Page 1 of 9
Posted on April 10 at 1:09 p.m.
So let's say 20,000 Santa Barbarans fly to Hawaii, or Europe, or wherever their high disposable income dictates for this year.
That's 12,500,000 metric tons of CO2 they donate annually to the atmosphere for the sole purpose of their own self indulgence. But 1,000 metric tons from a jobs (largely for low and middle income people) producing plant? No way, says Janet Blevins. Agreed. I say we shut down the Santa Barbara airport and cancel her passport.
On County Moves Toward Tougher Emissions Limits
Posted on April 10 at 11:10 a.m.
"CO2 emissions in air travel vary by length of flight, ranging from 0.277 kg CO2 per passenger mile to 0.185 kg CO2per passenger mile, depending on the flight distance. "
Your average wealthy Santa Barbaran therefore produces about 2500 metric tons of CO2 pollution each time he takes his family of four to Hawaii. I assume luxury air travel will also be banned?
Posted on March 16 at 8:56 a.m.
"hey, don't allow the rail transport for this particularly flammable stuff."Right on! And don't allow transportation by truck, pipeline, bicycle, or wagon either. You're OK with that, aren't you DrDan, because you consume no oil at all, you buy no products that were delivered to market via oil (think, food and housing), and accept no cash payments from anyone who does this terrible things.
"...move right on to renewables."Sure. By when? Next Thursday?
"And today someone wrote the NP ranting about how the evil companies are keeping prices high in SB. Is there something in the water here that limits logical thinking?"Sure seems that way. At least, some people don't understand the difference between ideology and problem solving.
On Oil by Train Opposed
Posted on January 16 at 10:40 p.m.
Here's what I say..."Sorry random_kook, I can't help you anymore. You're in your own world. Best of luck convincing anyone with any influence at all of your goofy beliefs. I'm not interested in them, and neither is anyone else." Have a good evening.
On Cheap Gas, but Pricey Futures
Posted on January 16 at 4:05 p.m.
There's fracking in many places, none having the impact of the US.
Sorry, but anyone who believes that hundreds of CEO's all agreed to cut their cash flow in half for some far off political objective that might not even work is simply a fool and can't be taken seriously. I don't feel like talking to a table lamp. If you want to "discuss" your "ideas" further, I suggest ufo.com.
Posted on January 16 at 3:48 p.m.
Your shareholders wouldn't think it would be silly. In complying with this conspiracy, you have just breached your fiduciary responsibility to them. The fact that you avoid answering tells me a lot about your intellectual integrity, or lack thereof.
!) You've never drilled a well, or tried to permit a pipeline (how's Keystone doing?), and have no oil industry experience, so you know nothing about how hard it is to get any kind of industry permit.
2) The "fracking boom" has lots of sources of capital: bonds (you think highly profitable companies like Hess et all are junk grade?), cash from operations, equity, individual investment, venture capital. Saying it's all "junk bonds" demonstrates a gross level of ignorance.
3) The Obama administration has absolutely nothing to do "drilling approvals" (sic) anywhere except on federal lands: federal offshore waters and BLM property, which combined represent almost none of the recent growth in production, so your reply lacks credibility. The growth has come from private lands, and wells there are permitted by state and local agencies. You're wrong.
If you want to go the 12th century conspiracy route, be my guest. But if you insist on being ignorant, then you cede control to those who do understand how the market works. You can't be sure they're going to act in your best interests.
BTW, why don't you assemble a proof of conspiracy and take it to a judge? There are lots of liberal judges who would love to hear it and be heavily biased in your favor. Law firms would be calling you to take such a high visibility case on with no cost to you if you fail. If you win, you'd make millions in talk show appearances, speaking engagements, book and screenplay rights. So why don't you do it?
Because you can't. You have no such evidence, and no judge would listen to you. You just believe stuff. Another internet screamer who just accepts whatever sounds good to him, and ignores what doesn't. For guys like you, evidence is irrelevant, it's all about ideology.
Posted on January 16 at 12:11 p.m.
As CEO of a 1000 barrel per day oil company, your shareholders are demanding an answer to the question I posed to you above:
"President Obama calls you one day in July and says, "I want you to drop your revenues to $45,000 per day." You're just going to do it? Would you not ask him what legal right he has to force you to do this? Your production will have absolutely zero effect on global politics. So why would you do it?"
Why would you agree to this conspiracy? Your shareholders have invested millions of their own dollars in your company. Why are you agreeing to destroy their investment? You have no legal obligation to do so, and your decision will have no impact on a global scale.
Why would you do it?
Posted on January 16 at 11:42 a.m.
"Nice exponential curve. Try explaining it."
Really very simple. The development of a new exploration concept. Multi-stage hydraulic fracturing over very long horizontal wellbores in very low permeability rock (shale). High oil prices. Hundreds of oil companies. Kind of like exponential growth of gold production in California from 1840 to 1860. No conspiracies there, I don't think. It's new knowledge and human nature.
Notice that production in Texas didn't take off until 2010, two years later. Did Obama wait around before calling Texas companies? What about Texas companies that also produced in North Dakota (and there are a lot of them), what were THEY thinking? The same technology applied in North Dakota was found to work in Texas a few years later in the Eagle Ford shale.
Compare the recent rise of US production here, mostly ramping up in 2010
with sales figures for smart phones over the last decade, with computers in the 1980's, or with televisions in the 1950's. As with these technologies, innovative in their time, the reason for US production had everything to do with new technologies and individual companies seeking to profit by it, and nothing whatsoever to do with the president at the time or conspiracies.
Conspiracy theory does not always have to be the answer for everything. Those who believe in this explanation remind me of people from the 12th century. Unusual physical, atmospheric, or astronomical phenomena were almost always explained by religion. Their conspiracy theory equivalent was to say that "God made it that way." But centuries of further study led to a deeper understanding of what was really the root cause of these observations. So it is with the oil industry in 2015. People don't know much about it, and in their attempt to explain what they see, simply fall back on conspiracy theory rather than do any serious study.
Posted on January 16 at 10:40 a.m.
" US production is surging because federal lands and coastline were opened up to fracking in recent years thanks to Obama. It's not secret, you can read about it in the news."
Absolutely untrue. About 77% of US production is from private lands, and almost all of the increases in production in recent years are from private lands. There are hundreds if not thousands of oil companies producing from these unconventional reservoirs. They are doing this not because someone told them to, but because they wanted to make a profit. The increases didn't happen overnight, as if all oil companies got a phone call from Obama. The growth rate has been sustained one, starting in early 2008 in North Dakota, for example. You can see the state's production profile here:
Since 2009 oil production on federal lands is down by 6 percent. This is particularly striking because since 2009 overall oil production on non-federal land is up by 61 percent.
Suppose you ran a small oil company (there are about 12,000 of them in the US) that produced about 1000 barrels of oil per day. Last June you were grossing $100,000 per day. President Obama calls you one day in July and says, "I want you to drop your revenues to $45,000 per day." You're just going to do it? Would you not ask him what legal right he has to force you to do this? Your production will have absolutely zero effect on global politics. So why would you do it?
I never fail to be amazed at the stuff ignorant people believe. The world is not as simple a place as you believe. Conspiracy theories are seductive to uninformed people who don't want to do any homework, but bias and bigotry are not substitutes for rational analysis, and selective googling does not confer expertise on someone who lacks any of it.
Posted on January 16 at 9:47 a.m.
Holly, a more interesting question would be, why would anyone buy their gas there? After a few days of zero revenue it seems they'd get the message.