Will gas prices impact your vote in 2012?

[badger]

There is talk (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20120224_46_A10_CUTLIN643333) that voters are going to take their angst out on Obama this fall if gas prices continue to rise.

The question I have for the reasonable political delegation of SF.com: How will higher gas prices impact your vote, if at all, this election year?

And just for fun, will it impact your travel plans or habits at all? What price does it have to be before you would seriously consider taking action?

And for more fun, what is it in your area?

Here in Tulsa, it's about $3.39 per gallon right now. Our peak price was mid-2008, when it was about $3.98, I think.

[Sooner5030]

There is talk (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20120224_46_A10_CUTLIN643333) that voters are going to take their angst out on Obama this fall if gas prices continue to rise.

The question I have for the reasonable political delegation of SF.com: How will higher gas prices impact your vote, if at all, this election year?

And just for fun, will it impact your travel plans or habits at all? What price does it have to be before you would seriously consider taking action?

And for more fun, what is it in your area?

Here in Tulsa, it's about $3.39 per gallon right now. Our peak price was mid-2008, when it was about $3.98, I think.

Will write-in Ron Paul regardless of gas prices. I am worried what effects $4.00 gasoline & diesel will have on the economy though. As for my situation I am taking a trip in JULY-AUG regardless of gas prices. Locally though I will ride my motorcycle to work and keep the 1-ton in the driveway.

[Ike]

No.

[okie52]

I wasn't going to vote for him if it was $2 per gallon. Price isn't the issue, energy independence is. And he gets an F- on energy independence.

[badger]

I am also worried with how gas prices will impact the economy, because it was when gas prices went up last time that the recession really starting kicking in. People will give up spending on everything else before they give up spending on gas it seems, be it out of necessity or want.

I have tried to cut back on driving, not because I can't afford a certain gas price, but because driving in general is not that much fun for me... and because I don't like supporting what seems like a cartel racket.

[SCOUT]

Probably not, my polling place is right around the corner.

Seriously though, I agree with okie52. Obama's handling of energy in general is a big minus in my book.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Newt is promising $2.50/gal if elected, so I might vote for him in the primary. Depends what others promise me.

[Sooner_Bob]

I wasn't planning on voting for Obama anyway . . . I'm also leary of Ron Paul, Santorum and Gingrich . . . Romney is the lesser of all evils at this point IMO.

[XFollower]

Yes.

[TUSooner]

Newt is promising $2.50/gal if elected, so I might vote for him in the primary. Depends what others promise me.
That's too subtle. :D

To answer the original question -- No. The POTUS gets too much blame and too much credit for the economy. Might as well choose the Prez based on how your supper was cooked last Tuesday.

[Sooner_Bob]

That's too subtle. :D

To answer the original question -- No. The POTUS gets too much blame and too much credit for the economy. Might as well choose the Prez based on how your supper was cooked last Tuesday.


That's one vote for the CEO of Domino's . . . .

[TUSooner]

I wasn't going to vote for him if it was $2 per gallon. Price isn't the issue, energy independence is. And he gets an F- on energy independence.

Does "energy independence" to you simply mean all-out, unbridled production of domestic fossil fuels (perhaps regardless of the cost, effect, or sustainability)?

Does it include developing other energy sources?

[badger]

That's one vote for the CEO of Domino's . . . .

Hey, Dominoes Pizza has vastly improved during Obama's presidency!


Does "energy independence" to you simply mean all-out, unbridled production of domestic fossil fuels (perhaps regardless of the cost, effect, or sustainability)?

Does it include developing other energy sources?

If CNG takes off, so does Oklahoma's economy, so I'm really, really hoping for some CNG action :)

[Sooner_Bob]

If CNG stations were more prevalent I'd strongly consider buying a CNG-powered vehicle . . .

[TUSooner]

If CNG stations were more prevalent I'd strongly consider buying a CNG-powered vehicle . . .
This.
Well, I would need some actual money, too....

[OULenexaman]

3.57 in KC......gas prices are way down on my list of reasons for not voting for Barry....course I never have in the 1st place.

[badger]

3.57 in KC......gas prices are way down on my list of reasons for not voting for Barry....course I never have in the 1st place.

I'm not just talking about Hussein Soretoro... or whatever his other names are, hehe. I'm talking about any votes this year, from local to state to federal.

And... how you'll vote with your dollars, too. Would you be prone to support a local gas chain, or seek out one that has less ethanol, or just drive less, period?

[SoonerAtKU]

I'm driving to Florida for a vacation in June and we're dreading the gas costs for 40+ hours of drive time, even in our Civic. We're a one car family, but it's primarily because my wife and I work for the same company. We had a second car and we really only needed it once or twice a week, so the cost was completely unjustified.

[OULenexaman]

I'm not just talking about Hussein Soretoro... or whatever his other names are, hehe. I'm talking about any votes this year, from local to state to federal.

And... how you'll vote with your dollars, too. Would you be prone to support a local gas chain, or seek out one that has less ethanol, or just drive less, period? No is my answer across the board....DAMNIT!! Just went up to 3.62 across the street.

[pphilfran]

Does "energy independence" to you simply mean all-out, unbridled production of domestic fossil fuels (perhaps regardless of the cost, effect, or sustainability)?

Does it include developing other energy sources?

What other energy sources should we develop that will lower our dependence on imported crude?

[okie52]

Does "energy independence" to you simply mean all-out, unbridled production of domestic fossil fuels (perhaps regardless of the cost, effect, or sustainability)?

Does it include developing other energy sources?

All viable energy sources should be developed and those that aren't viable now but show potential should be funded through R & D. But, to your point, you don't try to kill your most viable sources in the absence of anything to replace them.

The man was given open coasts when he took the presidency...a luxury no president has had in over 30 years. He has shut them down for the last 3 years while onshore he has consistently pursued anti oil and gas policies (see cap and trade). He has done absolutely nothing for NG in his 1st 3 years other than try to punish it. Now, in an election year, he is declaring an epiphany regarding ng and offshore drilling.

What grade would you give him?

[cleller]

Couldn't high gas prices be considered discriminatory in the same way the voter ID's are?

It seems then, that it would make sense to pass a law limiting get prices to about 32.9 cents/gallon.

[okie52]

Couldn't high gas prices be considered discriminatory in the same way the voter ID's are?

It seems then, that it would make sense to pass a law limiting get prices to about 32.9 cents/gallon.

There's always the disenfranchised.

[badger]

Couldn't high gas prices be considered discriminatory in the same way the voter ID's are?

It seems then, that it would make sense to pass a law limiting get prices to about 32.9 cents/gallon.

I wasn't alive when there were gas shortages everywhere. Somehow, I think gas shortages would be worse than $5 per gallon gas.

[jkjsooner]

I am also worried with how gas prices will impact the economy, because it was when gas prices went up last time that the recession really starting kicking in.

The main reason gas prices went down was because of the recession (less demand). Gas prices could hurt the economy but recent history would suggest that that would in turn lower prices.

We can't stop the rise in prices. China is going to demand more and more. There's not a lot Obama or Gingrich can do to stop that short of causing another recession.

[pphilfran]

The main reason gas prices went down was because of the recession (less demand). Gas prices could hurt the economy but recent history would suggest that that would in turn lower prices.

We can't stop the rise in prices. China is going to demand more and more. There's not a lot Obama or Gingrich can do to stop that short of causing another recession.

