So what is the problem?

Ok I just needed to get this off my chest... Over the past month or so I have read numerous articles/posts, heard politicians deliver speeches and heard Television "News" dismissing the idea of opening up more offshore drilling as "just a stop-gap measure". First it was the flat out lies about it taking ten years before any of these blocks would be drilled and thirty years before these measure would affect gasoline prices, now it is just a stop-gap measure and hence is a foolish endeavor. My question is "so what is the problem?" No, opening up offshore drilling is not going to solve our country's energy needs, be an environmentally perfect "alternative fuel", or completely absolve us of any dependence on foreign oil suppliers. No one says it will. But it can help. Recently we have all been suffering from sticker shock of the high oil and gasoline prices, but those with less flexible finances have suffered much, much more. Opening up more offshore US drilling blocks would help them immediately. As most of us know oil price, like that of any other commodity (gold, oranges, etc, etc), is based on not only strict supply/demand economics, but also speculation on how that will change in the future. Therefore if the US government voted to open up more offshore drilling blocks it would have an almost immediate impact on the oil price, and shortly afterwards the gasoline prices. No, it would not be a perfect long-term solution but it would be a stop-gap measure that would help alleviate suffering right now and would cost the US Government nothing. We spend millions and millions of dollars on imperfect solutions and stop-gap measures such as medicare and wellfare that are not the final solution but help those in need right now. So why not take similar action for this problem especially if it is free? While opening up more offshore US drilling blocks is not a prefect environmental solution, it can help there too. US and foreign companies are going to spend money, time and manpower exploring for oil. By allowing some of this time and investment to happen within the US (or US waters) we force these companies to follow strict environmental rules and regulations. Very strict, in fact, compared to the environmental rules and regulations these companies will face in most other parts of the world. If there are environmental regulations there at all. So by keeping some of the exploration and production under our control we are actually helping ensure less global pollution and environmental impact. At some point in time fossil fuels and hydrocarbons will have to be replaced as primary energy sources. However, in 2008 we are not even close to being there yet. We are going to continue to explore for, produce and use hydrocarbons as our primary energy source at least for the near future. Why not make the choices that help cause the least environmental damage right now? Lastly the amount of oil we will produce from these additional offshore blocks is never going to end all dependence on foreign oil. There is no chance. Not even close. But it will 100% for sure reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and both political parties agree that is a good thing. I am sure there are some viable draw-backs to opening up more offshore US drilling blocks, all I am saying is that I have not heard any of them yet. By refusing to even allow debate and a vote on this issue in Congress, slamming it with nonsensical arguments, and ignoring it as a viable course of action our government and our media are selling this country short and short-changing the people they are supposed to be working for. Fileitunder is a pretty conservative blog and usually are pretty pro-Republican, anti-Democrat with most of our posts. However this issue should not be a partisan issue at all. It is not adding to or removing government bureaucracies or expenses and is not a battle of human rights versus public or human safety. It fits both parties goals, as it helps increase the free-market economic base and also would add millions of tax dollars that could be used to help fund government programs to help our people. So what is the problem?

Here's this year's #1 election issue

Ok, everyone and their dog has asked me about the price of gasoline. Knowing that I'm in oil and gas they assume that I have the inside scoop on what's happening. I always tell them "It's going to go up." It's not news that anyone wants to hear but it's the truth. It's a limited resource, we get from other people and more people are using it. It's the classical case of supply and demand. No matter what else is said, that's the long and short of it. Worse yet, our country hasn't had a comprehensive plan for dealing with energy. For lack of a better point, we simply haven't had leadership that was willing to make a stance when things were stable. It's only when there is a problem that the government was willing to react, prior to that they followed the government plan of throwing money at it in the hopes that it will fall of the public radar. Well, the problem is here now and on the public radar in a big way. Both McCain and Obama are way off base when they present the options that America has. I don't fault them for it because neither has experience with energy. However, someone who has a lot of experience has stepped up and drawn out a pretty good plan. This morning T Boone Pickens was on Squawk Box touting his energy plan. He's rolled out a national effort, he's funding by himself, to encourage the government to change the way we use our energy. Best of all, the plan makes a lot of sense, it's better for the enviroment, it keeps more money in the US, it uses American fuel to create American jobs, it encourages clean energy research and it's bipartisan. The link for his website is www.pickensplan.com. or you can follow the button. Critically speaking, I see no downside to this and we've got to get off our tail and do something.

Democrat sponored bill: Let's raise gas prices!

Amidst all of the moaning and groaning of high gasoline prices, the doomsday sayers telling anyone who'll listen how $200 oil prices will kill us all, many of the Democrats in the Senate are trying raise gas prices. That is right, they are trying to push a bill through that would require many refineries to purchase pollution allowances, be overhauled, or shut down. Of course these costs will be directly paid for by the consumer in their gas price, and these same Democrats will yell even louder about the conspiracy between Republicans and "Big Oil" to raise global oil prices. Once again I wonder if they just don't bother to look at the effects of the legislation they propose, don't really care, or just expect these bills to either get blocked in Congress or vetoed by Bush so they can yell about the Republicans being the bad guys. There is a great disturbance in the force.

$5.13 per gallon ...

Quit yer bitchin'.

