so higher fuel taxes are bad because ... because ...

[rubato]

They're good for us overall?

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... ports.html

_____________________________

'Reducing Oil Imports'

Jim Hamilton:

Reducing oil imports, by Jim Hamilton: ...In 2011, the U.S. imported $462 billion of petroleum and petroleum products, or more than a billion dollars every day (see BEA Table 4.2.5). The fact that we import goods from other countries is not a problem per se. Standard economic theory teaches that if the U.S. imports some goods and exports others, the country overall will be richer than in the absence of trade, because the value of what we gain in imports is higher to us than the value of what we sell as exports. But in the current U.S. situation, our oil imports aren't balanced by other exports. Last year the U.S. spent $568 billion more on imported goods and services than we sold to other countries, with petroleum imports accounting for more than 80% of the total current account deficit

When we import more than we export, we have to pay for the difference either by selling off some of our assets or by borrowing more from foreigners. Notwithstanding, running a current account deficit could still be a way to make the country richer. If we use the imported goods and borrowed funds to invest in productive capital and useful infrastructure, we should have plenty of future resources to pay back all that we borrowed, with more left over for ourselves. In such a case, a big current account deficit could still be a win-win situation.

But what if we're not investing, and are just using the imports and foreign borrowing to enjoy a temporarily higher standard of living, leaving it to the future to pay the bills? That, too, could be economically optimal if what we most value as a nation is having more consumption spending right now.

But I'm not convinced that's the future that most Americans want. ...

I agree with the position taken by both President Obama and Governor Romney that presidential decisions need to encourage more oil production in the United States.

However, I would add that policies that discourage U.S. consumption of petroleum would also achieve the same goal. For example, trying to make more use of our natural gas resources for transportation is an idea that should appeal to Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. ...

I retain the hope that, whoever wins the election, they might seize the opportunity to move the country in a more positive direction by focusing on some goals and strategies on which both political parties should be able to agree.

Increasing U.S. oil production and decreasing U.S. oil consumption should be two such goals.

I see more difference between the candidates on the drill versus conserve continuum, and I'd guess I tilt more toward the conservation/find new energy sources end of the spectrum than he does. In addition, I wish the externalities associated with energy use and the need to use some form of regulation to reduce them (e.g. carbon tax, cap and trade, etc.) -- regulation that should discourage consumption -- had been mentioned (a point where the two parties clearly differ -- it matters who is elected).

[dgs49]

There is no question that it is better to use resources economically than to waste them. Fie on anyone driving a Suburban.

The political Left in this country spent years fighting the prudent exploitation of oil & gas resources based on specious arguments about the environment (e.g., ANWR). The "Global Warming" hysteria has given them the ability to do the same thing more enthusiastically, while claiming to be saving the planet for our descendants. But the bottom line is the same. Fracking is evil. Drilling on government land will destroy us. Drilling on the coasts will ruin us. Coal is the devil's fuel. Nuke is a risky scheme.

They will not be happy until all production is firmly under the thumb and control of Washington bureaucrats, who know best what is in our best interests. Ultimately, we can all become organic subsistence farmers.

As Gov. Mitt has often stated, with all of the natural resources that we KNOW ABOUT RIGHT NOW, North America can become petroleum-independent by 2020. But it will never happen if Barry is re-elected.

[Grim Reaper]

As Gov. Mitt has often stated, with all of the natural resources that we KNOW ABOUT RIGHT NOW, North America can become petroleum-independent by 2020. But it will never happen if Barry is re-elected.

Except President Obama's administration has approved more drilling permits than the previous Republican administration. Don't let facts get in the way of your hatred.

[Econoline]

"Fracking is evil."

I don't think I'd put it quite that way, but fracking--extraction of natural gas from deep shale by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing--is definitely very worrisome, and no less a source than Scientific American has called for slowing down development until the science has a chance to catch up to the technology.

Others may disagree but I think it's a no-brainer that, in the long run, we will need unpolluted aquifers a lot more than we will need burnable underground hydrocarbons. (Here's another article from SA on that subject.) We ought to be very, very careful before doing something irreversible that may harm future generations for hundreds or thousands of years. Jes' sayin'...



