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3496) | Send Message
     
    Well, looking at it from an environmental angle, you would burn the same gas, but it'd replace other gas (ie. you'd burn half the gas thus get half the pollution). The problem is that the "other gas" is cheaper than the price you'd have to charge for the gas that's currently flared.

     

    Still, it looks very wasteful to me not to use that gas for something productive.
    30 Mar, 01:21 AM Reply Like
  • 596
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    30 % of nat gaz is flared that is why we had all that snow .
    Nat gaz is 80 % metane that metane will remain and block the sun my take get ready for a summer as hot as this winter was cold.
    you got what you wanted coal is not perfect but nat is gaz is not better.
    30 Mar, 05:30 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Over longer time periods consumption tends to increase when more gas is put on the market, so the replacement theory is a little off in my opinion.
    30 Mar, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    I still agree that it would be better to extract some useful work from the resource, but as always economic factors have to be weighed.
    30 Mar, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3496) | Send Message
     
    You make very interesting points. Thank you.
    30 Mar, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • Energysystems
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    Nearly 1/3rd of the Nat Gas produced in North Dakota is flared off. That's roughly $1M in Nat Gas per day. Rockefeller should be rolling over in his grave.
    29 Mar, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Why is that such a surprise? Those wells produce 90% oil, if the economics supported construction of gas pipelines then producers (or midstream guys maybe) would be building them. They are in some cases.
    29 Mar, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • Energysystems
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    It's not a surprise. It's all about economics, that's what it boils down to. But the idea of burning off over $350M in Nat Gas per year, in a single state, just blows my mind.

     

    That being said, the infrastructure up there is laughable, that's why they go so far as to ship product via tractor trailer. I don't know the nuts and bolts as to the longevity of these wells, but that probably has a lot to do with it.
    29 Mar, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Yeah it is kind of sad to think about. When I used to drive around up there on a cloudy night the whole sky was lit up orange from all the flares. Hopefully nat gas usage will increase and prices will then support more infrastructure growth.
    29 Mar, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • 596
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    good to see not everyone is fooled..
    30 Mar, 05:30 AM Reply Like
  • maybenot
    , contributor
    Comments (3347) | Send Message
     
    About time.
    29 Mar, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (1567) | Send Message
     
    I think we should have a flatulence standard that applies to the White House and Executive Branch agencies. Those are real sources of methane.
    29 Mar, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (995) | Send Message
     
    Russia and China welcome Obama's endless policies and regs that cripple the US economy and thus make the US a weaker global power.
    29 Mar, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • Mattster
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Ok all of you move your families next to a flare and let them breathe it in all their lives. Oh you wont? Then shut up, hypocrite.
    29 Mar, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    Hell, I wish I could get one in my back yard, along with a producing well.
    29 Mar, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • 11146471
    , contributor
    Comments (454) | Send Message
     
    This looks like a good move protecting the environment! All you guys living in America should be happy about this.

     

    After all with proper technology gas producers may turn this to an extra profit, all they need is some extra capex.
    29 Mar, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    Turning this into an extra profit does not happen by magic. It takes the deployment of capital and that usually means increased costs and therefore increased prices to all the "poor" people that consume the product. And just think of the children that will have to go without food because their single mother has to pay the heating bill.
    29 Mar, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    Maybe Americans need a wake-up call to realize the true costs of using dirty energy resources. Over 7 million people die every year from air pollution. Those externalities should be priced in instead of just socializing the losses.
    29 Mar, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    7 million people who would have never been born without the food, heat, shelter, medicine, infrastructure, etc. made possible by exploitation of fossil fuels.
    29 Mar, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (1567) | Send Message
     
    Jake you obviously read the DailyKos on Wednesday but you got your facts incorrect. The WHO estimates 7 million excess deaths worldwide resulting from indoor and outdoor particulates. Of those the majority are from SE Asia where dung, wood and coal are still burned indoors for cooking fuels. MIT estimated 200,000 premature deaths in the US resulting from particulates (about a quarter of those from transportation emissions). Since this is my field and I have done it for more than 40 years (yes you will find my name all over decades of environmental decisions and regulations) I have some knowledge whereof I speak. Air quality in the US has improved dramatically since the Clean Air Act of 1970. If you want specifics please ask and I will post links to NAAQS monitoring data. Furthermore, even major statistical studies such as the Health Outcome Data Analysis required for large facility permitting in NY state don't show strong statistic links between hospital reported health outcomes and air pollution. I am not saying that air pollution is not a major factor, it certainly is. But other factors such as smoking, indoor air environments, occupations, diet, obesity etc are much more important than ambient air quality in most areas.
    29 Mar, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    Ohh wait you mean regulations like the clean air act and the ones Obama is proposing have dramatically improved air quality in the US? Thanks for proving my point.
    29 Mar, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    "7 million people who would have never been born without the food, heat, shelter, medicine, infrastructure, etc. made possible by exploitation of fossil fuels. "

     

    You need more than fossil fuels to make those things a reality. Why not credit the steel industry, or the chemical industry, or any other countless people's efforts that made those things a reality?
    29 Mar, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (1567) | Send Message
     
    Quite the contrary Jake. The regulations being proposed and pushed now often fail to meet even the most mundane requirements for science peer review and economic impact analysis that have underpinned the Clean Air Act from the beginning. The total lack of honesty and in fact the complete disregard for the federal/state process permeates EPA unlike any time I have ever seen. Just ask nearly any state agency environmental director and they will tell you that the law violator/disregarder is as often as not EPA. As one that believes that good progress was made over the years because of the ability of EPA and the States to focus on common approaches and separate responsibilities that has been shattered by an overreaching despotic EPA. I am now embarrassed to ever tell people that I was at EPA in the beginning. The scientific process no longer exists in the executive corridors at EPA, only the ideological processes. So anything you say about what is happening now just doesn't hold water when you talk to those actually in the know.
    29 Mar, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (1567) | Send Message
     
