patrick.net

Patrick says

This is excellent news. Less dependence on terrorist-funding Saudis, more reliance on ourselves.

Absolutely fantastic news though you wouldn't know it from the leftist Democrat loving propaganda outlets like Now This who have spent the last several years screaming at the top of their lungs how terrible fracking is for the environment (its not, and the propaganda is nearly all lies).

Or imbeciles like these commie buffoons:

www.youtube.com/embed/VfymhAEe-TM

CovfefeButDeadly says

terrible fracking is for the environment

Interestingly, Putin has been funding green groups anti-fracking hysteria: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredit-natural-gas-fracking-635052

Smith and Weber quote sources saying the Russian government has been colluding with environmental groups to circulate “disinformation” and “propaganda” aimed at undermining hydraulic fracturing. Commonly called fracking, the process makes it possible to access natural gas deposits. This anti-fracking campaign seizes upon environmental issues and health concerns that could be used to constrain U.S. drilling and fracking exercises, the letter explains.

Gazprom, a large Russian oil company, stands to benefit if Russian-funded environmental activism results in reduced levels of fracking and natural gas production in the United States, Smith and Weber tell Mnuchin.

Even more interesting, Zerohedge was screaming "FRACKING BAD, WE WILL ALL DIE" a few years ago, making me think that they are Russian stooges.

CovfefeButDeadly says

screaming at the top of their lungs how terrible fracking is for the environment (its not, and the propaganda is nearly all lies).

Funded by Gazprom, btw.

d6rB says

Zerohedge was screaming "FRACKING BAD, WE WILL ALL DIE" a few years ago, making me think that they are Russian stooges.

Gooooood mooooooorning!

DASKAA says

Gooooood mooooooorning!

Not Estonian, so just good morning is enough.
Seriously though many otherwise reasonable US conservatives are fapping at Putin with complete disregard to logic and common sense for reasons unclear to me.

I love these Libby Royalty deluded vomit bombs.CovfefeButDeadly says

Or imbeciles like these commie buffoons:

www.youtube.com/embed/VfymhAEe-TM

How come Yoko wasn't wailing in her Alzheimer's wounded weasel eardrum piercing shrieks? She can frack with her voice alone.

CovfefeButDeadly says

Patrick says

This is excellent news. Less dependence on terrorist-funding Saudis, more reliance on ourselves.

Absolutely fantastic news though you wouldn't know it from the leftist Democrat loving propaganda outlets like Now This who have spent the last several years screaming at the top of their lungs how terrible fracking is for the environment (its not, and the propaganda is nearly all lies).

Extracting oil from the ground is never good for the environment, regardless of which part of the planet it is extracted from. Nevertheless, American oil is better than Saudi oil for all countries except the oil exporters. Saudis and Iran get less money from less exports, and less money due to lower prices caused by us pumping more oil.
Basically, if we must have crude oil, let it be American crude.

TrumpingTits says

And the next time the ME blows up, China, India and Europe will have to send THEIR little darlings over to die in that sandbox. We have no reason to do anything but sit back and sell surplus oil at skyrocketing prices. :)

We should join OPEC.

Just as we were talking about batteries with new technologies, this pops up.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/08/honda-nasa-caltech-claim-fluoride-battery-breakthrough/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29
Honda, NASA, & Caltech Claim Fluoride Battery Breakthrough

Patrick says

likely brief

It's a blip. Annually, the USA imports 20% of consumption.

The USA could become a net exporter if coastal states allowed offshore drilling. We could sell Atlantic oil to Europe and Pacific oil to China. Instead, coastal states prefer to send $$$ to KSA. Part of that results from Petrodollar hypnosis, as both KSA and Russia can support "left" environmentalists in order to keep American production capacity offline.

CovfefeButDeadly says

Or imbeciles like these commie buffoons:

Who don't live in upstate New York, but rather Manhattan, and being Artists/Creatives won't be working at a fracking facility. They don't care about the high unemployment rustbelt up there.

Where did the oil go to?

Patrick says

The U.S. Just Became a Net Oil Exporter for the First Time in 75 Years

Thanks Obama !

Booger says

Where did the oil go to?