P.S. BTW, depending on the specific circumstances I'm generally in favor of more nukes...or at least persuadable. I'm a liberal, and an environmentalist, but also a pragmatist. Like Barack Obama.

[dgs49]

Econoline, I haven't done any detailed research on the subject, but I do know that the Administrator of the EPA was asked in Congressional hearings last year whether the EPA had any documented evidence of groundwater contamination due to fracking, and he admitted that they didn't have a single case they could cite. Not one.

The water table is close to the surface, the oil and gas are a mile or more below the surface. Direct contamination is not an issue, only leaks from the pipes going down to the deposits. The instances I've seen where people are complaining about their water being fouled are almost uniformly people whose water was crap before the drillers came to town. Tort law doesn't take a powder for gas drillers. If any landowner can prove that their water was contaminated by drilling, they can get financial relief, but it just ain't happening. It's like the people who claim they got cancer because of high-voltage overhead wires, or got connective tissue disease because of breast implants. The science does not support any of these claims.

BTW, as I've written here before, I am NOT in favor or building the keystone XL pipeline through the Nebraska aquifer, but that's a different issue altogether.

[liberty]

Econoline, BTW, as I've written here before, I am NOT in favor or building the keystone XL pipeline through the Nebraska aquifer, but that's a different issue altogether.

Could a double pipeline, a smaller pipe inside a larger pipe, be built through Nebraska in the same way that some oil takers have double hulls?

[Guinevere]

Econoline, I haven't done any detailed research on the subject, but I do know that the Administrator of the EPA was asked in Congressional hearings last year whether the EPA had any documented evidence of groundwater contamination due to fracking, and he admitted that they didn't have a single case they could cite. Not one.

You can't know that because the EPA Administrator is, gasp, a woman.

[Sue U]

Econoline, I haven't done any detailed research on the subject, but I do know that the Administrator of the EPA was asked in Congressional hearings last year whether the EPA had any documented evidence of groundwater contamination due to fracking, and he admitted that they didn't have a single case they could cite. Not one.

You can't know that because the EPA Administrator is, gasp, a woman.

And from New Jersey.






(Although not originally.)

[Sue U]

Econoline, I haven't done any detailed research on the subject, but I do know that the Administrator of the EPA was asked in Congressional hearings last year whether the EPA had any documented evidence of groundwater contamination due to fracking, and he admitted that they didn't have a single case they could cite. Not one.

Well, if you had done even the slightest amount of research, what you would have found was that the congressional hearing was called (in February) because EPA had in fact issued a draft report two months earlier suggesting that fracking might be a contributing factor to groundwater contamination in Pavillion, WY. And the hearing was staged as pure political theater so that the Republicans --particulatrly Andy Harris (R-Marcellus Shale) -- could call industry representatives as "witnesses" solely to attack the EPA and its preliminary findings. Because we wouldn't want any pesky facts to be developed that might impede the money-making, of course.

The water table is close to the surface, the oil and gas are a mile or more below the surface. Direct contamination is not an issue, only leaks from the pipes going down to the deposits.

In fact, the primary contamination issue below the surface is the chemicals in the fracking fluid that's used to shatter the rock, and which may escape into the aquifer. Methane in the drinking water may or may not result from fracking and may or may not be hazardous, but at this point it is really only a secondary issue. Another significant issue, however, is spills above the surface on the fracking pad (often due to equipment malfunction) that then contaminate surface waterways. This is increasingly a problem -- particularly in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

The instances I've seen where people are complaining about their water being fouled are almost uniformly people whose water was crap before the drillers came to town. Tort law doesn't take a powder for gas drillers. If any landowner can prove that their water was contaminated by drilling, they can get financial relief, but it just ain't happening. It's like the people who claim they got cancer because of high-voltage overhead wires, or got connective tissue disease because of breast implants. The science does not support any of these claims.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! Groundwater contamination cases are exceedingly difficult to prove and cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars just to get expert assessments done -- and, for myriad reasons that may have nothing to do with the truth of the matter, there's no guarantee that the assessments would support the claim. Nobody is going to spend that kind of money to prove a contamination case for property damage where the value of the homeowner's property -- and thus the total amount collectable as damages -- is only $100 to $200k. You'd need to have 50 or more such properties involved to even make the case worth looking at -- and then proving causation over that wide a range of properties is just going to make the case that much more difficult. Trust me, I've seen this litigation up close and personal.