Gasoline Prices and you

Over at Scribal Terror a question was posed about gasoline prices. In fact here is that very question: OK science and industry experts, help me out here... Subject: Gas Prices How is it that when oil was $101/barrel (per 42 gallons crude= 2.40 gal cost) gas was selling at 2.89/gal (just a few weeks ago..) Now crude has gone to $104/barrel or 2.48/gal cost and gas.. the same gas that was in the Chevron storage tanks a few weeks ago is now selling at 3.49/gal How does .08 increase in cost of crude translate to .60 increase at the pump? (Thats $9 more per fillup in my real world) I am so sick of hearing how Exxon, Shell and the rest aren't responsible for the high gas prices and the fact that they're making the highest corporate profits in world history isn't relevant... These once American companies (or British companies..whatever) have become International Pirates bleeding us into their pockets like some giant omnipotent Nosferatu.. I'm going to vote Obama just to watch a 60's era socialist hippy stick it to their greedy pig at the trough arses like they do to the consumer everyday. Blade IV: Obama Blade versus the vampire Petroleum Nation Working in Oil and Gas for the last 8 years, I find that a lot of people have this question. The good news is that I do have an answer. Actually, I have 2 answers. The first answer is for the person that is mad about gas prices and is really just looking for a person to agree that gas prices are high. Since I pay for my own gas, and I remember that days of 72 cents a gallon, here is answer number 1: "Yeah, man, but what can we do?" This answer works about 90% of the time. The second answer I save for that 10% that want to actually know. Now, depending on the amount of time that I have I can layer on more complexity but here is a readers digest version since I'm a crappy typist. The three largest elements effecting the gasoline prices are refinement, economics and regulation. Not a really sexy list but they're the lynch pins that dictate the price that you see at the pump. Let's start with economics. Here's a neat inside tip of figuring out what the non-speculated cost of oil should be. The calorific equivalent of 1 barrel (bbl) of oil is about 6000 cubic feet of nature gas (6 MCF) So, testing our theory, if gas is currently at $8.23 a MCF the oil should be ($8.23 X 6) $49.38. That is the formula that we work with is doing rough calculations of value of oil and gas reserves. Now, if Friday's Herny Hub gas price was $8.12 a mcf and Nymex oil closed at $92.69 a bbl then how can we explain oil costing $43.97? The answer is speculation on the commodities market. So, if oil cost more then gasoline cost more because refineries have to buy at the elevated price. Most of us know that. However, do most of us know that it takes around 6 barrels of oil to refine one barrel of gasoline? Or do most people know the amount of heavy and light hydrocarbon byproducts that generated in the process? Or do most people know that types and processes used to manage the non-usable products? In most cases, the answer is no and, honestly, why should or would you? This isn't a world most people deal with so the complexities involved aren't normally known but the little things in these processes make a huge difference. That's the nature of refinement. In terms of regulation, let me give a few examples. Do you know the permitting cost for the environmental study to build a new gasoline refinery? It's $1,000,000. You have to pay the government $1,000,000 to submit a environmental impact study for a new site. I point this out as a silly example of the fact that there have been no new refineries built since the 1970's. The reason is that regulation makes them to expensive to build. Likewise, do you know what percentage of your gasoline price is state taxes? Here, go look. After, the federal government gets their 18 cents per gallon then your state takes a cuts. You know what else makes gas cost more? How about the price of additive that they have to add because of state and federal laws? The have to add ethanol and MTBE in different proportions depending on the state they are shipping to. This means that gasoline are processed and refined on a state by state cycle. Ok, so knowing this little bit, and not in drawn out detail, let me give you two scenarios and we'll see which on has higher gasoline. #1. The price of oil is $90 dollars. The date is April 12th. The situation in Iran is stable. Oil production is forecast to be above projections. The stock market is up. You live in Ohio. #2. The price of oil is $99 dollars. The date is April 29th. The situation in Iran is unstable. Oil production is forecast to be below projections. The stock market is down. You live in Alaska. Which would mean a higher gasoline price? Your answer is 1. While #2 has a higher oil price, #1 wins for several reasons. First, the date is just before spring break and the gasoline contracts that were bought on the commodities markets for spring break are higher because the brokers know there will be increased demand. Secondly, Ohio has a higher state tax. They also have ethanol and MTBE mandates but the refining cycle for Ohio has been off for a while at that date so gasoline that is legal to selling Ohio is a little more scarce. So, you can have low oil and high gas prices easily. Add in heating oil generation time, maintaining the factories, pipeline work, shipping issues, hurricanes, supply problems and such and you can swing gasoline prices several cents per gallon a day. Now, I can talk in more depth if needed but the simplest answer to the "big oil is in collusion" theory answer is this: If you had any idea the amount of ego and backstabbing that goes on in this business you'd know that we couldn't cooperate enough to do that if we wanted because there would always be one guy that cut the legs out from under the other guys just to do it. As far as the record profits and Obama part, I'll save that for later. If someone would like to really argue that for substance I'll be willing but I promise you that argument will get ugly. Nice rhetoric is no match for harsh reality and that attitude will lead only to sadness because no matter how magical Hussien Obama seems anything he does will only ding the price of gas and hurt us all. Sorry, but it's a global energy market.

Andrew Leonard, writing in Salon ...

... if you Yankees think you can wave a magic wand and "renegotiate NAFTA" so as to be more beneficial to Americans at the expense of Canada's interests, think again, because we'd be happy to close off the oil spigot and sell our crude, to, oh, I don't know, China. Don't mess with Canada! It's not as though we manufacture much. We mostly sell our natural resources. Besides, I'd miss Home Depot, Walmart and The Olive Garden.