Little they can do with gas prices...but they can have a significant impact on future fuel prices...

Anytime you hear Obama talk about energy independence and solar/wind in the same sentence he is lying/pandering to the environmentalist or doesn't know what he is talking about...

[cccasooner2]

There is talk (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=13&articleid=20120224_46_A10_CUTLIN643333) that voters are going to take their angst out on Obama this fall if gas prices continue to rise.

The question I have for the reasonable political delegation of SF.com: How will higher gas prices impact your vote, if at all, this election year?

And just for fun, will it impact your travel plans or habits at all? What price does it have to be before you would seriously consider taking action?

And for more fun, what is it in your area?

Here in Tulsa, it's about $3.39 per gallon right now. Our peak price was mid-2008, when it was about $3.98, I think.

The problem is refining capacity. If the darn government would do what is economical and ethical in every way, they would mandate refineries be built on tribal lands immediately. Same goes for toxic waste management. Hell, we're all dying of alcoholism and diabetes anyway.

[ouwasp]

Won't effect my vote. Hey, I'm 99% sure how I'll vote in 2016, 2020, etc. My thing is who do I trust to put the right-minded person on the Supreme Court. And it's not BHO and his ilk. There's no guarantee, of course, but that's the main reason I vote GOP in presidential elections.

[hawaii 5-0]

I'll only vote for someone who promises a Moon Colony with a gas station.

5-0

[soonercruiser]

I'll only vote for someone who promises a Moon Colony with a gas station.

5-0

I'll buy your ticket.....really!
:adoration:

[AlboSooner]

No.

This upcoming election looks like the one in 2004.

[sappstuf]

I remember when Obama wanted higher gas prices. When asked about high prices when running he said:


I would have preferred a gradual adjustment

He then nominated an energy secretary, Steven Chu, that said:


somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.

So Obama has gotten exactly what he wanted, why not take a victory lap? This should be a teaching moment for him. He can explain how we are all better off now that gas prices are higher under his leadership.

And it looks like Obama will get more of what he wanted in the coming months...


February is not typically a month when we see energy prices cresting. Instead, prices tend to rise as we get into the summer driving months (and, inconveniently, as we enter the general election season). Over the last six years, crude oil climbed an average of 44% from its late February level before reaching its calendar year high (on average, it took about six months to get there).

A similar run-up from this week’s average of more than $105/barrel would have us cruising past $150 by the end of August, surpassing the record weekly average price seen during the 2008 oil bubble. …

If this were to play out, $6 a gallon might start to sound pretty good.

I also just ran across this interesting graph that shows a least a correlation between Obama's monetary policy and gas prices.

http://www.nationalreview.com/sites/default/files/nfs/uploaded/u6/2012/02/graph1a.jpg

[East Coast Bias]

I am sure the Pubs are hoping gas prices can be their new battle cry since the economy shows signs of improvement and they have failed to get traction on social issues. I doubt anyone on this board drives more than I do. I drive 62 miles to my job daily, which is not uncommon in the Northeast.

[yermom]

gas prices might swing people that aren't sure beforehand, the same way the stock market or unemployment would. it's bad for the incumbent.

it's not like it's going to switch a D to being an R

i doubt it would have much effect on most of the people that log in here...

[sappstuf]

I am sure the Pubs are hoping gas prices can be their new battle cry since the economy shows signs of improvement and they have failed to get traction on social issues. I doubt anyone on this board drives more than I do. I drive 62 miles to my job daily, which is not uncommon in the Northeast.

I hope Obama runs with the economy shows signs of improvement. Democrat pollsters have shown that to be a complete loser.


Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg is out with a must-read polling memo this morning, which offers some eye-opening advice to President Obama and his re-election team. After testing several of the president’s economic messages, he finds the argument that the economy is back on the right track polls miserably – and “produces disastrous results.”

Claiming that “America is back” is by far the weakest operative message and produces disastrous results. It is weaker than even the weakest Republican message and is 10 points weaker in intensity than either Republican message. Overall, less than a third of all voters said this message makes them more likely to support the President and a third said this message made them less likely to support Barack Obama. Alarmingly, this message barely receives majority support among self-identified Democrats—and even less support among all other groups. Less than a quarter of independents say this message would make them more likely to support the President and no independents said that it would make them much more likely to support him.

The memo reads as a glaring wake-up call to the White House, which has been trumpeting improving economic figures lately. Greenberg notes that voters are reporting “no improvement” in their job situation since last June, and have experienced reduced wages and benefits and health insurance coverage. The picture Greenberg’s polling paints is an America public still deeply pessimistic about their future, and skeptical of Obama’s handling of the economy.

http://www.democracycorps.com/wp-content/files/February-Economic-Messaging-Memo.pdf

Ouch.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I doubt anyone on this board drives more than I do. I drive 62 miles to my job daily, which is not uncommon in the Northeast.Are you really that naive? This may come as a shocker to ya, but not everybody drives to a cubicle and back home every day...

[pphilfran]

I am sure the Pubs are hoping gas prices can be their new battle cry since the economy shows signs of improvement and they have failed to get traction on social issues. I doubt anyone on this board drives more than I do. I drive 62 miles to my job daily, which is not uncommon in the Northeast.

No need to hope...our energy policy has nearly guaranteed high fuel prices that will impact the economy....

[XingTheRubicon]

I am sure the Pubs are hoping gas prices can be their new battle cry since the economy shows signs of improvement and they have failed to get traction on social issues. I doubt anyone on this board drives more than I do. I drive 62 miles to my job daily, which is not uncommon in the Northeast.

Yeah, that 1% GDP growth is pretty kick*ss.



...and to think it only cost 5 trillion.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yeah, that 1% GDP growth is pretty kick*ss.



...and to think it only cost 5 trillion.Heh...He can dream can't he?

[East Coast Bias]

Are you really that naive? This may come as a shocker to ya, but not everybody drives to a cubicle and back home every day...
Not sure how you got that out of my post? Or claiming how I drive farther to work than most Okies makes me naive? I lived there for over 40years, I am pretty well-informed on the locals...

[StoopTroup]

I want to make my position perfectly clear....Maybe.

[soonercruiser]

I am sure the Pubs are hoping gas prices can be their new battle cry since the economy shows signs of improvement and they have failed to get traction on social issues. I doubt anyone on this board drives more than I do. I drive 62 miles to my job daily, which is not uncommon in the Northeast.

Well, ECB, I guess you can't remember when Demoncrats would attack Boosh over gas prices?

http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=gasprices.jpg

What's wrong with image posting lately???
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=gasprices.jpg

[sappstuf]

I want to make my position perfectly clear....Maybe.

Ah, the voting "present" strategy..

There are some that say you could be president.

[yermom]

Well, ECB, I guess you can't remember when Demoncrats would attack Boosh over gas prices?

http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view¤t=gasprices.jpg

What's wrong with image posting lately???
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view¤t=gasprices.jpg

your doing it rong

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/gasprices.jpg

[LiveLaughLove]

your doing it rong

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/gasprices.jpg

Not only did they say it was Bush's fault, but they went further. It was he and Chaney's conspiracy to help their buddies in the oil industry to get even richer.

Now of course, well it's not Obama's fault, it's the obstructionist Republicans. Yeah right.

