End of the line for ethanol?

posted at 2:15 pm on November 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Has the federal government’s appetite for ethanol ended?  A bipartisan group of Senators signed a letter today calling for an end to subsidies and tariffs designed to protect and enhance domestic production of ethanol, which has been until recently the darling of the alternative-energy movement.  In a sign of how far ethanol subsidies have fallen from favor, the letter addressed to both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell has the signatures of such liberal luminaries as Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, and the newly-elected Chris Coons:

In a clear sign of momentum against ethanol subsidies, a bipartisan group of more than a dozen senators has signed onto a letter urging Senate leaders to let the subsidies expire during this Congress, a move that could put many officials in a tricky political spot and could even have ramifications for the 2012 presidential race.

The letter, which I obtained from a source, was authored by senators Dianne Feinstein and Jon Kyl, and includes a number of Democrats and Republicans, including John McCain, Susan Collins, Richard Burr, and Mike Enzi. This is key, because the question of whether the subsidies should expire is emerging as a key test — just like earmarks — of whether Republicans are serious about reining in spending and the deficit.

While this issue could divide Dems along regional lines, it’s more directly relevant to the GOP. With leading GOP senators now coming out for letting the subsidies expire, this could up the pressure on Republican senators who backed the subsidies in the past, such as Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch, putting them on the wrong side of what may emerge as a key litmus test for the Tea Party and potentially dividing the GOP caucus.

Greg Sargent misses the significance of Boxer’s name on this list.  Boxer has a cap-and-trade bill stalled in the Senate, earlier versions of which relied on ethanol to meet its goals.  The ethanol subsidies allowed Midwest farmers to have some buy-in for a bill that would otherwise levy some significant costs on agriculture.  This more or less puts an end to that support, which means that Boxer has acknowledged the death of cap-and-trade.

Will this divide the GOP?  It will make for some contentious discussions on agricultural policy, no doubt, especially in the House where the GOP picked up a number of seats.  But it’s just as likely to hurt Democrats in the Senate, especially those running for 2012 re-elections from ag-heavy states.  Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the obvious incumbent for the hot seat, but Jon Tester in Montana and Mark Pryor in Arkansas also will have to answer for it.

It may, however, have some impact on the 2012 presidential nomination race, which starts in Iowa — the heart of corn country.  It’s not necessary for a GOP candidate to win Iowa in order to win the nomination — Mike Huckabee won it last year and finished a distant third — but it’s usually necessary for a candidate to do well in the caucuses.  Tea Party activists will see an end to subsidies as a success, but will GOP presidential candidates start pandering to corn farmers in Iowa to gain an advantage in the first round of the nominating process?  That may well be a good test for the sincerity of those candidates running as small-government conservatives.

The letter makes clear just how much the government has intervened to coddle ethanol production:

Historically, our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: subsidize it, protect it from competition, or require its use.  We understand that ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support from the US government at this time.

It’s long past time for those efforts to cease.  Converting food to fuel not only doesn’t work as a replacement for gasoline, it expands starvation by artificially inflating corn prices and making it more difficult to purchase.  This letter might be the first step in dismantling an expensive and ongoing failure.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

According to the most recent study by the CBO released back in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9%, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25% for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

The CBO figures lump leases that are in production together with leases that are not in production with leases that are held up by injunctions and lawsuits and we leases that have permits in process or outright denial by the EPA.

You gotta compare apples to apples, productive oil leases pay far, far more in taxes than comparable land leases for other uses. Unproductive leases or leases held in limbo produce far less, when you lump them all together unfairly, you get the CBO numbers which don’t tell the entire story.

Trust me or not, but the petrochemical industry is one of the most heavily taxed industries out there, especially if you consider the cost of excessive regulation as basically a sin tax.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 10:39 AM

but we’re not even having a discussion about eliminating oil production tax breaks / subsidies / whatever

IF you want to expand the discussion to include that, then you have to also include the costs of leases granted for “exploration” but then denied for “production”. That’s a great NIMBY trick that costs the oil industry billions to pay for frivolous lawsuits, junk science and political theatre.