Private Oil and Gas Investing

(For the FIU regulars that come here, let me take an uncommon side step out of my typical persona to post on a topic I've had a few people ask me about.) With the current oil prices near, and tapping $100, I've had a few friends contact me because they have been approached about investing in oil and gas projects. Since they know that I am involved in the industry, they've asked me to look at the various packages they have had submitted to them. However, the question that I always get asked is this: "Do you think I should do it?" typically followed by "Would you do it?" These two questions are the big ones that every investor has to face in asking for advice but understanding the answer in oil and gas investing is a little different. As a result, I will give you my answer to those questions and how I have come to reach them so that you have an idea of how I believe that a successful investor needs to understand that even before you analyse a deal you need an analysis of yourself. To the answer to whether I would invest in a oil and gas deal is always the same ,"No." Now this isn't because the deal is bad or the company is bad or the prospect is bad. They may very well be all top notch. The reason that I can always answer "No" is that at this point in my life I do not have the money to spend on speculative investments. I can't make this point strongly enough but all, I repeat ALL, oil and gas deals are speculative. Period. I don't care if it's shallow, in field drilling. There is a risk every time of complete and total loss of all money raised for drilling, every time. I can't afford, at this point, to put the amount of money needed to partner in a well, into something that has a reasonable chance of netting me $0 return on investment. Understand, before I make people panic and say "I'll never invest in O&G" that the stock market and the like are just as volatile. The difference is that instead of basing your investments potential off of the perceived value of a company as based by accounting statements and economist your basing the potential for hydrocarbon recover off the work of geologist and engineers. There really isn't a drop in professionalism on either side but the simple fact is it cost more to play on our side. As a result, it is cheaper for me to diversify on the stock side of the market. As a result, the key in O&G investing is diversification, both in your over all investments and in your well partnership investments. It's the same as the logic that points out that if you walk in and bet all of your money on one hand of poker you will boom or bust quickly. However, if you only play with money that you can afford to lose and you play several hands you have a better chance for success. So my advice to oil and gas investors, who already know the have the money that they need and can afford to be speculative, is to spread your exposure over the best quality programs that you can find. Don't do one big project, do smaller positions in several projects of various scopes with multiple companies. This allows you to better gauge the programs that you are involved with. Also, be patient. Things in O&G move in spurts of activity. It's a lot of hurry up and wait. This is an additional reason to spread your programs because sometimes a rig timeline gets skewed and drilling gets put off but if you money is working in different places you have a better chance of seeing continued activity and not suffering the emotional roller coaster of waiting on operations. As far as selection of a company to invest with, there are loads to pick from. My company even does private placements, but there are strict restrictions on advertising and I can tell you firsthand that some of the wells we drill don't suit every investor. So let me give you what I would consider the important things to look at in considering a deal or vetting a company. A lot of people want to tout their record and a lot of people will tell you to ask for lists of the company's production or return to the investors. I have to say that I put less confidence in this. I've seen big companies hit a bad streak and hit only 1 out of 10 wells. Sound horrible, right? What if those wells all cost the same and that well they hit nets 20 times it's cost? I've also know of companies who can hit 10 wells in a roll and all produce just enough money that keep them on line but no one makes money. It's too easy to skew the data off of well results besides each project is different for the simple fact it's a different well being drilled. The two biggest things I'd stress checking is the company's standing and the projects strength. If a company is selling interests and it's not through a brokerage that is FINRA then skip it. If they won't submit themselves to the over site of the securities laws in their sales then you might as well move on. The second one is harder to judge but the amount of information you get is a clue. If the company doesn't provide you with logs, maps and production to look over you need to be skeptical. If they do, spend a little money and check the area on sites like Drilling info to see if the production and activity in the area the are representing is indicative of what's really going on. If the investment is sizable enough, hire someone with a background in evaluation to do this for you. (You know, I like my job but if you'll pay significantly I consider quitting to evaluate for you.) While this all seems like a lot of work and worry over an investment, it is. The good thing is that my best argument for why it is worth it goes like this: I know of a well In Lavaca Co, Texas that cost $2.4 million to drill in 2000. It came on at 242 barrels of oil per day and 4.4 million cubic feet of gas per day. As of this month it has produced 235,077 barrels of oil and 5.471 billion cubic feet of gas. Even if the oil and gas prices stayed locked at year 2000 levels that's a total of $5,876,925 in oil and $17,780,750 in natural gas. Of course, oil prices rose from $25 to $94 , today, and from $3.25 per mcf to $8.12, but I think I made my point. There is quite a bit of money to be made if you can afford to invest in it wisely. So, in summary, it's not for everyone. You have to be realistic in what level of exposure and risk you are comfortable with. This is really the strongest factor in answering the question of "should I do this deal?" And once you know that, proper planning on your side can help you minimize loss through an investing strategy and diversification.

The Big One Zero Zero: Ca-Ching

Today, for the first time, oil hit $100 dollars a barrel. What caused today's jump to this historic high? ~ 1st: In Nigeria, bands of armed men invaded Port Harcourt, the center the oil industry Tuesday, attacking two police stations and raiding the lobby of a major hotel ~ 2nd: A surprise fall in manufacturing activity sparked fears of yet another interest rate cut from the Federal Reserve. Interest rate cuts generally cause the dollar to fall - and oil prices rise - as investors bail out of U.S. stocks and bonds and into commodities. ~ 3rd: One trader said word among traders on Wednesday was that Mexico plans to temporarily halt oil exports, although the reason was unclear. The Associated Press reported that several Mexican ports were closed due to rough weather. PEMEX, the Mexican state oil company, could not be immediately reached for comment. ~ 4th: Analysts are expecting the latest government inventory report - set for release Thursday, to show a 1.8 million barrel decline in crude supplies, according to a Dow Jones poll. It would mark the seventh straight week U.S. crude stocks have dropped. So, in summary, oil is up because commodities traders are taking a militia attack in Nigeria, fears of an interest rate cut, a rumor about Mexican oil and an unsubstantiated expectation of US oil inventory to drive speculation. Well allow me to sound a little like Eddie Murphy from "trading places" but what is really happening here is that a bunch of brokers realized that they pissed away too much money over the Christmas holiday, they're worried about the shortfall on their personal income taxes and they are trying to put some numbers on the board to protect their corner offices from the new hires and December graduates. Really, this whole commodities process is about as scientific as reading tea leaves and doing blood auguries. But, by all means let's just toss our hands in the air and panic! $100 dollars a barrel. The end is nigh.