[dgs49]

"...that fracking might be a contributing factor to groundwater contamination in Pavillion, WY..."

My HEART! My HEART!

So with tens of thousands of wells dug, there MIGHT be a possibility of a rumor of the smell of something vaguely foul in the water in some podunk hamlet in Wyoming.

STOP THE FUCKING DRILLING!

This is liberal thinking at its finest. We have uncovered technology that can provide all the energy the U.S. needs for the next hundred years. Clearly, the people going after the energy have to be careful.

And that's about the sum and total of what is known. They should be careful.

[Grim Reaper]

This is liberal thinking at its finest.

And your thinking is laser guided on tiny fractions of posts. Because looking at the whole thing renders your arguments inane at best and heartlessly cruel at worst.

[Sue U]

So with tens of thousands of wells dug,

Clearly, the people going after the energy have to be careful.

So how careful do you think they've been with "tens of thousands of wells dug" in just the last 6 or 7 years? How do they even know what it is they have to be careful about?

[Econoline]

The water table is close to the surface, the oil and gas are a mile or more below the surface. Direct contamination is not an issue, only leaks from the pipes going down to the deposits.

As I understand it, the two most serious possible sources of ground water contamination are (1) cracks or other problems with the mechanical integrity of the concrete casing in the vertical shaft, especially up near the top near the water table level. That's the most frequently cited possible explanation of stuff like this:

A team of researchers has produced the first systematic evidence that methane has escaped into drinking water in areas where shale gas drilling is under way, finding explosive concentrations at distances far greater than were previously thought possible.

The Duke University scientists sampled 60 private water wells from homes across northeastern Pennsylvania, where rich underground deposits of natural gas are being extracted from shale rock through a process called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, the team reported that in active gas drilling areas, the concentration of methane increased with proximity to wells.

And as far away as 3,200 feet (1 kilometer) of an active drilling site, they found water that contained enough methane that it could, in some cases, be lit on fire.

The methane concentrations found in well water near active drilling sites were, on average, 17 times higher than the levels found in wells farther away.

The study's findings indicate cause for concern within a much larger radius than previously imagined around drill sites. Pennsylvania state regulations, for example, presume the driller is at fault if contaminated water is found within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of a well within six months after that well's completion. But the new research uncovered methane in wells at three times that distance.

(source)

...and (2) poorly designed, constructed or maintained injection wells for the disposal of contaminated fracking fluid. (BTW, should we even be allowing the injection of this stuff into the earth at all--especially considering the fact that the companies involved won't even disclose what chemicals are in this fluid???)

Operators are required to do so-called "mechanical integrity" tests at regular intervals, yearly for Class 1 wells and at least once every five years for Class 2 wells. [This would include injection wells for the disposal of used fracking fluid.] In 2010, the tests led to more than 7,500 violations nationally, with more than 2,300 wells failing. In Texas, one violation was issued for every three Class 2 wells examined in 2010.

Such breakdowns can have serious consequences. Damage to the cement or steel casing can allow fluids to seep into the earth, where they could migrate into water supplies.

Regulators say redundant layers of protection usually prevent waste from getting that far, but EPA data shows that in the three years analyzed by ProPublica, more than 7,500 well test failures involved what federal water protection regulations describe as "fluid migration" and "significant leaks."

In September 2009, workers for Unit Petroleum Company discovered oil and gas waste in a roadside ditch in southern Louisiana. After tracing the fluid to a crack in the casing of a nearby injection well, operators tested the rest of the well. Only then did they find another hole — 600 feet down, and just a few hundred feet away from an aquifer that is a source of drinking water for that part of the state.

Most well failures are patched within six months of being discovered, EPA data shows, but with as much as five years passing between integrity tests, it can take a while for leaks to be discovered. And not every well can be repaired. Kansas shut down at least 47 injection wells in 2010, filling them with cement and burying them, because their mechanical integrity could not be restored. Louisiana shut down 82. Wyoming shut down 144.