[Skysooner]

Honestly as an executive at the top of the petroleum industry, if you base your vote on gasoline prices (yes gasoline or gas, not natural gas folks) then you are ignorant. Oil prices are a global market. Presidents can affect nothing. It doesn't matter if that pipeline (for oil to Asia) is ever built. It doesn't matter if the entire coastline is open for exploration. Oil is a world market which is defined by developing industrial nations that still rely on mostly coal. Chill and vote for other reasons.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This thread...haha. If one is still not decided on what our Obeary's actions and pronouncements have wrought, it's doubtful that continued high gas prices and unwillingness to increase development of domestic fossil fuels wil make much of an impression.

[okie52]

Honestly as an executive at the top of the petroleum industry, if you base your vote on gasoline prices (yes gasoline or gas, not natural gas folks) then you are ignorant. Oil prices are a global market. Presidents can affect nothing. It doesn't matter if that pipeline (for oil to Asia) is ever built. It doesn't matter if the entire coastline is open for exploration. Oil is a world market which is defined by developing industrial nations that still rely on mostly coal. Chill and vote for other reasons.

True, but energy independence is another matter, now isn't it?

And why don't you tell the prez that releasing crude from the SPR does little or nothing except decrease our SPR.

Now are you going to say that Obama is a good energy president? That opening up our coasts for exploration won't help us achieve energy independence particularly since he is the 1st prez in over 30 years to have that opportunity?

Has this prez done anything for ng in his 1st 3 years other than try to punish it? Would ng help us achieve energy independence? Would ng used for transportation cost less at the pump than gasoline? Is ng a regional commodity?

While people may have it wrong about Obamas role on gasoline prices no one can really question his incompetence on energy.

[badger]

Not only did they say it was Bush's fault, but they went further. It was he and Chaney's conspiracy to help their buddies in the oil industry to get even richer.

Now of course, well it's not Obama's fault, it's the obstructionist Republicans. Yeah right.

Yeah, it's a double-edged sword, isn't it? But, prices peaked (at least in Tulsa) in mid-2008, so to be fair, gas prices have never been as high as they were when Bush was president. Yet.

[pphilfran]

Yeah, it's a double-edged sword, isn't it? But, prices peaked (at least in Tulsa) in mid-2008, so to be fair, gas prices have never been as high as they were when Bush was president. Yet.

For the year 2011 gas prices were the highest ever...2011 at 3.57 was 10% higher than the 2008 avg of 3.23...

We are over 3.50 YTD....30 cents higher than last Jan/Feb...and last Jan/Feb was within cents of Jan/Feb 2008..

Gas prices are going to smoke our azz this spring and summer...

[badger]

I meant that the highest they ever achieved here in Tulsa was in 2008, not a year's average price.

[pphilfran]

I meant that the highest they ever achieved here in Tulsa was in 2008, not a year's average price.

I understand that but you will not be able to say that come May.... :}

[badger]

I understand that but you will not be able to say that come May.... :}

That's why I also added "yet" :P

I have no doubt that gas prices are headed for their new highest high later this year. It's time like this that I remember that one week period when gas prices went up a dime during the Clinton administration and my mom was furious. After like a decade of gas prices hovering in the $1.20 range in rural Wisconsin, they were temporarily in the $1.30 range. Oh noes!

Around 2000 was when things really started to get panicky --- $1.50 instead of $1.20. Then $1.99 instead of $1.50. When will it end?!

It eventually went back down to $1.50ish, but of course, that only lasted a few years.

I remember gas prices peaking at Hurricane Katrina time when I was in college (Norman, woot!) and prices were about $3.29 around campus. It was awful for a poor student like me, but short of finding a classroom to camp in overnight, there wasn't much I could do other than drive for my off-campus commute.

Now that I can afford it a little bit more, I didn't even remember how high prices were in 2008. I wonder if I'll feel the same this time around. :(

[pphilfran]

We are accustomed to higher levels so four bucks won't be quite a big a hit as '08...start seeing 4.25 or 4.50 and we could be back in trouble....

[soonercruiser]

Long trips are gonna be flyin' there first!
Then, rent an Amish buggy!

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah, because if I cannot afford to make it to the polls, I aint goin!

Unless it is an abnormal (becoming normal) November day where the temp is 65+ and no rain or naders, then I could walk.

May file for an absentee ballot...LOL

[Skysooner]

True, but energy independence is another matter, now isn't it?

And why don't you tell the prez that releasing crude from the SPR does little or nothing except decrease our SPR.

Now are you going to say that Obama is a good energy president? That opening up our coasts for exploration won't help us achieve energy independence particularly since he is the 1st prez in over 30 years to have that opportunity?

Has this prez done anything for ng in his 1st 3 years other than try to punish it? Would ng help us achieve energy independence? Would ng used for transportation cost less at the pump than gasoline? Is ng a regional commodity?

While people may have it wrong about Obamas role on gasoline prices no one can really question his incompetence on energy.
Energy independence is an impossibility. All we can do is mitigate our dependence upon foreign oil to some extent.

Hmm, Presidents release from the SPR. This includes both Rs and Ds. I agree with you, but why are you telling me? I never said anything about the SPR. No President has been helpful to the oil/natural gas industry at least in the last 20 years. We wanted Obama only slightly more than McCain. Rhetoric is not action. As long as they speak and don't do, we are fine with it.

Incompetence? I see him doing what most Presidents have done. He may slightly be more for renewables than others, but it hasn't exactly affected anything has it? NG prices are down (something I predicted 18 months ago) to sub $3/mmbtu range due to our efficiency in drilling shale gas and now hybrid, tight and shale oil.

At least admit that Romney wouldn't be much better and Santorum would be an unmitigated disaster. You know a bunch about oil but are stuck on the old party lines. I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for at this point, but it definitely wouldn't be Santorum.

[diverdog]

Energy independence is an impossibility. All we can do is mitigate our dependence upon foreign oil to some extent.

Hmm, Presidents release from the SPR. This includes both Rs and Ds. I agree with you, but why are you telling me? I never said anything about the SPR. No President has been helpful to the oil/natural gas industry at least in the last 20 years. We wanted Obama only slightly more than McCain. Rhetoric is not action. As long as they speak and don't do, we are fine with it.

Incompetence? I see him doing what most Presidents have done. He may slightly be more for renewables than others, but it hasn't exactly affected anything has it? NG prices are down (something I predicted 18 months ago) to sub $3/mmbtu range due to our efficiency in drilling shale gas and now hybrid, tight and shale oil.

At least admit that Romney wouldn't be much better and Santorum would be an unmitigated disaster. You know a bunch about oil but are stuck on the old party lines. I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for at this point, but it definitely wouldn't be Santorum.

How much of this price run up is due to speculation? I know under Bush it was a lot.

[sappstuf]

How much of this price run up is due to speculation? I know under Bush it was a lot.

Obama keeps saying that oil prices are going up because the economy is improving. An improving economy almost always drives up gasoline demand because people are driving more, they practically go hand in hand. Gasoline usage is dropping. That makes claims that the economy improving a little suspect.


Economic activity almost always requires travel. Whether commuting to work, driving to a store, getting goods delivered, or taking a vacation, more miles driven and more gasoline used means higher economic activity. This is not controversial, as we discussed a few years ago.

So, it comes as a surprise that these measures of broad-based economic activity (gasoline consumed and miles driven) are falling hard at a time when most economists are in agreement that the economy has been getting better in recent months. If the economy is indeed getting better, it seems to be happening while we are driving less and consuming less gasoline. For the American economy, this is really hard to do. It has never happened before in the data shown above. All other instances of declining miles and gasoline consumed occurred in or around a recession.