You’d also have to include the U.S. own version of a mini-VAT where oil gets taxed at multiple points along the production stream long before it reaches a consumer. Other industries don’t have the government leveling what for all practical purposes is a sales tax throughout all of the different “wholesalers” who deal with it.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM

and the mohair subsidy too!

Khun Joe on December 1, 2010 at 9:05 AM

Don’t forget wool subsidies, peanut & cotton & sugar subsidies, the list goes on.
Of course, you all do realize that your food is as cheap as it is bcs the federal govt does subsidize agriculture?
Without those subsidies, prices would rise accordingly.
Lotsa people would not like that.
An overwhelmingly large part of the Farm Bill (perhaps as high as 70% from what I’ve heard) is for food stamp type programs, i.e. EBT, WIC, school lunch etc.
Also, most of the subsidies going to ‘farming’ go to a handful of very large operations.
Your individual family farms actually don’t receive that much in ag subsidies.
There are also cost share programs for things like chemical for weed control & planting wind breaks, developing protecting wetlands, etc.
The govt has it hands fully grasped around many aspects in agriculture.
Even federally backed farm loans are considered subsidies.
We have some of those.
My nephew has a section of land that is totally crappy stuff. His cows have done terrible on it for the last several years & no one wants to buy it, so there’s a program through the govt that will pay him something over $520/acre for 30 yrs. He would get one lump sum & cannot do anything with the property for that time, but he still owns it.
We have voiced our opinion on that subject, but I’m sure he’s going to go for it.
I can’t say I blame him since he came up short this year on his payment to the bank.
Many of us have faced this kind of decision, though thank God we have not.
My point here is that the govt needs to get out of the ag business altogether.
Some of their programs do good things, but overall, the effect is more harm than good over time.
Let the states encourage good stewardship of the land their own way.
And this drivel about ethanol helping us get off of foreign oil is pure BS.
Any geoligst will tell you there is no shortage of oil.
My God the oil available in Western shales alone is mind boggling.
It’s the federal govt that drove oil companies out of places like MT & WY & ND in the ’80s.
The Bakken is booming now, & so will the 3 Forks & the Taylor (?) bcs oil is high enough that they can make a profit. Horizontal drilling & frakking also have made it profitable.
The oil is there, but if they don’t let us go get it, we will continue to be held hostage to foreign supplies.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM

In fact, I prefer giving farmers that tax break than giving oil companies their tax breaks.
Again, you need to learn the difference between a tax break and a subsidy.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:49 AM

You’re kind of a surly bastard, aren’t you.

Okay – I’m sure you know who gets the ethanol subsidy. It’s the blender, not the farmer. The farmer receives the indirect benefit of a better corn price resulting from demand for ethanol created by the blender’s credit.

You can make your points without the personal attacks. Or to some, you might just come off as some sort of a know-it-all jacka$$.

Bud Dude on December 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Wrong. We aren’t at all constrained by our oil pipeline capacity.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Well here in the upper plains, we were, until recently.
If those pipelines hadn’t come through here recently, we’d still have a back up.
I don’t know how this pans out, but I have friends working in this area up here in the Williston basin & they say that you get fined for pumping too much oil if the pipelines can’t handle it. This info was from last year.
Perhaps that reality has changed.
But there most certainly was a major problem with pipeline availability here in ND, which is why they built more of it.
We were shipping oil out by trucks at that time.
That’s why the ND petroleum council was big on getting more built.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM

In fact, I prefer giving farmers that tax break than giving oil companies their tax breaks.
Again, you need to learn the difference between a tax break and a subsidy.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:49 AM

So we’ll punish one guy more than another bcs he’s a farmer?
I think these kinds of decisions, & maybe they mostly are, should be left up to states.
I know ND has tax incentives to increase oil productions & that’s why they’re coming here.
Now our roads are getting beat hell & there are other issues & so who know, perhaps oil will be taxed some more here.
I think it’s dangerous to pick an industry & give it favors with a tax break or a subsidy. Maybe there’s a technical difference, you are on one hand giving a company $$-subsidy or on the other hand you are letting them keep more of the $$ they earn-tax break.
At least the govt does not have to come up with any $$ with a tax break.
I have no answers for that one bcs each state has ideals they cherish & perhaps want to keep it that way through incentives with business.
But I don’t think federal govt should have anything to do with this.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 11:46 AM

I’m very familiar with production in the four corners and the well intervention efforts underway in that area. These decisions are economic

Yes, they’re economic, in large part because of “well intervention efforts”. Sue the hell out of the producers so it’s too expensive to get the oil to market.