Sometimes I kick antpiles just because I can

One of my favorite scenes of cinema is from Braveheart. Sure that "they can't take our freedom" line is good and he says a lot of romantic stuff to the female lead but my favorite line was a throw away line. His friend calls to William Wallace, after his inspirational speech to the Scots, as he turns his horse out to the center of the field of battle. He says "Where are you going?" And Wallace replies, "I'm going to pick a fight." Well, I'm posting this to pick a fight. Just like Wallace rode out there and delivered stinging insults to taunt the generals into battle let me issue mine. Anyone that tries to "save the planet" is a fool. In fact, anyone that tries to save a species is an even bigger fool. The ebb and flow of popular ecological environmentalism is based off of equal parts of emotion and stupidity. This is evident in the hubris of it's presentation, the blind obedience of method and the willful ignorance of most of it's followers. As a result, it is an armchair pseudo-science that is fostered and manipulated by salesmen and politicians. The presentation of environmentalism to the masses has been marketed with all the sentiment of a Hallmark card in a shiny green envelope. The message underlying the efforts of environmental education to the public are variations of the following: "The earth is interconnected. X is an important thing. Your lifestyle/humans/energy/food/whatever is killing X. Your money can save X so you can be guilt free." The problem is that contrary to the picture that environmentalist paint, not all earth systems cooperative despite however much you give. Additionally, more often than not, it's not a single pressure kills of a species. More often than not, any species near the edge of dying was there for a reason besides us. More often that not, environmentalist never point out the humanistic moral query of consequence: Even if we can save, say the "Horned Owl", is it our place to? Environmentalist always talk about biodiversity as if its a good thing. After all, more types of bug lead to more evolution of bugs. Great. However, what if we save a species that would have died otherwise and then later discover that it spreads cancer? Was there a moral reason to save it? On the counter point, what if we save a bug that would have died otherwise and would have had it's niche replaced with a bug that adapted to fill that niche and in the effort of evolution generated a sting that cures cancer? Once again, was there a moral reason to save it? If the possible ability of the bug doesn't matter then we should be saving anything from our presence because we are part of the biota? If it does matter, then how do we account for the unintended consequences of preservation? Even deeper, who is to say that our efforts to save one species doesn't doom that species if there is an environmental change. Likewise, who is to say that in saving one species that we don't doom another? For that matter, the H-bomb of these questions is this, who is to say that the animal, and even the environment, need some form of salvation from our presence when they have preexisted our presence for billions of years? To say we are morally bound to tinker with life is an arrogance that knows no bounds. Another reason that environmentalism is a fools errand is that it has such a blind obedience to methodology that ignores basic thinking for emotional solutions. A perfect example is the Greenpeace movement and it's save the whales platform. Forgoing the basic question of whether the whales are suited to survive long term, we are struck with the more basic question: Why? Why save the whales? Just because we kill them? Is it because they are a needed component of the food net we are a part of? When asked people typically respond with discussion about the brutality of whaling or how docile and peaceful whales are. Right. Whales may be docile but then so are cows. If docility and the brutality of slaughter are the main reasons why not "save the cows." The reason is that whales, quite simply are foreign and evoke an emotional reaction. Cows are more common and evoke cow paddies. As Denis Leary pointed out, we only save the cute ones.( ahem...9:10 on the video) Additionally, why not save the killer whales? Oh yeah, because they are less cute and more "killer." This brings me to my final point. So many of the people that are clearly concerned with saving the environment are also clearly ignorant of the thing that live within it and their interactions. What they are sure about is that saving the planet is good, or at least it makes them feel good. Despite toxic air and global warming she seems to breath so well on the cold wintry day. Let's look at today's primary scare: CO2 driven global warming. If CO2 causes global warming, by trapping the sun's heat and all it takes is the exhaust from fossil fuel to shift the balance then we need to accept that we are more than likely already dead. Why? Because man made CO2 is just a fraction of total CO2. Most of our CO2 comes from volcanoes. That would suggest that we are just a few eruptions away from tipping the scale too far. But wait, there has been thousands of volcanic eruptions over human history and we are still here. Why? I suggest it's because of the fact that water vapor and CO2 and Sunlight, the three global warming culprits, are also the three things used in photosynthesis. It's called biofeedback and it works because plants can grow pretty fast. Environmentalism is, at it's essence, stupid. It is stupid because it presumes that we can stop change. It is stupid because it believes that we can deny entropy. It is also stupid because it believes that where we are right now is the best it can be, that we won't be forced to evolve by a planet that has a consistent history of forcing evolution and that we can control and predict a systems makeup thousands of years from now with technology that can't reliably predict the weather tomorrow. So why does it persist? It persist because it feels good to think that you are being moral. It persists because it's a wonderful political point to say you are "for the earth" because who really wants to campaign as being "against the earth." It persists because most people don't want to understand the world around them, they just want things to stay the same. And as long as that continues, the Al Gores of this world will continue to whip up fear over a process that very few every truly investigate while he makes investments in the green technologies. I guess that saving the earth is in every body's best interest but some of us profit off of it more than others.