We would not suggest that these economic indicators trump all others and the economy is actually worsening. But it is disconcerting that these measures of critically economic activities are heading lower in a hurry.

Maybe these two measures are sending false signals, but it is possible they are really pointing the way for a faltering economy. For now we will watch these measures and report on them in coming weeks to see if they eventually square with other broad-based measures of the economy that say things are getting better.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/3ilesgas0213121_big.gif

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2asweek0213121_big.gif


Weekly gasoline consumption hit 8.0 million barrels per day the week of January 13, the lowest level since September 21, 2001 (the wake of 9/11 when all travel was voluntarily reduced). It has hardly rebounded in subsequent weeks.

[Skysooner]

How much of this price run up is due to speculation? I know under Bush it was a lot.

Probably a ton really. I don't specialize in market demand and until recently I was focused on NG prices which is 98% of what my company produces. Still I have done oil production for a long time, and it is a global market and where there is variability in supply and demand across markets, the speculators make money. Often I wonder if I was in the right business. I make great money, but I could have retired 15 years ago if I had been good at the other game.

[EnragedOUfan]

I really hope Santorum wins the nomination because then, it really won't matter what anyone thinks, because President Obama would win in a landslide. If Santorum actually wins this, I absolutely can't wait until the Presidential debates. President Obama would destroy Santorum in a debate....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Heh

[okie52]

Energy independence is an impossibility. All we can do is mitigate our dependence upon foreign oil to some extent.

Hmm, Presidents release from the SPR. This includes both Rs and Ds. I agree with you, but why are you telling me? I never said anything about the SPR. No President has been helpful to the oil/natural gas industry at least in the last 20 years. We wanted Obama only slightly more than McCain. Rhetoric is not action. As long as they speak and don't do, we are fine with it.

Incompetence? I see him doing what most Presidents have done. He may slightly be more for renewables than others, but it hasn't exactly affected anything has it? NG prices are down (something I predicted 18 months ago) to sub $3/mmbtu range due to our efficiency in drilling shale gas and now hybrid, tight and shale oil.

At least admit that Romney wouldn't be much better and Santorum would be an unmitigated disaster. You know a bunch about oil but are stuck on the old party lines. I haven't decided who I'm going to vote for at this point, but it definitely wouldn't be Santorum.

Energy independence an impossibility? As of right now we import about 50% of our crude or roughly 10,000,000 barrels a day. So replacing 10,000,000 can't be done? So NG couldn't be moved to transportation to help offset our imports? Or more nukes for electrics. Or conservation on higher mpg cars? Or the new discoveries in the shales with enhanced drilling techniques? Or our offshore reserves being opened up to exploration? Or some small additional help from renewables?

But lets say all we can achieve is a strategic energy independence by reducing our imports by 4,000,000 barrels a day. That would be roughly the amount that we import from the ME and OPEC. Is that not attainable? Well it certainly isn't if you have a president denying access to much of the country's reserves.

W certainly had his deficiencies but he never tried to harm the oil and gas industry (or any industry that I am aware of). He did remove the executive ban on offshore drilling just about the same time that congress let their ban expire. That should have been a big help except Obama reinstated the executive ban. Now he has had an election year change of heart or so he says. This is probably rhetoric...except it is the very harmful variety where speaking and not doing hurts us all. Lost are high paying jobs, taxes, royalties, bonus money, and production that could help offset our oil imports and trade deficit.

Obama is either extremely incompetent or, maybe even worse, so idieologically driven that he will sacrifice nation's well being on the cross of green energy. It wasn't rhetoric when he passed the unilateral cap and trade bill in the house in 2009. Very fortunate for the nation that it didn't make it through the senate. At a time of a severe recession he was trying to legislate an extreme disadvantage to our industries and economy. I am not, necessarily, against a pragmatic cap and trade that is global in scope. To have the US go it alone was pure lunacy. It wasn't rhetoric when Obama closed down the east and west coast for drilling. Why? 3 years with Obama and not one lease sale yet off of the coasts even though W left him with open coasts.

I don't want to have to "vote" for someone that's stated position is to do away with or harm our most vital energy sources while hoping it is just rhetoric. Obama favored the windfall profits tax, doing away with oil industry writeoffs (most of those are the same writeoffs that are found in most US industries), killing coal,cap and trade that punished ng while rewarding corn ethanol, no offshore drilling, and killed Yucca after 4 administrations and numerous congresses approved it (including his own Sec of energy). This is the same prez that was slow playing drilling permits in the gulf to the point that he was twice court ordered to reopen the gulf. It is also the same prez that immediately reneged on the Utah lease sale on UNPROTECTED LANDS shortly after taking office. Now he is pushing the EPA to punish hydraulic fracking.

Surely you had to laugh when Obama was taking credit for oil production increasing during his first 3 years.

Stuck on party lines? To some degree you are right because the dems never offer someone that is geared towards solving our energy problems. I don't care that much about social issues so even though I don't often agree with pubs on their prioritization of abortion, gay marriage, etc... they are all secondary to me when compared to our economy and energy concerns. The pubs have their idiots just like the dems but the pub idiots usually vote for much better energy approaches. Maybe you are familiar with this:


Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass) on Feb. 14 introduced two bills that would ban exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S.

The same idiot dem that joined with waxman on the cap and trade bill. And they did it with Obama's support.

What's surprising to me is where people in the oil industry are willing to overlook a candidate's contempt for their own industry in pursuit of some ideological fantasy.

Edit: I will probably vote repub vs Obama. Santorum (who I don't know much about) is probably unelectable so I hope he doesn't win the nomination but at this point I would still prefer him to Obama. I would think (energy wise) Romney would be much better than Obama but, again, I'd have to review his positions since he has flip flopped on them like Obama has. I certainly don't see either Romney or Santorum shutting down our coasts or harming oil and gas.

[badger]

I absolutely can't wait until the Presidential debates. President Obama would destroy Santorum in a debate....

To be fair, people were saying the same thing about Sarah Palin and Joe Biden and debates, that both would embarrass themselves and their party. Then, the debates rolled around and they gave perfectly manicured answers to everything. Basically, neither side lost or gained anything from the debates from those two and comedians just waiting to cash in on terrible sound bites left empty handed.

[pphilfran]

Energy independence an impossibility? As of right now we import about 50% of our crude or roughly 10,000,000 barrels a day. So replacing 10,000,000 can't be done? So NG couldn't be moved to transportation to help offset our imports? Or more nukes for electrics. Or conservation on higher mpg cars? Or the new discoveries in the shales with enhanced drilling techniques? Or our offshore reserves being opened up to exploration? Or some small additional help from renewables?

But lets say all we can achieve is a strategic energy indepence by reducing our imports by 4,000,000 barrels a day. That would be roughly the amount that we import from the ME and OPEC. Is that not attainable? Well it certainly isn't if you have a president denying access to much of the country's reserves.

W certainly had his deficiencies but he never tried to harm the oil and gas industry (or any industry that I am aware of). He did remove the executive ban on offshore drilling just about the same time that congress let their ban expire. That should have been a big help except Obama reinstated the executive ban. Now he has had an election year change of heart or so he says. This is probably rhetoric...except it is the very harmful variety where speaking and not doing hurts us all. Lost are high paying jobs, taxes, royalties, bonus money, and production that could help offset our oil imports and trade deficit.