That’s the known strategy since the EPA came online. Sue and regulate the cost up, and up and up.

Proved reserves are those reserves claimed to have a reasonable certainty (normally at least 90% confidence) of being recoverable under existing economic and political conditions, with existing technology.

Before we continue, is this the definition you are using?

Eliminate that bolded part and the game changes just like that massive spike in 1970 which your side relies on to tell us we’re “running out of oil”.

The graph you probably want to use is this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Proven_Oil_Reserves_1900_to_2005.png

That graph is not a function of reality, it’s a function of politics.

There are literally thousands of wells in Louisiana and the Gulf that are closed for economic, political, strategic and pseudo-environmental reasons. They were shut off throughout the 70′s, 80′s and 90′s while still producing.

Politics forced us out to Mica, Europa, Petronius, Brutus and the like, not necessity.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

It’s the blender, not the farmer. The farmer receives the indirect benefit of a better corn price resulting from demand for ethanol created by the blender’s credit.

Bud Dude on December 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM
This is an accurate statement. Great job learning the difference.

It’s impossible to debate these issues without using accurate terminology.

You can make your points without the personal attacks.
I know. But telling you to learn the difference between two different concepts isn’t a personal attack.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM

With regards to specific ethanol subsidies, perhaps.
But farmers still get direct crop payments when growing corn & it is based on the land’s prior yields.
And you don’t even have to farm the land to get a direct payment as long as it has a history & you go down to the FSA or USDA office every year to sign up for it.
My husband & I have land that had like 8 acreas that were eligible for these payments.
$80/yr they wanted to pay us & we didn’t even know where the hell it was& we certainly did no farming for it.
We didn’t want the $$.
Isn’t that sad?
How much $$ goes out to stuff like this?

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM

Exactly!!!

It might have been more economical to build and use a pipeline, but supply continued to get to the refiners via truck (as it does in thousands of other locations across the country).

As I said, our domestic oil production isn’t constrained by pipeline capacity.

I have friends working in this area up here in the Williston basin & they say that you get fined for pumping too much oil if the pipelines can’t handle it.
Most producers that utilize pipelines can’t input an amount which exceeds their contractual limit without paying extra.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 11:50 AM

We were constrained by pipeline availability in the sense that outfits were not pumping bcs it was too expensive to truck it out.
Only when the price per barrel got high enough did they decide to do that.
So IMHO we were constrained by pipeline availability.
Which in of itself is no big deal bcs the need was met my investors.
We have the same problem with tran availability for grain here in ND.
And I doubt that will ever be solved anytime soon.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM

That’s the known strategy since the EPA came online. Sue and regulate the cost up, and up and up.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 11:47 AM

This is why there aren’t enough cattle feeders in the northern plains.
The EPA has made the process so expensive that if you want to feed a measley 300+head you have to invest a minimum of $50,000 for a permit system to deal with the waste.
Dealing with run off waste from a feedlot does not need to cost that much.
This is ridiculous red tape that inhibits business.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM

By the way, what does, “The Economics of oil production can be met” mean anyway? The economics can be met? Met?

Yes, the economics can meet. On one side you have an economic model that loses money, on the other, you have an economic model that makes money.

If your economic model is losing money or unproductive, you adjust it, eventually you MEET a point when your model ceases to lose money, continue and you can make money.

You are of course, as your usual model, being intentionally obtuse and intellectually dishonest.

For other participants:

You can make your points without the personal attacks.

Bud Dude on December 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Actually, he cant’, he’s a pretend lawyer, and pedophillic comment troll.

Have a look as he defends this statement:

In fact, if pedophilia wasn’t socially stigmatized it wouldn’t even be illegal.

blink on November 11, 2010 at 3:06 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/11/amazon-pulls-pedophilia-manual-after-protest/comment-page-4/#comment-4071562

Wait till he starts in with moot court competition and stating how “brilliant” he is.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 11:59 AM

And was it too expensive to truck it out? Or did the operators decide to reduce production to wait for the pipeline rather than produce part of the reservoir at a higher cost?

