"Peek a Boo Oil"

[Jim the Moron]

Some basics:
1. Energy self-sufficiency is a good thing. The U.S. can achieve.
2. The ability for companies to market natural gas and oil overseas is a good thing. U.S. companies are doing so.
3. Extracting and marketing fossil fuels creates jobs. It's happening in the U.S.

4. Producing and marketing renewable forms of energy is good for the environment, creates jobs, and is happening outside the U.S....

and in the U.S. All forms of energy production (I'm thinking especially of nuclear) can be good things if done right.

[neverfail]

Some basics:
1. Energy self-sufficiency is a good thing. The U.S. can achieve.

I thought that the US had already achieved that Jim.

Energy self-sufficiency is a good thing only if a country is planning for a long conventional war. The fact that during the Second World War the United States was entirely self-sufficient in crude petroleum was one of its great strengths. By contrast Imperial Japan which had almost no oil production in its home islands was defeated more by the US Navy submarine fleet sinking all of their oil tankers than by the atomic bombs.

By contrast, during times of prolonged peace when oil is traded worldwide it seems to make no difference. The PRC unlike the USA is not a bit self-sufficient in crude petroleum yet its annual rate of economic growth has for decades put America's to shame.

2. The ability for companies to market natural gas and oil overseas is a good thing. U.S. companies are doing so.

Plenty of companies representing traditional oil and gas exporting countries abroad have been successfully doing that for decades (including my own). It would be astounding if the US lacked this particular knowhow.

3. Extracting and marketing fossil fuels creates jobs and tax revenue. It's happening in the U.S.

The "jobs" are mainly during the developmental phase of oil and gas production and are so few in number in relation to total numbers of people employed in other industries as to make no significant different to the unemployment statistics of a country the demographic size of the USA. Once the development phase is completed those jobs go and the number of employees needed to maintain even a large oil and/or gas field in full production are surprisingly few (which is what helps make oil and gas production such a lucrative money earner to the owners of oil and gas wells).

[Jim the Moron]

"This study validates the role of the natural gas and oil industry in growing the U.S. economy and supporting more than 10 million workers from coast-to-coast."
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-iss ... -by-natura

1. Energy self-sufficiency is a good thing.
2. The ability for U.S. companies to market natural gas and oil overseas is a good thing.
3. Extracting and marketing fossil fuels creates jobs and tax revenue, which are good things.

Suck on that for awhile . . .

[neverfail]

"This study validates the role of the natural gas and oil industry in growing the U.S. economy and supporting more than 10 million workers from coast-to-coast."
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-iss ... -by-natura

1. Energy self-sufficiency is a good thing.
2. The ability for U.S. companies to market natural gas and oil overseas is a good thing.
3. Extracting and marketing fossil fuels creates jobs and tax revenue, which are good things.

Suck on that for awhile . . .

Regret that I may have offended your pride Jim by pointing out that some countries not blessed with your country's endowment of hydrocarbon energy still often do better in terms of economic growth.

Learning about the truth often has that effect on people. It leaves behind bruised egos.

[Milo]

"This study validates the role of the natural gas and oil industry in growing the U.S. economy and supporting more than 10 million workers from coast-to-coast."
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-iss ... -by-natura

1. Energy self-sufficiency is a good thing.
2. The ability for U.S. companies to market natural gas and oil overseas is a good thing.
3. Extracting and marketing fossil fuels creates jobs and tax revenue, which are good things.

Suck on that for awhile . . .

Suck on the pollution for a while!

[Jim the Moron]

Ah yes. Yet again the US screws up, offending sensitive folks here.

Hopefully, someday, all will be forgiven . . .

[neverfail]

Suck on the pollution for a while!

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s. ... ing-behind

U.S. Leads in Greenhouse Gas Reductions, but Some States Are Falling Behind

Becoming a country whose energy comes primarily from clean, renewable resources is entirely attainable. Several U.S. states, such as Vermont, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, South Dakota, and Maine, are well on their way to becoming almost completely powered by renewable energy. If we want to save our country and planet from the worst consequences of climate change, those states and countries that have not yet tackled their greenhouse gas emissions must learn from those that have.

What else do the above states have in common apart from being well on their way with renewable energy use?

None of them have coal mines.

That might have a lot to do with their success in converting to renewables.

[Doc]

"This study validates the role of the natural gas and oil industry in growing the U.S. economy and supporting more than 10 million workers from coast-to-coast."
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-iss ... -by-natura

1. Energy self-sufficiency is a good thing.
2. The ability for U.S. companies to market natural gas and oil overseas is a good thing.
3. Extracting and marketing fossil fuels creates jobs and tax revenue, which are good things.

Suck on that for awhile . . .

Suck on the pollution for a while!

The US leads the world in reduction of CO2 emissions. That is due to fracking of Natural Gas. The EU has pretty much done nothing that has reduced CO2 emissions That dispite high taxes on Gasoline. While at the same time most of the EU has highly restricted Fracking. Co-incidence?

[Doc]

Suck on the pollution for a while!

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s. ... ing-behind

U.S. Leads in Greenhouse Gas Reductions, but Some States Are Falling Behind

Becoming a country whose energy comes primarily from clean, renewable resources is entirely attainable. Several U.S. states, such as Vermont, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, South Dakota, and Maine, are well on their way to becoming almost completely powered by renewable energy. If we want to save our country and planet from the worst consequences of climate change, those states and countries that have not yet tackled their greenhouse gas emissions must learn from those that have.

What else do the above states have in common apart from being well on their way with renewable energy use?

None of them have coal mines.

That might have a lot to do with their success in converting to renewables.

They all have little in the way of industrial production relative to other states.

[Milo]

"This study validates the role of the natural gas and oil industry in growing the U.S. economy and supporting more than 10 million workers from coast-to-coast."
https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-iss ... -by-natura

1. Energy self-sufficiency is a good thing.
2. The ability for U.S. companies to market natural gas and oil overseas is a good thing.
3. Extracting and marketing fossil fuels creates jobs and tax revenue, which are good things.

Suck on that for awhile . . .

Suck on the pollution for a while!

The US leads the world in reduction of CO2 emissions. That is due to fracking of Natural Gas. The EU has pretty much done nothing that has reduced CO2 emissions That dispite high taxes on Gasoline. While at the same time most of the EU has highly restricted Fracking. Co-incidence?

Yes.

Indeed, the world’s emissions story might have been significantly worse if not for renewables’ strong year. Renewables boasted the highest increase of any energy source, with the United States and China accounting for half of the sector’s growth, IEA reported.

The impact of increased renewable generation was particularly evident in the United States, where emissions fell for the third consecutive year. U.S. carbon emissions were 810 million tons in 2017, IEA reported, a decrease of 0.5 percent from 2017. Renewables and decreased electricity demand were largely responsible, the IEA said.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nt-signed/