Obama is either extremely incompetent or, maybe even worse, so idieologically driven that he will sacrifice nation's well being on the cross of green energy. It wasn't rhetoric when he passed the unilateral cap and trade bill in the house in 2009. Very fortunate for the nation that it didn't make it through the senate. At a time of a severe recession he was trying to legislate an extreme disadvantage to our industries and economy. I am not, necessarily, against a pragmatic cap and trade that is global in scope. To have the US go it alone was pure lunacy. It wasn't rhetoric when Obama closed down the east and west coast for drilling. Why? 3 years with Obama and not one lease sale yet off of the coasts even though W left him with open coasts.

I don't want to have to "vote" for someone that's stated position is to do away with or harm our most vital energy sources while hoping it is just rhetoric. Obama favored the windfall profits tax, doing away with oil industry writeoffs (most of those are the same writeoffs that are found in most US industries), killing coal,cap and trade that punished ng while rewarding corn ethanol, no offshore drilling, and killed Yucca after 4 administrations and numerous congresses approved it (including his own Sec of energy). This is the same prez that was slow playing drilling permits in the gulf to the point that he was twice court ordered to reopen the gulf. It is also the same prez that immediately reneged on the Utah lease sale on UNPROTECTED LANDS shortly after taking office. Now he is pushing the EPA to punish hydraulic fracking.

Surely you had to laugh when Obama was taking credit for oil production increasing during his first 3 years.

Stuck on party lines? To some degree you are right because the dems never offer someone that is geared towards solving our energy problems. I don't care that much about social issues so even though I don't often agree with pubs on their prioritization of abortion, gay marriage, etc... they are all secondary to me when compared to our economy and energy concerns. The pubs have their idiots just like the dems but the pub idiots usually vote for much better energy approaches. Maybe you are familiar with this:



The same idiot dem that joined with waxman on the cap and trade bill. And they did it with Obama's support.

What's surprising to me is where people in the oil industry are willing to overlook a candidate's contempt for their own industry in pursuit of some ideological fantasy.

Edit: I will probably vote repub vs Obama. Santorum (who I don't know much about) is probably unelectable so I hope he doesn't win the nomination but at this point I would still prefer him to Obama. I would think (energy wise) Romney would be much better than Obama but, again, I'd have to review his positions since he has flip flopped on them like Obama has. I certainly don't see either Romney or Santorum shutting down our coasts or harming oil and gas.

Not only is he taking credit for the increase in crude production but he is claiming success with mileage standards reducing the amount of gas we have used...can you spell recession?

[okie52]

Not only is he taking credit for the increase in crude production but he is claiming success with mileage standards reducing the amount of gas we have used...can you spell recession?

LOL

Yeah, his conservation projects haven't even left the drawing board in most cases...but its influencing our demand.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

To be fair, people were saying the same thing about Sarah Palin and Joe Biden and debates, that both would embarrass themselves and their party. Then, the debates rolled around and they gave perfectly manicured answers to everything. Basically, neither side lost or gained anything from the debates from those two and comedians just waiting to cash in on terrible sound bites left empty handed.To the Left, conservative = neanderthal. Whadda you expect from Them.

[badger]

To the Left, conservative = neanderthal. Whadda you expect from Them.

One of the ways I can out-nice most Republicans here is to be as neutral as possible in these discussions or try to see things from the other side's perspective. :)

[okie52]

One of the ways I can out-nice most Republicans here is to be as neutral as possible in these discussions or try to see things from the other side's perspective. :)

So how does that work for you at home?

[badger]

So how does that work for you at home?

NP wouldn't even vote if I didn't tell him that an election was coming up. Hell, he didn't even register to vote till I got the form for him, hehe.

During the last city election, when they uber-worded a bunch of confusing sh!t out about city elections, I laid everything out in layman's terms: This is whether or not you want city council seats to be partisan. This is whether you want city council seats to be up for election every other year or staggered. This one will likely get overturned in court because it will result in minority districts likely having less representation. This one makes councilor terms longer, but adds term limits.

I don't tell him how to vote, but I do try to encourage voting itself. I think it's a good policy, even if you know the person you're encouraging has different political ideas.

[okie52]

NP wouldn't even vote if I didn't tell him that an election was coming up. Hell, he didn't even register to vote till I got the form for him, hehe.

During the last city election, when they uber-worded a bunch of confusing sh!t out about city elections, I laid everything out in layman's terms: This is whether or not you want city council seats to be partisan. This is whether you want city council seats to be up for election every other year or staggered. This one will likely get overturned in court because it will result in minority districts likely having less representation. This one makes councilor terms longer, but adds term limits.

I don't tell him how to vote, but I do try to encourage voting itself. I think it's a good policy, even if you know the person you're encouraging has different political ideas.

Ooops. I thought you were married to SP.

[badger]

Ooops. I thought you were married to SP.

SP... sorry, don't know what that stands for. NP = NormanPride, in case anyone was wondering. Our five-year anniversary will be next month :)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...I do try to encourage voting itself. I think it's a good policy, even if you know the person you're encouraging has different political ideas.You believe in moral and intellectual equivalence of Right and Left?

[okie52]

SP... sorry, don't know what that stands for. NP = NormanPride, in case anyone was wondering. Our five-year anniversary will be next month :)

SoonerPride.

[pphilfran]

One of the ways I can out-nice most Republicans here is to be as neutral as possible in these discussions or try to see things from the other side's perspective. :)

You are just smart enough to not jump into the muck with the rest of us fools...

[badger]

You believe in moral equivalence of Right and Left?

I think (I am careful to not interchange "believe" "feel" and "think") that those encouraged to vote will be more engaged in the issues rather than the partisan side of politics.

In a nutshell, who cares about the "R" and "D" behind your name. Take real issues (like gas prices) and see which candidate's ideas and track record will help you personally, or for what you think will be the greater good locally, statewide, nationally, internationally, etc.


You are just smart enough to not jump into the muck with the rest of us fools...

Truthiness behind this statement, yes :) For those of you that don't know the story behind my current avatar, ex-Sooner standout Nic Narris engaged in a radio argument with WWLS' resident fatty buffoon Jim Traber. I love you Nic, but when you argue with someone as idiotic and obnoxious as Traber, it's a lose-lose situation. :(

[Bourbon St Sooner]

As usual, I won't be voting for any incumbents this election cycle so, no it won't affect my vote. That includes my bought and paid for d-bag Repub Congressman. I've only voted for 1 incumbent the last 4 years, and that was Bobby Jindal.

Oh, gas here is $3.65 last I saw.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think (I am careful to not interchange "believe" "feel" and "think") that those encouraged to vote will be more engaged in the issues rather than the partisan side of politics.

In a nutshell, who cares about the "R" and "D" behind your name. :(It's not the R and D that count. It's the R and L that matter, IMHO. Unfortunately nowadays, the entire D is hopelessly L, and some of the Repubs, too, of course.

[diverdog]

NP wouldn't even vote if I didn't tell him that an election was coming up. Hell, he didn't even register to vote till I got the form for him, hehe.

During the last city election, when they uber-worded a bunch of confusing sh!t out about city elections, I laid everything out in layman's terms: This is whether or not you want city council seats to be partisan. This is whether you want city council seats to be up for election every other year or staggered. This one will likely get overturned in court because it will result in minority districts likely having less representation. This one makes councilor terms longer, but adds term limits.