In other words, they might not have LOST money trucking but simply decided to wait and make MORE money after the pipeline was complete.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I’m not arguing with you over this.
Some did decide to pay the higher cost to truck bcs sitting idle was losing them $$.
That was the producer’s decision.
Larger companies were storing bcs they had the capacity & other resources to take up the slack.
You look at the trains here in ND & the lack of cars available (as well as the monopoly that BNSF has here) during certain times of the year.
Farmers have to sit idle with the grain, even though it’s on contract, bcs there are no rail cars & fewer & fewer elevators open to take product.
I understand this is all economic.
But bcs the infrastructure is not there to carry product, there are economic consequences, so everyone is limited in their business by the methods in which they can move their product.
And BTW-trucking anything in this nation is very expensive.
Truckers are at a premium right now.
It is hard to get trucks in the oil fields, out to the farm, or anything anywhere.
Of course some places have more trucks than others, but notice trucker pay is excellent no matter where you go in this country.
Trucking in of itself is very expensive for anything.
And when you’re trucking oil, it’s hard on a truck. It beats the hell out of them bcs of the roads they have to travel.
This makes it even more expensive than usual.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 12:21 PM

But farmers still get direct crop payments when growing corn & it is based on the land’s prior yields.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Does this statement have anything to do with the comment you quoted?

blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Yes:

This is an accurate statement. Great job learning the difference.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM

I don’t conisider it an accurate staement that you responded to bcs farmers are getting subsidies to produce corn.
Just not ethanol ones.
And actually, I’m not even sure that is true.
I do know farmers contract out to grow for ethanol refineries & they do receive fed grants & subsidy $$.
So indirectly, farmers do get ethnaol subsidies.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I have news for you. Wells that were shut-in and/or plugged for economic reasons require investment capital to bring back online. That doesn’t happen overnight. And surely you can’t blame the EPA for that.

No, I don’t blame the EPA for the time it takes to round up capital.

I DO blame the EPA for shutting down the company(s) that were operating the wells profitably since as early as 1914 and creating the “economic” reason for capping them in the first place.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Wrong. We aren’t at all constrained by our oil pipeline capacity.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM

yeah blink, we are. Why? because if there is no way to pump it out and ship it.. they close of the well, which is either called capping or plug back or an abandon. It happens all the time in my state. It is financially smarter to have a capped well sitting there with the possibility of assumed quantity then use it and find out it was only a satellite to begin with. A satellite is just a tiny bubble of oil.

Now with that said, there have been many “marvelled” pools recently reported. Where the Rig in the gulf blew up is one such pool. Off the coast of brazil is another. In the ChukChi Sea is assumed but not “proven” yet. And another assumed is at the tip of Peru… near antarctica then most would like. BUT there is a LOT of Oil. Some are proven, many are assumed… but you won’t know until you pump or pressurize the formation.

The BS statement of the bell curve blah blah blah is starting to become a myth. Why? because even oil comps are realizing that oil renews itself, but at very very slow speeds. A well in Oklahoma was plugged 4 decades ago, which some students wanted to do a varient temp reading for their thesis when they drilled and “popped” the cap as in OK at that time you didn’t have to pour a whole lot of mud in a non pressurized well, they noticed OIL bubbling up. Abiotic or oil replenishing is happening. It isn’t as fast as one hopes though.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 12:28 PM

blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Yes, it is binary. Either you make money or you don’t.

Yes, the models are complex, with many inputs or variables, but in the end. You either make a profit or you don’t. That’s binary.

So Binky, Do you still have those special feelings in your bad place for the little children?

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM

woman, I have issue with FB. It kicked me off, told me I was a spam bot or something (I think someone got the password) and now my IP is banned for a month. :( can’t get you on FB.

Have you and hubby ever thought about opening a game reserve with buffalo? They are HUGE up here. The permit take years to get, but when you do.. 3 yrs and you have ripe shooting for buffalo that a hunter will pay HUGE bucks for.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM

So Binky, Do you still have those special feelings in your bad place for the little children?

