By Peter Galuszka

One has to laugh at just how fantastic the debate over energy has become.

Conservatives are trying to make President Barack Obama a goat for not bowing to the propaganda about the Keystone XL pipeline which would take unusually dirty oil from Canadian tar sands all the way to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refining.

Here’s a gem from a Jan. 18 editorial by The Washington Times: “The White House’s pre-emptive strike on the Keystone XL oil pipeline is a disaster for American workers and consumers. President Obama continues to demonstrate that he has no idea how real jobs are created or how the economy works.”

The propaganda campaign has trickled down to the Virginia level, which would get absolutely zero from the pipeline. Barry E. DuVal, the president of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce has trashed Obama for his decision as has Republican Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, who is maneuvering to get a vice presidential spot with Mitt Romney.

So, it is unusual to pick up today’s Wall Street Journal and see this front page piece: “Oil and Gas Boom Lifts U.S. Economy.” The report states that U.S. oilfield jobs are up to 641,000, a 33 percent increase over the past five years.

Fueling the petroleum boom are new ways of reaching hard-to-tap oil and gas reserves such as hydraulic fracking. Gas from the Marcellus Shale deposit in the Northeast and Midwest has greatly boosted gas supplies. North Dakota’s once played-out oil fields are seeing a boom (not the “Boomergeddon” kind) as oil workers flock in, boosting $300-a-month rents to $2,000- a- month.

To be sure, the boom doesn’t address longer-term problems such as weaning the world from irreplaceable fossil fuels, their impact on climate change and the environmental challenges of fracking.

Rather, it shows the disconnect between the reality out there and the DuVals and Moonie papers of the world. One wonders why any respectable blogger would want to write for The Washington Times.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

8 responses to “Oilfield Reality Check”

  1. HardHatMommy Avatar
    HardHatMommy

    Peter,
    It makes it harder for me to try to open my mind and gain something from your perspective when there are so many typos. I could do better with my comments as well. I’m sure I haven’t been perfect.

    Perhaps re-post a cleaned up version?

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    HardHatMommy,
    Frankly, I have bad eyesight, wear bifocals and the WordPress system Bacon’s Rebellion uses has tiny, tiny letters. To see it, I have to be about 10 inches away from the screen. I’d say I am sorry but I don’t think an apology is fair in this case.

  3. HardHatMommy Avatar
    HardHatMommy

    I have the same problem and it has been made worse by the iPad I received as a gift from my family. The “auto-correct” function has led to some embarrassing moments for sure. And you don’t even realize something is wrong because spell check doesn’t catch the mistakes.

    I thought I’d give you a heads up before someone else did it in an insensitive way. 🙂

  4. Sounds like Peter has joined the “Drill, Baby, Drill” camp!

    (HHM, I have cleaned up Peter’s typos, just as I follow behind all contributors and fix their typos. I just didn’t get to it until 8:45 this morning.)

  5. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Jim,
    I ckleaned up my own typos!

  6. here’s the question. There are EXISTING refineries in North Dakota and for than matter in Alberta so why are we needing a pipeline longer than the pipeline to Prudhole Bay?

    what is the Keystone Pipeline REALLY ABOUT because its’ NOT about getting the oil to a refinery – not when you go 2000 miles past existing refineries.

    this issue has BOGUS written all over it.

  7. To be sure, the boom doesn’t address longer-term problems such as weaning the world from irreplaceable fossil fuels, their impact on climate change and the environmental challenges of fracking.

    You act as if this is a foregone conclusion. In fact, renewables have problems of their own. We need to understand the comparisons of the total impact of each system: we need tu understand the full extent of the proposition at hand, for each system.

    Total Cost = Production Cost + External Costs + Government Costs

    How many people will be killed in industrial accidents mining transporting and burning coal, compared to how many will be killed manufacturing, assembling, construting, and maintaining giant wind turbines? Never mind the birds.

    Larry is right. that oil will be refined and used. Whether by us or someone else. One or the other is a lower cost solution, and we should be rooting for that solution, even if the anwer means someone else gets the oil. Whatever the other answer is will cost the proponents [and the rest of us] us more than they gain from “winning” the argument.

  8. The report states that U.S. oilfield jobs are up to 641,000, a 33 percent increase over the past five years.

    That is because the il is so hard to get. If we really want to have more jobs in oil, we can make it from coal, or lots of other things,:green slime, cellulose, etc.

    We will have lots of oil jobs, but the oil will be very expensive.

Leave a Reply