(04-10-2017 03:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (04-10-2017 02:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (04-10-2017 01:47 PM)WoodlandsOwl Wrote: How many natural gas pipelines run from ports on the Med and Atlantic into Central/Eastern Europe?
You want to screw the Russians? Export LNG from the US to Europe. If you don't have the pipeline infrastructure build it.
Now that the Obama administration is out, and was not replaced with a replacement Obama, pipelines can actually be built. And fracking regulations will be eased. And permits on Federal lands will be increased. And so on and so on.
Saw a Goldman paper and speaker at industry conference that detailed their expectations on exploration and production given the new environment. Was rather eye-popping.
I also know some people that are behind the computational and econometric aspects of drilling and forecasting. They relayed to me much the same, and laughed when I mentioned the paper and speaker. They couldn't say as much, but I would lay dollars to donuts I know who Goldman leaned on to provide at least some of the analysis power.
Some are talking about a 4 fold increase in economically recoverable reserves in the next 7-9 years in the continental US.
Can you explain some of this?
I thought domestic production of natural gas and oil exploded under Obama, so much so that it basically upended global markets, and that it is a glut of supply in both oil and gas that has curtailed energy production because it is too expensive to produce at the given cost.
Not only has the supply curve for oil been shoved leftwards by fracking, the secondary effect is that the cost of fracking itself has been shoved leftwards. In short, fracking has put a hard cap on the upward pressure based on Saudi swing production and OPEC action. Further, the prevalence of and advances in the practice, even in the face of steep antagonism by the administration for the last 8 years, has led to a system that the cost of fracking (and the ultimate cost of extraction at which fracking and shale work is economic) is in a steep decline. Report I saw indicated that fracking was currently a viable practice to sub-45 dollar a barrel oil at the present, sub-37 dollar in two years or less given the lifting of governmental pressures on the practice.
Quote:Also, what Obama regulations are you talking about? I was only aware of the ones dealing with exploration on federal lands.
Should read regulations and practices. The Obama administration has used a gamut of ancillary regulations to limit the use of fracking, in addition to the regulations directly involving the practice and the products used in the practice. Have seen requirements for wetlands issues when fracking, even though the wetlands issues were addressed in the preliminary permitting and primary drilling stages. Same for ecological impact requirements etc. In many cases the various parts of various federal agencies were requiring duplicative studies and requirements for the act.
I have no problem with some of the regulations in general, but in practice the previous administration had put a very heavy finger on the practice. Have some understanding that while the specific individual requirements will necessarily be eased in the short term, the idea of 'gang-banging' a project with multiples of the same steps will be curtailed. And wouldnt be surprised if some of the major requirements that were used ancillarily will be eased -- such as methane monitoring, frack practices, and frack product ingredients.
Finally, the US regulatory system used a somewhat underhanded methodology to thwart not just fracking in particular, but oil exploration and production in general. In short, the various agencies were shown to have supplied various outside groups with not necessarily public information with the intent of having the groups sue the EPA to gain a judicial notice for or against an interpretation of a rule.
The EPA would then quickly enter into a settlement agreement with the outside group that they were acting in concert with, and at the same time cutting the those groups a big fat settlement check. Many times the EPA would then use that ruling to enforce a particular interpretation against producers, who many times would then have the option of paying a 'fine' (expensive), or trying to gain legal respite (which means the regulatory appellate process within the agency itself, then to the administrative judicial route, both of which the producer would almost certainly lose, then after that was exhausted, the producer could then (after three years and a couple of million bucks or so) use the federal courts themselves.
If you watched the Gorsuch proceedings, one of the big caterwauls was his suspicion of the the Chevron doctrine, which says that an agency's findings should be given a hugely deferential weight in any Article 3 proceeding. And this is precisely why the progressives do not want anyone messing with the Chevron doctrine, which is the outcome of the preceding paragraph.
Since Carl Icahn is a running target for this practice noted above, considering he is now a 'regulation czar' (or somefink) should give an idea of where this practice might be headed. The additional threat to that mode of operation is the Gorsuch view on the Chevron doctrine.
Sorry for the long-winded post, but a lot of stuff working behind the scenes here.
Quote:And same for pipelines. Other than DAPL, which ones were being delayed that dealt with domestic energy production and refinement?
Mariner East 2 expansion and faced strong opposition both from the state and from Federal sources.
Others include US Oil Sands, Atlantic Sunrise, Penn East, Atlantic Coast are all delayed pending either/or state actions or federal resistance.
There are probably 20-25 other projects that were rejected or cancelled in the last two years and could be revamped in light of the new administration. Of course at least some were cancelled for economic reasons, like the Oregon LNG terminal and pipeline.
But, there are a number of projects internal to operations that never saw the light of a regulatory filing in the first place that may be very viable in the new atmosphere.