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 12:30 PM

oh come on Jason, don’t stoop.

BTW, I am glad you and I think on the same levels of oil. I took a glance at your blog. very nice.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Work needs to be done to achieve 90% confidence. Our proved reserves wouldn’t instantly jump EVEN IF there were suddenly no environmental constraints associated with oil production at all.

Yes Binky the troll, they would. If we removed the political constraints, thousands of wells that were shut down for purely political NIMBY reasons could be brought BACK online. Opening the California Coast would dramatically increase the proven reserves number because currently all of that oil is locked out of the calculation. Ditto for most of Alaska’s oil and a significant portion of Gulf oil. Those reserves are left out of the calculation for political and environmental BS reasons. Remove those restrictions an all that oil gets moved into the Proven column.

Remove some of the environmental constraints and thousands of wells along the Gulf Coast could be put into the column and pumping near immediately.

I even bolded the key phrase for you. RETARD!

Give the producers the ability to produce on known productive fields where there is already infrastructure in place and that number will DRAMATICALLY jump.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 12:38 PM

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM

I’m returning his favor from another thread, where one of his last lines of defense was to start asking repeatedly if I was Jason Coleman from the sex offender registry. This of course was while he was defending his comments supporting pedophiles.

My apologies of to the group for responding to Binky in kind.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM

How was the oil being transported prior to the well being shut-in?

blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:51 PM

Blink. I LIVE IN ALASKA. Please tell me WTF am I to tell Oil Companies who PLUG AND ABANDON oil wells due to not being able to GET TO the oil?????

It isn’t like we have roads on tundra up here!

You are being repugnant!

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 12:53 PM

And it would take more than 2 years to “round up capital” and effect the well interventions.

No, it wouldn’t, in more than a few cases, such as around Duck Lake LA, the money is already sitting in escrow, waiting.

I personally will be happy to get a draft tomorrow to bring 14 wells south of Eunice LA back online given production approval. I want the natural gas in those wells, but I can’t get it because of the injunctions on the oil.

2 years to bring capital to another Black Gold Rush? I don’t think so.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM

That’s a despicable statement for you to make – especially considering this.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:58 PM

umm there is nothing there. And you can stop now. You are overstepping the bounds.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:01 PM

There are absolutely varying degrees of profit, you imbecile.

And that’s immaterial to the binary question of either A) making a profit or B) not making a profit.

Any varying degree of profit resides completely and totally within A.

To make a profit or not is still a binary question.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:08 PM

And how long would it take to close on the capital and bring the wells back online

Two phone calls and twenty minutes to have the LoC, 24 hours to have the cash in a box if need be.

in more than a few cases, such as around Duck Lake LA, the money is already sitting in escrow, waiting.

Gee, that’s a meaningless anecdote.

Actually it speaks to the speed with which capital can be collected, in many cases across the Gulf Coast, the capital is already there, allocated for a specific purpose and being held hostage by permits, regulations, lawsuits and injunctions for largely political and environmental BS reasons. Remove those reasons and all that capital is released.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:16 PM

upinak, what the heck are you talking about?

How were they getting to the oil BEFORE they decided to P&A the well?

blink on December 1, 2010 at 1:04 PM

It is called EXPLORATION drilling. You know, where they drill to FIND oil. If there is NO way to SHIP it via truck or piepline they PLUG AND ABANDONE… in Oil it is called a P&A!

I wasn’t joking when i said I was working IN the OIL INDUSTRY. I know wtf I am talking about.

And as for the nasty comments if Jason is or isn’t a child this or that. you hacve no proof. His name is pretty common and the fact you are using it is a freaking leap.

get a clue Blink. You ARE crossing a line.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Except THAT wasn’t the question.

Yes, it was. I made the statement, “the economics could be met” – I explained that the statement was that the economics would either be A)making a profit or B)not making a profit.

You complained that it wasn’t binary, but it was most certainly MY question and THAT question, which indeed was binary.