I'm not dead yet

I know I haven't posted in a while but to quote John Lennon in one of his more lucid moments "Life is what happens when you were making other plans." Despite taking less hours, I've had exponentially more work in the ones I have. Additionally, we have had a well that has had almost everything that can go batty do just that. As a result the new guy in charge had to go there to straighten stuff out, thereby leaving me to do a lot of his work, on top of my work, in order to ensure that the well gets down. Does this really sound like a good excuse? I hope so because it all that I really got at the moment. The unintended effet is that over the last few weeks I'm been progressive pulled out of the loop from politics, the news and to a larger degree some well needed pop culture. I mean, for the love of all things irrelevant, I have no idea what Brittany Spears is doing. It's like living in a cave! So, I'll make a little more effort to try to catch up on current events so that I can rant accordingly. In the mea time, fill me in. What did I miss?

Up is Down. Black is White. Dogs and Cats are living togather. Mass Hysteria.

Brace yourself. OK. "Former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for their work to raise awareness about global warming. " WTF!? I mean, really, let's just say it. What the Fuck is that?! You get a Nobel Prize for raising awareness?" Fine...... Here.... Here's some awareness: Global temperature is cyclical. Where's my prize? Oh, I forgot. My "awareness" doesn't have the political clout with the international community because it doesn't say that everything is "America's fault." Well, let let it be said that I'm a poor loser in my race to raise awareness. So let me take a moment to address Al Gore and his buds at the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change directly: "Good Luck" on stopping the earth from changing. I mean it's not like it had a history of doing that before "man" evolved, right? Click the picture and notice something, that global image isn't rotating and no one was burning any fossil fuels some I think some set of scientist are pretty much full of shit when they say that global warming is anthropomorphic. Remember something: When a person that supports abortion tells you that we have to do something "for the children" you can pretty much know that it's not for the children, it's about power. Well the same thing applies here, when someone who uses private jets to fly all over the place and has a house that uses 5 times the energy the average US citizen does comes to you and says that we have to change "for the good of the planet", it's about power. The Nobel Prize became worthless when Arafat won it, Al Gore can barely add to that tarnish. Update: Great! Now he's gonna make a sequel! I found the poster art for it.

Who is Tom Tancredo Anyway?

So I took that Candidate Calculator test that Hoodlumman linked somewhere down below, and this is what I came up with: Your Top Match You planned to vote for Paul. Based on your responses, your top candidate for 2008 is below. Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo (R) 86.67% match Your Other Top Matches You will want to pay close attention to these candidates through election day. View/Hide Other Top Matches California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) - 76.00% Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 76.00% Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 74.67% Middle of the Pack If your top choices aren't in the running, keep an eye on these candidates in 2008. View/Hide Middle of the Pack Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 68.00% Businessman John Cox (R) - 66.67% Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 65.33% Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 63.33% Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 62.67% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 40.00% New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) - 32.00% Delaware Senator Joseph Biden (D) - 24.67% New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 18.67% Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) - 18.67% Bottom of the Barrel You won't be getting on the campaign trail with these candidates anytime soon. View/Hide Bottom of the Barrel Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel (D) - 18.67% Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) - 18.67% Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) - 16.67% Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd (D) - 13.33% Um....yeah..... So, I'm still planning to vote for Rep. Ron Paul. We disagree on Iraq, but I pretty much agree with the guy where it counts most for me. The calculator appears to be broken. Besides, who the hell is Tom Tancredo?

Scoreboard!

Some of our older readers may remember when we had "emo girl" working in our office. To say she was a bad fit to the oil and gas industry would be like saying that putting your goldfish in jello might be bad for it's health. Still, she would consistently argue with me on everything. She was a self professed socialist, Che shirt wearing shell of the hipster beliefs that her friends held and she mimicked. One of our epic debates was over the drilling of ANWR. The pinnacle of the argument was when she exclaimed that "The drilling and the roads and the pipelines were killing the caribou! They are all dying because we are driving them to extinction!" I had countered with "Bull shit, the hell they are! The caribou could care less! Hell, they use them so they can screw in the shade!" Surprisingly, we never reached a common ground. Additionally one of us got fired for getting caught xeroxing her butt, while one of us merely provided copies of that offense to interested parties. However, today I stumbled on this and emailed it to emo girl. I can feel the hate. It's hard being right but it's a burden I'll just have to bear.

Work...!!!

I just got out of a meeting, checked out my email, shoved a sandwich down my throat and went into another meeting. In the mix of all of that I wondered "If Genghis Khan had to consider the insurance implications of mobilization and demobilization costs, infrastructure fabrication costs and projected contingency overruns do you think he would have just stayed home and gone fishing?" I bet so. I know that the guy raped and pillaged his way across the ancient world but I could totally kick his ass before he even started with one good meeting and a few Excel spreadsheets. By the time I was done, he'd be so bummed out that he'd dump his loot in a IRA and decide that his purpose in life was to make pottery in Santa Fe. Genghis Khan is my bitch.