Follow the link above, and you'll see where the USA exports to, and why:

Mexico—17%
Canada—13%
China—7%
Brazil—6%
Japan—6%

Oil is about $53 a barrel, and it bottomed last around $34 a barrel back in 2015 (https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=wti).

Oil is down about 30% from its 2018 peak. I suspect if oil at least stays above $50 a barrel, then I suspect a vast majority of American drillers will be profitable.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/072215/can-fracking-survive-60-barrel.asp

"At $120 per barrel, fracking is a very profitable business. At lower prices, companies are forced to weigh the cost of expensive fracking compared to less expensive extraction methods.

The most expensive oil produced in the United States today comes from older wells known as “stripper wells.” These are aging oil and gas wells that only produce a few barrels per day. The maintenance cost on the wells does not decline with oil prices, and these wells become unprofitable around $40 per barrel. Other high-cost oil comes from Canada’s tar sands and the United Kingdom’s North Sea oil fields; these become unprofitable around $30 per barrel and $50 per barrel, respectively.

Fracking is expensive, but still less costly than the methods used to obtain oil from the wells mentioned above. According to Reuters, estimates put the break-even point for fracking at around $50 per barrel, but other estimates put it as low as $30 per barrel. This $30 per barrel figure is much lower than the total cost per barrel more widely published, but there is an important distinction between the estimates that put fracking costs at the $50 per barrel range.

At less than a price point around $50 per barrel, oil and gas companies are less likely to explore and drill for new oil accessible through fracking, but existing operations may still be cash-flow positive. Once the expensive exploration and initial drilling are complete, existing wells can continue to operate and stay cash-flow positive even as prices fall below $50 per barrel. (For more, see: How Fracking Affects Natural Gas Prices.)"

adarmiento says

The most expensive oil produced in the United States today comes from older wells known as “stripper wells.” These are aging oil and gas wells that only produce a few barrels per day. The maintenance cost on the wells does not decline with oil prices, and these wells become unprofitable around $40 per barrel. Other high-cost oil comes from Canada’s tar sands and the United Kingdom’s North Sea oil fields; these become unprofitable around $30 per barrel and $50 per barrel, respectively.

Fracking is expensive, but still less costly than the methods used to obtain oil from the wells mentioned above. According to Reuters, estimates put the break-even point for fracking at around $50 per barrel, but other estimates put it as low as $30 per barrel. This $30 per barrel figure is much lower than the total cost per barrel more widely published, but there is an important distinction between the estimates that put fracking costs at the $50 per barrel range.

The cheapest place to extract oil is in Saudi Arabia. Less than $5.00 per barrel. If oil was to go to $10.00 in the future, the Saudis would be the only ones producing oil. By then we won't want it anyway.

"The cheapest place to extract oil is in Saudi Arabia. Less than $5.00 per barrel. If oil was to go to $10.00 in the future, the Saudis would be the only ones producing oil. By then we won't want it anyway."

Good point, but how would that impact their government spending operations such as social welfare subsidies for their citizens and infrastructure projects ?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2017/11/01/no-imf-saudi-arabia-doesnt-actually-need-70-oil/#ce0f2667ee52

adarmiento says

Good point, but how would that impact their government spending operations such as social welfare subsidies for their citizens and infrastructure projects ?

Saudis don't do much work. They import low level and high level labor from other countries. They import professionals too. Saudis are not well educated with most of their graduate students (some 80%) going for religious studies. It's impossible for a restrictive society like SA to have any progress at all. With their population doubling every 25 years or so, and their income from oil crashing at the same time, they will face an unavoidable severe economic crisis.
The population will never accept a sharp drop in the standard of living they are used to, while the Royalty continues to indulge. I predict a revolution by the SA people where some of the Royalty will be beheaded, just like in the French Revolution. Other Islamic countries will follow suit, and the world will have a dangerous situation on their hands. Eventually, the Saudis and other Islamic countries will have to work and progress like the rest of the world. They will never be able to progress under an Islamic culture with Islamic laws.
Therefore the key to their survival and success will largely depend on how quickly they are able to give up Islam. That's the bottom line.

Strategist says

I predict a revolution....

Migration seems more likely. The Saudis will simply bribe NATO politicians and media to import Sunni Muslims, as per usual, and eventually hijack NATO to serve Islam.