I don't tell him how to vote, but I do try to encourage voting itself. I think it's a good policy, even if you know the person you're encouraging has different political ideas.

So you have a bumper sticker that reads: "All men are idiots and I married their King!"?

[badger]

So you have a bumper sticker that reads: "All men are idiots and I married their King!"?

Every week a womens group meets at my church and it seems like more and more they're all griping about their men and it kind of makes me sad. It's like... but I love my dear husband and I don't want to talk badly about him, especially when he's not around to defend himself! So usually, I'm just sitting there quietly when yet another story of leaving laundry undone gets brought up or something.

EDIT: So, no, I don't have any such bumper sticker, nor do I plan to get one.

[AlboSooner]

Energy independence is an impossibility. All we can do is mitigate our dependence upon foreign oil to some extent.

Someone forgot to tell Brazil.

[Skysooner]

Someone forgot to tell Brazil.

I wasn't talking about Brazil or a number of countries that are energy independent. I was addressing the USA, and our current situation. With radical changes in demand, sure we could be energy independent. There is a real problem here though. I have spent a large amount of time studying strictly the supply side of the curve for both natural gas and now emerging liquids plays. It is a practical impossibility to drill our own domestic supplies and achieve energy independence in crude oil. We are vastly oversupplied with natural gas which we have been energy independent on for quite some time. Even though we import natural gas from Canada, this is not a failure of the US side. We have close to 200 years supply of natural gas with current technology and about 20 years of that costs almost nothing to produce due to liquids. The big problem is simply the ability to bring large amounts of oil reserves online in a short amount of time to offset high first year declines that are in the 70-90% range for oil shales.

Okie52 is right in that if we opened up all the coastlines to domestic production, we might in 10-15 years achieve energy independence if we could have unconstrained rigs, manpower and no hindrance from politics, etc. However the largest reserves are in places it takes many years from taking seismic to getting permits, to drilling, pipelines, etc.

As far as me being "for" a President that has shown disdain for the oil industry. Bush was supposedly a pro-oil guy, and he didn't do much if anything either. Our company studies the political situation in great detail, and we were fine with either McCain or Obama the last time out (Obama was only slightly better). We will see what the 'Pubs give us in terms of a candidate.

As for the OP and gas prices affecting my vote. No, it won't in the least.

[pphilfran]

Sky, by using multiple strategies we could reduce our dependence dramatically...it might take a decade or two but it could be done...a few statements but mostly questions:

New drilling techniques have allowed US crude production to increase since 2009...is it possible that the current slightly higher production totals could be achieved over the next 10 years? No drop or increase, just stay at current levels...

Could NG production take the place of 10% of use fuel needs? 20% maybe? Can we sustain the current drilling pace for 10 years?

How much will NG prices be affected by the increased demand due to fuel usage? If they climbed 50% would they still be competitive with gasoline/diesel?

Both gas and diesel usage are off by more than 10% due to the recession....both trends were flattening prior to the recession...higher future fuel costs will limit miles driven and push for more efficient vehicles...I could see a slight decline in the use of vehicle total fuel over the next 10 years...

So...

Keep crude production at current levels
Increase ng and take over 10-20% of the gasoline/diesel market
Decrease in overall fuel usage by 10%...

That would get us damn close in 10 years...I think they are all achievable, though getting 20% of the gas market to ng within 10 years would be a stretch....

[OULenexaman]

I thought the Bakken Shale discovery was our road to being energy independent. It's busy but seems slow to getting us going at this point.

http://oilshalegas.com/bakkenshale.html

[sappstuf]

You guys have not not been paying attention. And for those that say Obama does not have an energy plan, prepare to eat crow! Obama has it all figured out..


We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae — you’ve got a bunch of algae out here. If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright. Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.

So let me recap Obama's energy policy:

1. Grow algae
2. Gather algae
3. ?????
4. Energy independence!!

[OULenexaman]

makes sense....algae is green.

[Petro-Sooner]

No.

[okie52]

I wasn't talking about Brazil or a number of countries that are energy independent. I was addressing the USA, and our current situation. With radical changes in demand, sure we could be energy independent. There is a real problem here though. I have spent a large amount of time studying strictly the supply side of the curve for both natural gas and now emerging liquids plays. It is a practical impossibility to drill our own domestic supplies and achieve energy independence in crude oil. We are vastly oversupplied with natural gas which we have been energy independent on for quite some time. Even though we import natural gas from Canada, this is not a failure of the US side. We have close to 200 years supply of natural gas with current technology and about 20 years of that costs almost nothing to produce due to liquids. The big problem is simply the ability to bring large amounts of oil reserves online in a short amount of time to offset high first year declines that are in the 70-90% range for oil shales.

Okie52 is right in that if we opened up all the coastlines to domestic production, we might in 10-15 years achieve energy independence if we could have unconstrained rigs, manpower and no hindrance from politics, etc. However the largest reserves are in places it takes many years from taking seismic to getting permits, to drilling, pipelines, etc.

As far as me being "for" a President that has shown disdain for the oil industry. Bush was supposedly a pro-oil guy, and he didn't do much if anything either. Our company studies the political situation in great detail, and we were fine with either McCain or Obama the last time out (Obama was only slightly better). We will see what the 'Pubs give us in terms of a candidate.

As for the OP and gas prices affecting my vote. No, it won't in the least.

Sky, I hate to seem overly critical of a fellow oily but I am flabbergasted that your company arrived at the decision that Obama was slightly better than McCain for Oil and Gas. His campaign statements alone should have been enough for an oily to take cover.

But let's start with W. You didn't think he did much for oil and gas when he was Prez. Well, what was he supposed to do? If you have been into pricing then you know oil and/or NG really didn't start to spike until late 2005 following Katrina. I can remember doing a due diligence at the time Katrina hit and oil moved from $55 a barrel to almost $80. He11, we could have stopped the due diligence right then and there because the shift in price had already covered the $4,000,000 basket we had for the project. The Bakken was really the 1st "oil play" to use the new drilling and fracking techniques and that was in 2005. That left Bush with about 1 year to do anything because a dem congress was put in place in late 2006. Bush had no options on offshore drilling because the congressional moratorium was in place and wouldn't expire until 2008 so removing the executive ban would have been pointless. Once the congressional ban was going to expire (with a dem congress cowing to public pressure in an election year) W removed the executive ban. That's open coastlines for the 1st time in over 30 years. For the Pacific it was over 40 years. That should have been one of the most significant events for oil and gas in the last 50 years.

Sadly, it hasn't been crap with Obama. Obama stated he was against offshore drilling. Then he mitigated it late in the election year to "some" offshore drilling. He certainly campaigned for cap and trade, a windfall profits tax, and removing oil company writeoffs. Just where did your company find a "slight advantage" to Obama over McCain on oil and gas? The only area where Obama hasn't really tried to punish oil and gas (so far) is with his windfall profits tax....but that was probably due to the fact that in his 1st few months in office oil had dropped to $33 a barrel and Obama was going to set the windfall profits tax threshold at $80 a barrel. He certainly has continued to pursue removing tax breaks for oil and gas and, as I said earlier, did get a unilateral cap and trade bill passed in the house, and he shut down the coasts. Do you guys still think it was just rhetoric?