Global Warming: Today's fear mongering moment

Today, the San Francisco Chronicle had a spiffy editorial about how global warming needs to be the political priority of this next election candidates. In that article, they had sweet nuggets of wisdom like "If unchecked, it (global warming) will threaten our national security, stress our economy and degrade our quality of life in so many ways." They also conclude that "Our willingness to confront this unprecedented heating of the planet is a test of our moral obligation to our children and their children." Of course, it's not "unprecedented" but why quibble. Let's carry on. So all of those running for office need to be enviro-warriors because "The world effectively lost eight years in the effort to apply a brake to climate change while the Bush administration slowly evolved from denial to foot dragging in response to a strong scientific consensus that human activity - namely, the consumption of fossil fuels - was putting life on Earth on a collision course with disaster." That's right. I am, to some degree according to the editorial, the reason that we are all going to die. See, not only do I burn fossil fuels in my car but I work for an oil and gas company that finds the fossil fuels to burn in your cars. All of this is because I am failing to fulfill my "moral obligation to our children and their children." Really, we're all little thugish eco-nazis with suvs. After all there is consensus. The scientist have consensus. WTF is our problem? Look at this. Lonnie Thompson, geology professor from Ohio State, showed measurements and photos of shrinking glaciers around the globe to underscore the damage from greenhouse gases. The thawing that has exposed plants and an "iceman" carcass for the first time in 5,200 years is a clear indication that something is terribly amiss, he suggested. Ben Santer, a physicist and atmospheric science at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was ostracized by some members of Congress a decade ago for daring to contribute to the International Panel on Climate Change finding that human activity was probably an influence on global warming. Ten years later, a growing body of evidence has vindicated Santer, and he speaks without fear of political retribution. "We are," he told the editors, "irrevocably changing the climate." The debate is no longer about whether the Earth is warming at a disturbing rate, but by how much. "We're spinning the wheel," Santer said. By 2100, the "most likely scenario" - a 1 in 4 chance - is that planet temperatures would increase by 2 to 2.5 degrees centigrade, he said. Terry Root, a biologist at the Woods Institute for the Environment, said the planet already is "right at the edge of a mass extinction event." There is ample evidence of species changing migration habits and otherwise seeking new habitat because of climate change. If temperatures were to rise more than 4 degrees centigrade by century's end, she said, 40 percent of known species in the world would become extinct. You know, I think at this point we just need to panic and thrash about. I'll lead. "AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" OK... I feel better now. Lets continue. So why shouldn't we all go jump off a cliff? Seriously, let's just go get our kids toss them off high buildings and then jump right after them, right? Well, I guess it's because in global warming they typically forget to tell the whole story. Half the story can be fun, don't get me wrong. In fact, in some Hollywood movies it might be preferable, but sometimes it helps to see the whole story. Sometimes. For example, that "sea levels rising" thing... Yeah that happens. Look at earth history for a sec. It's called Transgression and Regression. Of course, it's not like the earth doesn't change anyway. Click on the picture and look at this. It's a image of the planet of the last couple plus billion years. Take a good look and notice how much it's changed. Notice that there were times with glaciers and without glaciers. There were times with nearly no exposed land and times with a lot of exposed land. then think about this: ALL OF THAT HAPPENED WITHOUT ANY HUMAN INTERFERENCE. I know, freaky isn't it. It's like the planet has systems that function independent of us. It also shows us that just like we weren't in control back then, we aren't in control now and we probably won't be in control any time in the future. Also, there is the fact that humans have been kicking around as homo sapiens for about 10,000 years. That's not a really long track record compared to something like the shark which has been around for about 360 million years. Likewise, scientists normally don't give you the info that 99% of all the species that have ever existed are now extinct. For perspective, let's play a game. I'm going to give you a list: cats, dogs, pigs, chickens, cows, donkeys, spotted owls, whales, bald eagles, otters iguanas, spiders, roaches, ants, carp, geckos, dolphins, meerkats, turtles, hamsters canaries, wolves, salmon, seals, sea lions, manatees, falcons, sparrows, doves, mice sharks, armadillos, geese, ducks, horses, beetles, snakes, worms, termites, rats parrots, quail, humans, grasshoppers, caribou, lice, ticks, mites, crabs, scorpions Ok, there is a list of fifty animals. Pick one type and imagine that all the other ones die. Over time, that's pretty much what happens. Either a life form evolves or it dies. Actually, I doubled the odds of survivorship because I got lazy and only listed 50 but The same thing goes for us. Hey, I'm a giver. Still, either we'll evolve or we'll die out. I know that the whole story isn't as "sexy" and it won't get you on the news as often but these scientist should already know this. However, it's politically, egotistically and financially expedient to omit the whole story and the balance that it provides because it doesn't fit the politics of what the politicians want you to hear. The message they are playing is the same "Pick me because your too stupid to stop this but we can by making rules for you, the stupid people." That might be the case, if what they were saying was totally true. However, it's not. What's worse is that there are hundreds of other things that could wipe out life on this planet in a matter or days, but they don't platform on those because that would cause hysteria. Instead, we'll scare you about a process that takes hundreds of years to raise the ocean leve 7 inches in order to control your life today. A process that we can't stop and don't understand but will tell you that we can prevent despite the fact that stopping the process is totally physically, energetically, biologically, geologically and chemically impossible to control. Pardon me, if I don't drink the kool aide on that one. (BTW, for the creationist: Genesis 9:8-11 "8 Then God told Noah and his sons, 9 “I hereby confirm my covenant with you and your descendants, 10 and with all the animals that were on the boat with you—the birds, the livestock, and all the wild animals—every living creature on earth. 11 Yes, I am confirming my covenant with you. Never again will floodwaters kill all living creatures; never again will a flood destroy the earth.”) So what to do? Here's what you do: Accept that your going to die. No really. I mean it. I can say for a fact that ALL OF YOU WILL DIE with 100% scientific accuracy. Now decide how you want to try to live? If you want to live trying to hold on to the current climate, scared of change, bound in fear then by all means vote for these fear mongers. It won't work but maybe it will make you feel better. I doubt it but who knows. It's like putting a paper bag over your head, it might help. Of course, the other option is to see that the things that we build and the stuff that we learn will probably be our best bet at an answer for how humans can take on the changes of a world that will change anyway and allow us to adapt. In that, we're better off if we understand that the car of today is the horse of yesterday and will probably become a novelty to whatever we develop tomorrow. Or, there's always panic!!!!