Sorry Binky, but you don’t get to change my context, play with yours all you want. My statement/example/question was a binary one. If you want to go worry about degrees of profit, then pose another question. You don’t get to just change mine.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:20 PM

specific purpose and being held hostage by permits, regulations, lawsuits and injunctions for largely political and environmental BS reasons. Remove those reasons and all that capital is released.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:16 PM

don’t forget conservation orders, enviornmental ruling and justication clauses, and my favorite.. pool rules for unitization of land… which is fargin stupid since it is in an OCEAN!

People really have no clue about the process to get where it start and the paperwork and lawyers associated!

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM

I wasn’t joking when i said I was working IN the OIL INDUSTRY. I know wtf I am talking about.

But you don’t understand UpinAk, Binky fashions himself as a brilliant moot court competitor with extensive courtroom experience. . .on the interwebs. Now he’s also an environmental lawyer with extensive experience in the oil well intervention efforts in the Four Corners.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Oh please. There are hundreds of Gulf Coast projects looking for capital.

For oil? Really? Can you name some viable Gulf oil production projects searching for capital?

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Now he’s also an environmental lawyer with extensive experience in the oil well intervention efforts in the Four Corners.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:23 PM

You know, I have a good friend in N.D. right now drilling his little heart out. Good man… he would probably laugh at this thread….

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:26 PM

For oil? Really? Can you name some viable Gulf oil production projects searching for capital?

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM

D.O.W. (Dead on Water) go check the threads just posted on Obama and the shut down for the next 7 fargin years of gulf, and east and west coast oil exploration.

He went Cali on the WHOLE U.S.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:27 PM

So do I.
blink on December 1, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Really? What is it that you do Blink?

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Binky,

You do realize your link above doesn’t work the way you intended, right retard?

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Well if the field is undeveloped then the constraint isn’t the lack of pipeline is it????
blink on December 1, 2010 at 1:26 PM

when a field is undeveloped.. it usually is in a state of Unitization due to legal processes concerning a LEASE sale.

When Unitized, it then goes into the EPA and Permiting course of whatever oil comp has the land which can take years if it is BLM land. As MMS only does Water (but you didn’t know that).

After the process is finished for EPA not the permitting for drilling… it then brings in the rig as it can start prepping to drill. It can take up to 4 weeks for a permit to be issued and revised.

But the question is.. What do you do Blink? As you can see I am givingyou the dumbed dumbed down version of how they begin the process. I can give youthe process BEFORE the lease sale even starts… if THAT is whatyou are interested in.

But since we are talking UNDEVELOPED land which of course wouldn’t have a PIPELINE because there is not a signed discussion concerning who would take care of it, maintence and so on.. I guess I don’t have any freaking clue on that other than the TRAN ALASKA PIPELINE… and who would be opperating it with pigs and pressurized items for oil per BBL counting.

Good grief…

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Of course I can.
blink on December 1, 2010 at 1:35 PM

you are defelcting. Answer the question on viable projects.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:36 PM

There is no MMS (but you didn’t know that).

blink on December 1, 2010 at 1:36 PM

There is no Minerals Management????

HUH.. so tell me WTF that link is then?

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 1:38 PM

That’s a link to website of The Department of the Interior’s (DOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 1:42 PM

*facepalm* I guess you didn’t look at the link. http://www.mms.gov which is now BOEMRE, per Salavar. Good Grief.

And if you don’t answer my question on what you do… no reason to answer anymore of yours. *wink*

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Great. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 12:44 PM

I’ve been more than gracious to you.
It is not your business to shut me up.
I don’t give a rip how much you think this has been discussed.
I haven’t tried to shut you up.
If I want to discuss it then that is my #$%^&* right thank you very much.

Have you and hubby ever thought about opening a game reserve with buffalo? They are HUGE up here. The permit take years to get, but when you do.. 3 yrs and you have ripe shooting for buffalo that a hunter will pay HUGE bucks for.

upinak on December 1, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Oops on FB thing. Can I contact you on it? I will try when I get home tonight.
As far as the buffalo thing, a 5 wire fence is very expensive & I hate greenhorns & city folks.
I honestly would rather go out of business thn cater to dudes & wannabes. My hubby is in hearty agreement.

And it would take more than 2 years to “round up capital” and effect the well interventions.
No, it wouldn’t, in more than a few cases, such as around Duck Lake LA, the money is already sitting in escrow, waiting.