    This is one of the most idiotic things I have seen someone post on SA. Without fossil fuels we would have denuded the planet a century ago for firewood for heating and cooking. We would have no transportation systems. No international travel except by sailing ships. Most farming would still look like the 19th century with a mule or horse drawn plow and all the farms on the planet couldn't come close to providing the support for the world's current 7+billion population. So the only and I mean only alternative is for at least 6-7 billion people to die so that the remaining could be supported without fossil fuels. Guess what you couldn't even make solar panels without mining for the metals and minerals necessary for them and it wouldn't make any difference because you wouldn't have an electric system to use it anyway. So guess what in your world death is the most common word. Death by starvation; by freezing; by disease; by war but death nonetheless.
    29 Mar, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • Energysystems
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    What you've illustrated, is the reality of the ludicrous.
    29 Mar, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (1567) | Send Message
     
    EnergySystems a little clarification please.
    29 Mar, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • Energysystems
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    That ludicrous idea that "life without fossil fuels" would be anywhere near the life that we live with fossil fuels.
    29 Mar, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • saratogahawk
    , contributor
    Comments (1567) | Send Message
     
    So agree. Thanks for the addl comment.
    29 Mar, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • bigbenorr
    , contributor
    Comments (734) | Send Message
     
    "You need more than fossil fuels to make those things a reality. Why not credit the steel industry, or the chemical industry, or any other countless people's efforts that made those things a reality? "

     

    pop quiz: what are the two major components of steel.
    1. Iron
    2. Carbon
    Any guesses where the carbon comes from?
    Also chemical plants run mostly on hydrocarbons.
    I take nothing away from the hard work of the individuals in those industries but they cannot function without fuel and materials.
    29 Mar, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3496) | Send Message
     
    It's kind of an interesting psychological phenomenon: people just love to long for "good old days" that may not ever have existed.

     

    And it's not just to back whichever political action they support. I have heard (highly intelligent) people tell me that the air and food was healthier a hundred and fifty years ago when we were drowning in horse manure in the cities and fresh fruits from all over the world wasn't even a dream worth thinking about.
    30 Mar, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • maybenot
    , contributor
    Comments (3347) | Send Message
     
    DividendInvestorLA -- we hominins sure like our fairy stories of the past.

     

    I just cross the border to TJ and smell the exhaust of cars and think, "this is what it used to be like in the U.S."

     

    But then we as a nation made better choices. We regulated ourselves.
    30 Mar, 01:31 AM Reply Like
  • doug.whatzup
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Plus, just imagine the horsesh** ... not that Jake isn't providing enough of it already.
    30 Mar, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3496) | Send Message
     
    I'm sure you're right, but you're very rare if you don't harken back to a "better time". I don't harken for the past when it comes to the environment and such, but I did like Los Angeles a lot better 20 years ago and from what I'm told would have loved it 40 years ago (but wouldn't have liked the air quality!)

     

    The point I'm making, I guess, is that as humans we have innate tendencies, like extrapolating data to infinity based on three points and thinking "things used to be better" but have to try and look at it more objectively to make good decisions.
    30 Mar, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    One man wrecking ball.
    29 Mar, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • 1pennyaire
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    The air we breath and the planet we live on were in trusted to us by God!!! We were also told by God to protect it and everything in it but sin. Yes I think gas needs to go above 5$, Then Green comes in. I don't want to hear it will take years and years before we can do it. We have the Know how. The whole country once went from making cars to tanks , trucks to planes, and sewing machines to guns, all in just a few months, 70 years ago. we could do it this year if our lives depended on it. And I believe they do.
    30 Mar, 05:03 AM Reply Like
  • justaminute
    , contributor
    Comments (581) | Send Message
     
    Believing does not make it so.
    30 Mar, 05:43 AM Reply Like
  • Energysystems
    , contributor
    Comments (944) | Send Message
     
    Simple; if we have the know how, obviously the price for the "alternative" energy is too high, so the majority of the world wouldn't adopt it anyway. No wonder India and China are building new coal power plants!
    30 Mar, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • thefuture007
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    Laughable Democrats,Typically hypocritcal as usual.Which is worse Larger population because your SOCIALIZING 50-75 MILLION FACT.!!!! or Methane which supports the larger population,more TAXES to get more Votes to socialize more people and Raise the minimum Wage to get more VOTES/ TAXES to Support more Socialist programs to create more POLLUTION.!! Yeah ok,your Politics/Socialism, don't help/Work on a Real world Basis, a Capitalistic country aka USA.Where by if you Allow Buisness to determine Wages/Healthcare/Housing costs/FNM ownership, costs and an Interest RATE that was Semi normal @ 3% your need to BULLY the OIL/Methane issue would be MOOT since there would be Slow/No Growth..omg run but sustainability based on some Realistic WAGES/Interest rates/Housing prices and less/No Socialism of 50 Million people which would create LESS ENERGY use/Need and thus less Methane...is that something you Democrats can understand = FACTS.!!!!!By Socializing 50-75 Million etc... your creating the Problem not helping solve it.= Hypocrites.
    30 Mar, 11:14 AM Reply Like
  • DividendInvestorLA
    , contributor
    Comments (3496) | Send Message
     
    Trying to bring this back to investing :)

     

    That is the type of US government action that makes me feel that the future of offshore drillers is not in any danger for at least the next three years.

     

    Similar policies are in place throughout the world that are making the market for oil much more buoyant than it would otherwise be.

     

    Long SDRL, NADL and ORIG.
    30 Mar, 04:44 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|