Maybe you saw a thread earlier about Harold Hamm's conversation with Obama or what he thinks of the regulations that Obama's administration and/or the EPA are using in the Bakken. Obama's campaign promise was to remove the red tape in the Bakken, Haynesville, and Barnett fields. Do you think Hamm thinks he has done that? Hamm also was telling Obama that the new oil discoveries in the US were huge and could signficantly reduce our oil imports. Obama just told Hamm that "oil and gas would be important for a few years but "Chu" has promised him an electric car that will get 130 mpg in 5 years".

Aubrey McClendon has been trying for over a year to get a meeting with Obama. But Obama is just too busy to meet with him. You would think that with Obama's recent epiphany on NG that he would find time during one of his vacations to meet with the largest independent producer of NG. Nope, can't quite seem to fit him in. You would also think Obama would be interested in Aubrey's (and TBoone's) $1,000,000,000 investment to develop distribution points for NG to be utilized in transportation. You know, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and provide a much cleaner fuel source. Your company should be very appreciative of Aubrey and TBoone trying to create additonal markets for NG particularly given NG's depressed prices. And they should note those that seek to harm ng.

In 3 years not one effort by Obama of any consequence to move any of the transportaton sector to NG.

Then you have the incredible hypocrisy of Obama's pawns like Waxman and Markey. These are the same guys that sponsored and passed the unilateral house cap and trade bill....you know, the one that sought to punish NG while rewarding ethanol and mandating its use and inclusion as a favored fuel source. The bill didn't require any other country to abide by its requirements for US producers and/or US businesses but was going to tax NG based on some arbitrary carbon count. So all US producers and businesses would have been subject to articially higher energy costs and would have found competition in the global economy even more difficult. But, not to be outdone in their pursuit of energy idiocy, Markey then proposes to restrict LNG sales to only the US because of "our economic advantage" by using NG/LNG. These stooges are doing this at Obama's bidding. And your company still sees this as rhetoric?

I don't know who you use to evaluate candidates but I'm pretty sure it isn't McClendon, Nichols, Pickens, or Hamm. Maybe your guy should give them a call.

[Skysooner]

The new drilling techniques are primarily the horizontal drilling/completion of liquids rich source rocks or tight reservoirs. Basically, yes the totals should increase as the rigs are all moving to these plays. Oil/NGL is going to stay high for the immediate future due to increased world demand. This means that the capital will be going to liquids plays.

Unfortunately or fortunately (depending upon your outlook), straight NG drilling will dry up. We foresee sub $3.50 gas until at least 2014 and maybe beyond. NG associated with these liquids plays is essentially produced free and this will more than make up for declines from other wells.

NG prices won't be affected a bit. Unfortunately we are way outstripping demand. The only real demand growth is in the replacement of coal-fired plants which usually takes place below a $3.50/mmbtu price. Fuel demand would add a few BCF/day to the demand curve, but it isn't going to be quick since the cars are more expensive. There aren't enough natural gas stations to do more than have people in certain urban areas use them, and people don't like to have to drive out of the way for their fuel. DFW only has 5 stations, and they are all for commercial use right now. Now in 10 years that can obviously change big time.

We have tons of NG and with proper infrastructure development, the cars increased cost should be more than offset by the lower cost to operate. Even if natural gas prices rise and rigs shift back into drilling dry natural gas, the price will drive back down again. My company was 98% natural gas prior to mid last year. We have shifted 90% of our capital (or roughly $2.4 billion) into straight liquids plays at this point. It is going to be an interesting ride.

Multiple strategies is the only way we ever get energy independent.

[Skysooner]

Answering this last thread. The evaluation was made prior to the election. We have a big presence in Washington and some very politically astute people in the company. We are one of the largest producers of natural gas in North America (much bigger than Chesapeake). I only minimally listen to politics anymore as it just bores me in general. Give me my data and my models (Heidi Klum anyone), and I'm set. I have no idea what the new evaluation will be prior to the next election. I suspect Romney will get slightly better marks. My company definitely pushes natural gas driven cars. We have a fleet that we can borrow and drive around to advertise, etc. I know we have had some internal memos that are very against the loss of IDC (which would shift to a depletion effect rather than same year depreciation). Still we aren't very worried. Money runs DC, and there is a lot of oil money flowing into political coffers. It doesn't seem fair to me at times, but I'm also happy that while we are a "pariah" much of the rhetoric is just that. The thing that could really hurt us would be an across the board fracking ban, but honestly that would push him out of office so fast his head would spin. Also any ban wouldn't have effect on anything but offshore and federal acreage. The other areas would be fought in the courts, and it is my guess the EPA would lose.

[okie52]

The new drilling techniques are primarily the horizontal drilling/completion of liquids rich source rocks or tight reservoirs. Basically, yes the totals should increase as the rigs are all moving to these plays. Oil/NGL is going to stay high for the immediate future due to increased world demand. This means that the capital will be going to liquids plays.

Unfortunately or fortunately (depending upon your outlook), straight NG drilling will dry up. We foresee sub $3.50 gas until at least 2014 and maybe beyond. NG associated with these liquids plays is essentially produced free and this will more than make up for declines from other wells.

NG prices won't be affected a bit. Unfortunately we are way outstripping demand. The only real demand growth is in the replacement of coal-fired plants which usually takes place below a $3.50/mmbtu price. Fuel demand would add a few BCF/day to the demand curve, but it isn't going to be quick since the cars are more expensive. There aren't enough natural gas stations to do more than have people in certain urban areas use them, and people don't like to have to drive out of the way for their fuel. DFW only has 5 stations, and they are all for commercial use right now. Now in 10 years that can obviously change big time.

We have tons of NG and with proper infrastructure development, the cars increased cost should be more than offset by the lower cost to operate. Even if natural gas prices rise and rigs shift back into drilling dry natural gas, the price will drive back down again. My company was 98% natural gas prior to mid last year. We have shifted 90% of our capital (or roughly $2.4 billion) into straight liquids plays at this point. It is going to be an interesting ride.

Multiple strategies is the only way we ever get energy independent.

Most of the ng companies have moved away from drilling ng unless it is to save acreage. Even that strategy is under review with sub $2.50 MCF prices.

There is really no reason for ng cars to cost more than regular autos once they are mass produced. Many countries are already there. Ironically, Iran has 70% of its autos on NG.

But should a large portion of the transportation sector move to NG then prices would go up. But it won't be overnight. Aubrey's/T Boones plan is to start with trucking...probably a wise approach.

[okie52]

Answering this last thread. The evaluation was made prior to the election. We have a big presence in Washington and some very politically astute people in the company. We are one of the largest producers of natural gas in North America (much bigger than Chesapeake). I only minimally listen to politics anymore as it just bores me in general. Give me my data and my models (Heidi Klum anyone), and I'm set. I have no idea what the new evaluation will be prior to the next election. I suspect Romney will get slightly better marks. My company definitely pushes natural gas driven cars. We have a fleet that we can borrow and drive around to advertise, etc. I know we have had some internal memos that are very against the loss of IDC (which would shift to a depletion effect rather than same year depreciation). Still we aren't very worried. Money runs DC, and there is a lot of oil money flowing into political coffers. It doesn't seem fair to me at times, but I'm also happy that while we are a "pariah" much of the rhetoric is just that. The thing that could really hurt us would be an across the board fracking ban, but honestly that would push him out of office so fast his head would spin. Also any ban wouldn't have effect on anything but offshore and federal acreage. The other areas would be fought in the courts, and it is my guess the EPA would lose.