I personally will be happy to get a draft tomorrow to bring 14 wells south of Eunice LA back online given production approval. I want the natural gas in those wells, but I can’t get it because of the injunctions on the oil.

2 years to bring capital to another Black Gold Rush? I don’t think so.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM

The $$ was also waiting here in ND for years. Notice how fast the Bakken started developing when the price got up high enough & the technology was available in the form of horizontal drilling & frakking. Crap opened up overnight here. No one was waiting for anything to happen.

Now he’s also an environmental lawyer with extensive experience in the oil well intervention efforts in the Four Corners.

Jason Coleman on December 1, 2010 at 1:23 PM

This explains a lot.
I wonder if we’ve got a ‘all hat & no cattle’ situation here.
I meet those kinds of people a lot.
They have just enough knowledge to sound knowledgeable about cows. Until they come to a branding & show their ignorance.
Hmm….

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM

http://www.mms.gov didn’t become BOEMRE. A website link can’t become an agency. MMS became BOEMRE. The MMS doesn’t exist. In other words, “There is no MMS.”
blink on December 1, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Evidently, there was.
I’m not really sure why you’re kibbitzing with upinak on this point.
The MMS = BOE(MRE).
SO?

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 4:07 PM

They also need to get rid of it in our gasoline! Not only are directly subsidizing the sh-t, but we are forcing everyone who buys gas to buy ethanol as well!

STOP BURNING OUR MONEY AND STOP BURNING OUR FOOD!

MJBrutus on December 1, 2010 at 4:59 PM

I wasn’t trying to shut you up. I was merely trying to say that I didn’t have anything more to add. I had been dealing with some residual comments regarding some earlier claims that I had debunked, and your comment wasn’t controversial.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Your reply was not very nice. I guess if I had heard it from a voice I might have had a chance to react differently.
Your text ‘sounded’ disrespectful, IMHO.

Because it’s ironic that upinak didn’t even know that an agency by the name of Minerals Management Services no longer existed as he smugly tried to claim that I didn’t understand certain responsibilities of certain government regulatory agencies.

The MMS = BOE(MRE)

No. There is no agency named the MMS. There is an agency named BOEMRE, so they can’t be equal.

blink on December 1, 2010 at 4:33 PM

More kibbitzing.
The MMS is the same thing as the BOE is now it seems.
So they are the same thing.
Like if you change your name from Bob to Carol.
You’re still Bob.
upinak knew it by the old name. It makes no difference what the new name is.
It’s still the same agency as far as I can see.
You are only trying to shame upinak bcs you think she was too dumb to know the difference btw the 2 agencies when there really is none, only a name.
Stupid exchange.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 7:59 PM

blink on December 1, 2010 at 8:44 PM

It makes no difference what the name is.
You’re splitting hairs just like you do on lots of other threads.
upinak is being smug bcs you’re obtuse.
No one cares about the smarmy details of whether the old MMS = the ‘new’ BOE.
Like I said. If you were Bob & you changed your name to Carol, I’d still be calling you Bob.
And you’d still be you, unless you got a sex change or something.
No one cares about this.

Badger40 on December 1, 2010 at 8:59 PM

Therefore, the fact that upinak didn’t even know the proper name for the agency is incredibly germane and damages her credibility – especially after claiming to be such an expert regarding all things oil and gas related.

Let’s take a look at one of her quotes.

I wasn’t joking when i said I was working IN the OIL INDUSTRY. I know wtf I am talking about.
Ouch!

blink on December 1, 2010 at 9:47 PM

So if someone down’t know an official name for an agency, then they know nothing?
WTF?
You take a lot of time out of your life nitpicking small details that are worthless.
I don’t know the name of a lot of horse tack I use on a daily basis. So according to your notion, I know nothing about horses. Actually, I know a lot of people who do think that if you don’t know what all of your tack is called that you must know nothing about horses.
That is just plain anal & ignorant.
You have your opinion on upinak & I have mine.
I don’t base my opinions of people on their vocabulary.

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 8:03 AM

Badger40 on December 2, 2010 at 8:03 AM

upinak knows he is being a little bastage and knows they still call it.. MMS. LOL

No worries Badger. He is just trolling.

upinak on December 2, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5