Another reason to hate the enviromental alternitive fuel movement

I've alwyas know that the alternitve fuel crowd was full of sketchy chemistry and snake oil salesmen but now they are dealing with thier own problems: Internet driven greasy bastards. A local company has employed for many years a former Texas Ranger and a former Texas cop to track down criminals stealing a valuable substance - restaurant grease. Their job has gotten busier. The rising price of ethanol and increasing popularity of biodiesel fuel have spurred more people to take grease from traps behind restaurants to convert it to biodiesel or sell it on the black market. Cold Spring-based Griffin Industries Inc. employs former Texas Ranger Al Cuellar and former San Antonio cop Larry Findley to work with law enforcement all over the country to curb the thefts that can cost Griffin thousands of dollars each week. The company is an animal rendering and recycling company that renders restaurant grease and either sells it or manufactures it into useful substances, such as biodiesel and animal feed. The company keeps grease containers at many types of restaurants throughout the United States. Robert Griffin, president/CEO of Griffin Industries, wouldn't say how much grease thefts cost the company, but said the crime is increasing. "It has grown everywhere," Griffin said. "Many want to convert it to biodiesel. They think it is there for the taking." Grease thieves will often sneak behind restaurants at night, break the locks on containers and spill grease everywhere, said Findley, who has worked for Griffin Industries for 16 years. Thieves will often make off with 1,500 pounds of grease in one haul and sell it for between 10 and 15 cents a pound, Findley said. Texas and Oklahoma have been the hotbed of grease thieves for most of the past 20 years, Findley said. When Findley started with Griffin 16 years ago, there would be as many as 30 to 40 grease thefts in the Houston area each night. "We would make as much as six arrests in a night," Findley said. As the company and law enforcement made progress in Texas, about two years ago grease thefts started to increase elsewhere in the country, Findley said. A new type of grease thief has emerged in recent years. Average people concerned more about fuel efficiency than the street value of grease have been caught pilfering grease traps, Findley said. Biodiesel conversion kits have encouraged people to steal grease to run their car on it, he said. Many think they are entitled to the grease. "This is a recent phenomenon. These people are the worst kind of thief," Findley said. "They don't know they are stealing. The Internet is replete with how to make this stuff. They have no idea what they are doing." But these people can find themselves behind bars with serious theft charges, Findley said. The damage is both environmental and financial. "Our goal is environmental protection and neatness. Their goal is stealth and speed," Findley said. "They take grease out of containers by dipping it out. They spill the grease all over the place." The cost to restaurants and companies can be thousands of dollars, Findlay said. Few restaurants in Northern Kentucky have fallen victim so far. No members of the Northern Kentucky chapter of the Kentucky Restaurant Association have said they experienced this, said president Ted Vonden Benken. Griffin Industries is working to keep grease thieves away. "They think they can get this stuff," Findley said. "They are stealing from us. It is outright theft. They are causing an environmental risk hazard. They spill stuff all over the parking lot." A travesty, they should know better. Folks, leave the spilling of chemicals to us oil and gas types. For God's sake, we're professional we know what we're doing. (h/t mom)

Rob B: Raising tomorrow's SUV owners

This brought a tear to my eye, man. If you raise them to be oil men, I can recommend a good school.

What we call "not a good day" at work

Here's what happened the last time we let Hood and JR on a well site Here is a dramatic reenactment of the events that led up to that fateful moment.

One more reason to hate those stupid eco-hipsters and their corn cob humping ethanol

The cost of beer has climbed 3 percent over the last year, slightly outpacing the rate of inflation, according to data from the Department of Labor. And the cost of downing a brew at a restaurant or bar jumped 3.8 percent. But the price of beer could see an even larger jump next year. The price of barley, a key ingredient of most beers, has shot up 48 percent over the last 11 months. Since some breweries buy contracts for a year in advance, the increase in barley cost has not affected most beer prices. "We're definitely concerned. We don't want to be in a position where to remain profitable we price our beer out of some consumers. We want to be able to keep our beer affordable," said Doug Odell, founder and brewmaster of Fort Collins-based Odell Brewing Co. Odell said his company's production costs have gone up 10 percent to 15 percent over the last year. Since Odell buys its barley in October for the following year, the jump in its production costs is mostly from increases in the prices of energy and glass, Odell said. The price of barley has escalated drastically, breweries and industry analysts said, in part because of a tighter supply caused by more farmers growing corn. The advent of biofuels - such as E85, which is made of 85 percent corn ethanol - has helped push the price of corn futures up 49 percent since December 2005. "More corn acres were planted this year than at any other time since 1944. Those acres had to come from somewhere," said Nancy Krull, director of marketing for the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, a commodity exchange. Now, I can't speak for the calmer heads around here, but I'm personally going to have to consider issuing a "Beer drinkers fatwa" that terrorist actions against ethanol plants might be a good thing if it keeps beer cheap. If the eco-wussies want to run around in chafing hemp clothes, I could care less. If they want to live in 0 carbon footprint homes made out of mud and recycled newspaper mache thats fine by me. But when they mandate ethanol production that is less chemically efficient, gives crappier gas milage and makes my beer cost more I'm pissed. This may very well mean war. (h/t Mom)

"Imagine what you could get out of the Carp dump ..."