Another way wells can leak is if waste is injected with such force that it accidentally shatters the rock meant to contain it. A report published by scientists at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Texas said that high pressure is "the driving force" that can help connect deep geologic layers with shallower ones, allowing fluid to seep through the earth.

Most injection well permits strictly limit the maximum pressure allowed, but well operators — rushing to dispose of more waste in less time — sometimes break the rules, state regulatory inspections show. According to data provided by states to the EPA, deep well operators have been caught exceeding injection pressure limits more than 1,100 times since 2008.

As a necessary, and very minimal, first step Congress should at least repeal the so-called "Halliburton Loophole"(another gift-that-keeps-on-giving from Bush and Cheney--as if the Iraq war and the increased national debt weren't enough):

the real reason for the recent explosion of fracking in the country where it has most been applied, the United States, is the passage of legislation in 2005 by the US Congress that exempts the oil industry’s hydraulic fracking activity from regulatory supervision by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials — unchecked — directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies.(source)

The law is known as the “Halliburton Loophole.” That’s because it was introduced with lobbying pressure from the company that produces the lion’s share of chemical hydraulic fracking fluids—Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton. When he became Vice President under George W. Bush in early 2001, Bush immediately gave Cheney responsibility for a major Energy Task Force to make a comprehensive national energy strategy. Aside from looking at Iraq oil potentials as documents later revealed, Cheney’s task force used Cheney’s considerable political muscle and industry lobbying money to win exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

(source)

[rubato]

...

And as far away as 3,200 feet (1 kilometer) of an active drilling site, they found water that contained enough methane that it could, in some cases, be lit on fire.

The methane concentrations found in well water near active drilling sites were, on average, 17 times higher than the levels found in wells farther away.


...

As a necessary, and very minimal, first step Congress should at least repeal the so-called "Halliburton Loophole"(another gift-that-keeps-on-giving from Bush and Cheney--as if the Iraq war and the increased national debt weren't enough):

the real reason for the recent explosion of fracking in the country where it has most been applied, the United States, is the passage of legislation in 2005 by the US Congress that exempts the oil industry’s hydraulic fracking activity from regulatory supervision by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by EPA to inject known hazardous materials — unchecked — directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies.(source)

The law is known as the “Halliburton Loophole.” That’s because it was introduced with lobbying pressure from the company that produces the lion’s share of chemical hydraulic fracking fluids—Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton. When he became Vice President under George W. Bush in early 2001, Bush immediately gave Cheney responsibility for a major Energy Task Force to make a comprehensive national energy strategy. Aside from looking at Iraq oil potentials as documents later revealed, Cheney’s task force used Cheney’s considerable political muscle and industry lobbying money to win exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

(source)

Republicans should never be allowed to govern ever again.

They are the party of lies and deceit.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Republicans should never be allowed to govern ever again.

They are the party of lies and deceit.

"He had learned that the repetition of short ideas, massages the brain".



From:

Robert Ashley
"Perfect Lives / Private Parts" "The Bar"

ETA:

Thanks for posting that quote rube....

Based on years of prior performance, I expect you will provide me with numerous apropos opportunities to repost it...

[oldr_n_wsr]

Republicans should never be allowed to govern ever again.

They are the party of lies and deceit.

yrs,
rubato

So you would have us be a "single party" system. Makes sense.

[Big RR]

If there were a single party, I'd hate to have either of our major parties as the sole choice. Elections are boring enough with the two parties; of course the "debates" might be shorter.

[dales]

so higher fuel taxes are bad because ... because ...

They would dampen the already anemic (the weakest in over 60 years) "recovery".

[Jarlaxle]

Econoline, BTW, as I've written here before, I am NOT in favor or building the keystone XL pipeline through the Nebraska aquifer, but that's a different issue altogether.

Could a double pipeline, a smaller pipe inside a larger pipe, be built through Nebraska in the same way that some oil takers have double hulls?

Cant see why not.

[oldr_n_wsr]

i don't see where technology can not supply a solution. 5 miles down drilling is a little (just a little) different than an overland pipeline. And we have done it before 30-some years ago.