Donald Trump is basically the only American leader who has ever stood up against that since prior to Nixon's disastrous deals with KSA, which started the whole Petrodollar hypnosis. So far, the Trump administration has reduced Muslim immigration by more than 20% compared to prior levels, and even more compared to the increase that HIllary Clinton campaigned on. Seeing how he is treated by MSM, and considering the TDS among Democrats, the next president will more likely resume surrendering to Islam.

curious2 says

the next president will more likely resume surrendering to Islam.

Probably yes. Even voting Republican is no guarantee that the government will oppose Islamic takeover of the USA. Most people don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the goat fuckers and if they do, they just repeat MSM talking points. Or they say that Muslims in THIS country arent like that.
But those of us who are students of history know that Islam is a serpent which only grows more poisonous as it grows larger.

Strategist says

They will never be able to progress under an Islamic culture with Islamic laws.
Therefore the key to their survival and success will largely depend on how quickly they are able to give up Islam. That's the bottom line.

Also consider the Islamic propensity for inbreeding. Not sure what it is about Islam that makes people marry their first cousins, but the Saudis are just about the most inbred people on earth:


When the entire population becomes feeble-minded, the country will simply collapse.

Quigley says

the goat fuckers

And camels, and cousins, and children. Even animals have their limits, but Muslims don't.

Saudis are just about the most inbred people on earth:

So an old fashion invasion with raping and pillaging would actually improve the gene pool.....

Patrick says

Also consider the Islamic propensity for inbreeding. Not sure what it is about Islam that makes people marry their first cousins, but the Saudis are just about the most inbred people on earth

One brave Saudi princess tried to change that, by attempting to marry a non-related Lebanese Arab Muslim, but was executed for adultery, even though she was actually single ...

http://patrick.net/post/1306834/2017-05-30-saudi-arabia-s-death-of-a-princess-needs-its-own-thread

I remember hearing about the whole 'Death of a Princess' controversy as a kid so it kinda surprised me to find that almost no one knew anything about it, post 9/11, given the fact that most of the hijackers were Saudi.

Think about it, the House of Saud asked for the removal of the ambassador of Britain and tried economic sanctions against the UK to repress a movie about an actual event, which they didn't deny.

Instead, it was turned into another Islamic victimhood story ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/princess/reflect/harvard.html

Excerpt: "Prince Sultan also said that the aim of the film was to insult Islam. Much of Saudi criticism of the film was directed towards what was called its portrayal of Islam as a harsh, insensitive religion, since the princess was depicted as having been summarily executed without a confession or atrial. The severity of punishment and the speed with which the princess was executed put doubts in the minds of viewers as to the fairness of Koranic justice. Summary execution is not the norm in Saudi Arabia."


Well, it's good to know that there was due process involved, where a person was accused of adultery, when she was actually single. How about being more candor like saying that they were pissed that she didn't marry into the low gene pool extended family and thus, was executed for treason against the House of Saud? At least that would be honest.

You see ...

Treason = High Crime and Misdemeanor

Single Woman Dating an (unrelated) Muslim guy = Normal person (who doesn't want a kid with birth defects)

And since Romeo and Juliet were planning on getting married, it wouldn't even be adultery in the future.

Patrick says

Yep, great shale boom happened under Obama.

APHAman says

Also consider the Islamic propensity for inbreeding. Not sure what it is about Islam that makes people marry their first cousins, but the Saudis are just about the most inbred people on earth:


When the entire population becomes feeble-minded, the country will simply collapse.

It’s a Religious Conservative thing. The same can be observed here in the States. The more Religious Conservative one is the more likely they are to be incestual

@Patrick why are you censoring the truth again? Fucking pathetic how far you have fallen down the Anti American rabbit hole

The same cannot be observed here in the States. It's an Islamic thing. Fucking first cousins is the first choice in inbred freaks in the Mid East and Pakistan.

Strategist says

The same cannot be observed here in the States. It's an Islamic thing. Fucking first cousins is the first choice in inbred freaks in the Mid East and Pakistan.

How the hell they can get a hard on fucking their first cousin is beyond me. But then, anything is possible when people believe a child rapist is the perfectt human that ever lived.