A US company is taking plastics recycling to another level – turning them back into the oil they were made from, and gas. All that is needed, claims Global Resource Corporation (GRC), is a finely tuned microwave and – hey presto! – a mix of materials that were made from oil can be reduced back to oil and combustible gas (and a few leftovers). ...

Wow, just wow.

World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists This is a great read. You should read it all, but I've put some parts in bold that you should pay particular attention to because most of you are as lazy as me.... Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit. BP's Statistical Review of World Energy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once again pushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry. However, scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives. According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of new reserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves. Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: "It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone." It goes on. Basically these scientists from the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre say peak oil will happen sooner and have a more dramatic effect than anyone thinks. Because they work for the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre. And that's their sole job. And if they said there would be no peak oil or that it won't happen for at least a couple decades, they'd be out of a job. Nice. Anyway here's my favorite part... As Dr Campbell explains: "When I was the boss of an oil company I would never tell the truth. It's not part of the game." So let's summarize here... The head of a "Centre" thats sole purpose is to analyze oil depletion and would not have a purpose without an oil depletion crisis, and who is an admitted liar when it is "not part of the game" to tell the truth, says that peak oil will happen sooner than anyone else says it will happen. So how is this news again? This is like reporting a story about a Jiffy Lube guy who is an admitted liar and says you need to pay them to change your air filter, when you just changed it with your last oil change and when he gets a bonus or has a quota for changing air filters. I did like the fact that they could pull some crisis name-dropping and throw in some Global Warming remarks, since that's the most popular global crisis right now. For a little bit there I wasn't sure they were going to be able to squeeze that in, but they got it. I also like the spelling errors throughout their "news". If I had written this, Hoodlumman would have "criticised" me to no end, been very "sceptical" of my writing skill and sold me as "fertilisers" for "aluminium" or "Curveshows". Way to go "The Independent"! Please continue to bring us such informative and helpful news in an unbiased manner.

Our Big Oil plan is unveiled

An actual picture sent in from Kieth. No photoshopping done.

Why does gasoline cost so much?

When I get asked the question "Why does gas cost so much" it means 1 of 2 things. The first is that someone wants to bitch about gas prices. They don't really care why. They just want to bitch. In those cases, I just let them rail away and nod my head in a sagely fashion because I'm not going to try to explain. The more rare second case is that the person wants to know. I'll explain production and economics as much as they care to listen to and as much as I know. In the second case, though, people are normally surprised by things like this: Venezuela pulls control from Big Oil President Hugo Chavez makes an attempt to reclaim resources by taking operational control of the Orinoco Belt. I know that a lot of people look at it and say "Why should we care" or" Well he's just protecting his country's resources." No, actually he's fucking over investors and companies here to make himself rich by jacking the prices and control of a large portion of oil that US and foreign companys found, through legal investment exploration agreements, before he ever took power. His nationalization plan may look good on paper, but when something breaks, and it will, he better hope that he can fix it. Likewise, he better pray that his people have some really gifted geologists, geophysicists, drilling engineers, development engineers, refinement people and support staff because most major companies don't want to trust a deal breaking tyrant. Sure, you may have very little empathy for the big oil companies but as a major exporter of oil to the US, we need to recognize that the erratic behavior of Chavez, like instability in the middle east, is a price affecting agent. Just like driving a car, the flow of oil is only as good as the nut behind the wheel.

A global warming data concept

According to the the most recent views, the earth is 4.6 billion years old (4,600,000,000.) We have what is considered reliable temperature data recorded since 1850, or for the last 157 years. The Vostok Ice cores, in which CO2 and temperature correlations are being made, give us a time window of 220,000 years. So, our temperature data from the last 157 years comprises, approximately, 0.00000000341% of the earth's history. In using the Vostok data, that information covers, approximately, 0.0000478% of the earth's history. To put that into perspective, let me draw a comparison. The Bible has 774,746 words and 3,566,480 letters. To rely on a percentage equivalent to the percentage of temperature recordings we have in biblical interpretation, you would have approximately 0.000026ths of a word to decipher by. In relation to actual letters in the bible, you'd be allowed .00121% of the last letter in the Bible. Using the Vostok percentage with the words in the Bible, you would have the last 37 words. So you could try to figure out the entire manuscript from the words: "...from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. Does that give you an idea? Sure. It does leave a few key concepts of the whole text out, though. My point with all of this is that the media and people in general need to calm the hysteria down a bit and realize that we simply don't know as much about climate change as some people would like to think that we do. Even counting by fossil evidence and rock formations we can go back to about 545 million years to find some level of fossil life, in this case bacteria, but bacteria can live in both incredibly hot and cold environments. The window that they give us on predicting the temperature at that time is way more broad than what can be considered "conclusive" or "reliable." Even at that point, 545 million years is only 11.8% of the earth's history. So why bring this up? Because this election year, global warming is going to be a huge topic on which several politicians will banter about figures and try to divine policy. The problem is that they don't know, for sure, what they think they know, or what they want you to think they know. How can I know that? Because the "experts" in this know that we don't know as much as they are bantering about. Don't believe me? Try this one: In