You must be a Canadian firm because the only ones I see bigger in the US than Chesapeake are B P, Anadarko and EXXon on NG.

Again, I don't know who you're politically astute people are in DC but I would still like to hear their logic on Obama being better on Oil and Gas than McCain. Maybe they were just addressing it from your company's perspective but it would be hard to defend it from a national one. Of course, they may just be a bunch of Kaisers and it really didn't matter what Obama said or did they were going to like him anyway.

From a national perspective, open coasts should make a huge difference.

[okie52]

More about Obama's treachery:


Bill Clinton: Offshore Drilling Delays 'Ridiculous'
Friday, 11 Mar 2011 07:00 PM


Delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous” at a time when the economy is still rebuilding, former President Bill Clinton told attendees Friday at the IHS CERAWeek conference. Clinton spoke on a panel with former President George W. Bush that was closed to the media, Politico reported. There also was no video of the event.

Still, there were several attendees who confirmed to Politico that Clinton agreed with Bush on many oil and gas issues, including criticism of delays in permitting offshore since last year’s Gulf of Mexico spill.

“Bush said all the things you’d expect him to say” on oil and gas issues, said Jim Noe, senior vice president at Hercules Offshore and executive director of the pro-drilling Shallow Water Energy Security Coalition. But Clinton added, “You’d be surprised to know that I agree with all that,” according to Noe and others attending the conference who talked to Politico.

Clinton said there are “ridiculous delays in permitting when our economy doesn’t need it,” according to Noe and others.

Both Clinton and Bush agreed on the need to get offshore drilling workers back on the job. They also agreed on the need for more domestic shale gas production, with Clinton noting that it has been done safely for years in his home state of Arkansas.


© Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Read more on Newsmax.com: Bill Clinton: Offshore Drilling Delays 'Ridiculous'
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

[Skysooner]

You must be a Canadian firm because the only ones I see bigger in the US than Chesapeake are B P, Anadarko and EXXon on NG.

Again, I don't know who you're politically astute people are in DC but I would still like to hear their logic on Obama being better on Oil and Gas than McCain. Maybe they were just addressing it from your company's perspective but it would be hard to defend it from a national one. Of course, they may just be a bunch of Kaisers and it really didn't matter what Obama said or did they were going to like him anyway.

From a national perspective, open coasts should make a huge difference.

Yes a Canadian company although I'm with the US Division which spend more of the money. I only hear what is going on from meetings they hold internally. I have moved up in the organizational chain a bunch since the last time out, so I should hear more this time. I just remember they said it was about even between both and if they had to say slightly one way or another it was Obama at the time.

There are zero dry gas plays that make sense at $2.50 (at least tight gas and unconventional which is all we drill). Unfortunately all the associated gas from liquids is going to flatten the supply curve which will keep NG low for a while. I agree on mass-produced cars. The big issue right now is the distance a NG car can go (200-400 miles depending upon the size of the tank etc) and primarily natural gas infrastructure which is almost non-existent outside of certain metro areas and transportation corridors. We have made a push to get natural gas chains pushed on major interstates for the semi traffic. The big issue with natural gas is the compression required. You need a dedicated structure to do that when out. However if you are primarily in a city it isn't bad since you can retrofit a compressor in your garage tied to the natural gas line that can fill the car over a few hour period. The service stations are just as fast as regular gasoline.

We don't really care about the offshore environment since we have only one offshore project and it is in Nova Scotia.

[okie52]

Yes a Canadian company although I'm with the US Division which spend more of the money. I only hear what is going on from meetings they hold internally. I have moved up in the organizational chain a bunch since the last time out, so I should hear more this time. I just remember they said it was about even between both and if they had to say slightly one way or another it was Obama at the time.

There are zero dry gas plays that make sense at $2.50 (at least tight gas and unconventional which is all we drill). Unfortunately all the associated gas from liquids is going to flatten the supply curve which will keep NG low for a while. I agree on mass-produced cars. The big issue right now is the distance a NG car can go (200-400 miles depending upon the size of the tank etc) and primarily natural gas infrastructure which is almost non-existent outside of certain metro areas and transportation corridors. We have made a push to get natural gas chains pushed on major interstates for the semi traffic. The big issue with natural gas is the compression required. You need a dedicated structure to do that when out. However if you are primarily in a city it isn't bad since you can retrofit a compressor in your garage tied to the natural gas line that can fill the car over a few hour period. The service stations are just as fast as regular gasoline.

We don't really care about the offshore environment since we have only one offshore project and it is in Nova Scotia.

You're right about the gas plays as evidenced by Chesapeake's announcement they won't be drilling them for a while.

There was a company that went bankrupt that was providing home rapid fill ng for cars. I can't remember their name though.

As I understand it due to compression characteristics of NG the tanks have to be cylindrical in design and therefore are hard to fit to cars to give them the same range as gasoline vehicles. I assume this would be easier for trucks, however. Either way the network is a must for ng to catch on nationally.

If you are in the next political meetings please tell your guys there are more than a few "okies" that think Obama is horrible on energy.

[Skysooner]

Above my pay grade unfortunately and all of that occurs in Calgary. We did see some statistics today on the displacement of coal-fired electricity plants that should add 4-8 BCF/day in demand in the next 5 years. You are completely right about the natural gas tanks. They take up almost all of the trunk space which makes retrofits less good. They can kind of design them in when it is a new vehicle.

I know all about the gas plays. My role is assessing of every liquid and natural gas play in North America to determine the marginal cost of supply (or the price needed to break even). We have natural gas play that works at these prices and only due to wringing every last dollar of cost savings. We have gone from 20 rigs in that play to 2 in about 8 months so that should tell you something.

[okie52]

Above my pay grade unfortunately and all of that occurs in Calgary. We did see some statistics today on the displacement of coal-fired electricity plants that should add 4-8 BCF/day in demand in the next 5 years. You are completely right about the natural gas tanks. They take up almost all of the trunk space which makes retrofits less good. They can kind of design them in when it is a new vehicle.

I know all about the gas plays. My role is assessing of every liquid and natural gas play in North America to determine the marginal cost of supply (or the price needed to break even). We have natural gas play that works at these prices and only due to wringing every last dollar of cost savings. We have gone from 20 rigs in that play to 2 in about 8 months so that should tell you something.

Luckily for many of us oilies there were oil plays to switch our rigs and exploration efforts to.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

OK, here is a post by my cousin on Facebook:



Since it costs me $60+ yesterday to fill up......


I want the United States of America back. I want freedom back. I don't want socialism. I didn't vote for Obama. I will never vote for him. He doesn't know how to be president. Please everyone vote the guy out of office.

What makes me even sicker is he gets a pension for the rest of his live and secret service for the rest of his life? Tha...t's my $$$$$$$$$.

I paid into Social Security when I first started working. My husband has paid into Social Security but because I am a teacher and will retire through Texas Teacher's Retirement System, I will not be eligible for my husband's Social Security. Believe me Texas Teacher Retirement is not even half of my current pay. This is a royal rip-off. How come the common people who work hard get it put to them everytime?

But if I read this correctly, the price of gasoline will not affect her vote.

[yermom]

she wants her husband's social security? and she doesn't have to pay into it??

[SoonerAtKU]

Somehow, I don't think Obama was getting her vote even if he pumped her gas for her.

And no, that's not a euphemism in this instance.