Carpe Diem

Thursday morning links, all energy edition

dakotas1. Chart of the Day: The chart above compares annual per-capita personal income in North and South Dakota from 1929 to 2013 and helps to quantify the effect of the shale oil boom on North Dakota’s economy. After closely matching for 80 years, per-capita income in North Dakota started exceeding neighboring South Dakota’s in 2010, and last year was $11,526 higher ($57,084 vs. $45,558). The way President Obama would explain it is to say that the average person in South Dakota earned only 80 cents last year for every $1 earned by a neighbor in North Dakota, and call it “embarrassing.”

2. Markets in Everything: Take a 3-Day North Dakota Oilfield Educational Tour and get a firsthand look at the Bakken oil boom for $599.

3. Rockin’ in the Bakken: Experts now say the Bakken oil boom will continue through about 2039, a decade longer than predicted just last year. 

4. Wind Blows: It’s not politics, but science and physics, that will prevent wind energy from ever becoming a reliable source of power. 

5. Washington Post: The Keystone XL delay is absurd and embarrassing.

If foot-dragging were a competitive sport, President Obama and his administration would be world champions for their performance in delaying the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. The president should end this national psychodrama now, bow to reason, approve the pipeline and go do something more productive for the climate.

6. Inconvenient Energy Fact: All the solar panels and wind turbines in the world (at a taxpayer cost of $60 billion annually) have cut less CO2 emissions than US fracking.

7. Inconvenient Energy Fact II: President “Big Foot” Obama marked Earth Day with a carbon-emitting extravaganza, burning more than 35,000 gallons of fuel (not including automobile motorcades) and emitting 375 tons of CO2 emissions.

8. VIDEO: Fracking has brought CO2 emissions to a 20-year low in the US.

9. Man Camp Boom (from the WSJ via Marginal Revolution):

Target Logistics, a Boston-based builder and operator of dormitory-style housing, recently landed a nearly $30 million contract to provide lodging for hundreds of oil-field workers in North Dakota over the next three years. The deal is the latest example of rising demand for professionally managed “man camps,” sprawling barracks that house mostly male workers at American and Canadian oil sites.

10. Chart of the Day II: Daily US crude oil production surged last week to 8.36 million barrels, the highest output since January 1988, more than 26 years ago.
oil

41 thoughts on “Thursday morning links, all energy edition

  1. ” The way President Obama would explain it is to say that the average person in South Dakota earned only 80 cents last year for every $1 earned by a neighbor in North Dakota, and call it “embarrassing.”

    The average South Dakotan female, under the leftist narrative, is making only 62% of what the average North Dakotan male is making (78% female wage gap disparity X 80% N/S Dakota disparity).

    “62 cents on the dollar…blah, blah, blah” …

    laughable, but this could easily ramp up for serious leftist political narrative to sustain female votes.

  2. I read an interesting piece on Keystone XL pointing out again that there are other proposals to move the oil all to eastern Canada (Due to First Nations Issues in BC there will not be a pipeline west period the First Nations have veto power and have vetoed the idea, Note that in BC the first nations never ceded sovereignty to the crown so legally the Canadian government can’t force those pipelines thru). But going east has benefits to Canada as a whole, it creates jobs in Eastern Canadian oil refineries, and displaces imported oil there. In particular if you believe its better to export value added products than crude, then its a leg up for Eastern Canada, and in particular the poorer maritime provinces.
    Also the other comment that the boom in ND could last to 2039, makes one wonder if capacity on the Keystone XL where sold to the highest bidder if much Alberta oil would get pumped. Yes the refineries on the gulf coast would take some tweaking, but its doable and with 25+ years of expanding production from the Baaken, it makes sense to to the tweaks to refine that crude instead of heavy crude. So IMHO Trans Canada should divide the remaining segment of Keystone XL into two pieces and build the segment from Cushing, OK to Williston, ND, and put the extension to Alberta on hold. Then the competition to Trans Canada could build the pipelines east all all win.

    • The Question is should the jobs go to the US gulf coast or to Quebec and the Maritimes? (Assuming most of the jobs will be in refining) The longer pipeline route thru Canada would also mean more Canadian jobs in pipeline upkeep. It seems the same arguement over jobs exists in Canada as in the US. In both cases the numbers vary greatly. Of course US folks opposing the pipeline say the benefits of shipping the oil to the gulf coast are minimal. So either both routes have large or small benefits. The route does not make that much difference. It is just do the jobs go to Canadian or US workers.

  3. Are those “35 jobs” refinery jobs, oil extraction jobs, pipeline jobs, support jobs, marketing jobs? Pipelines do create much economic activity besides the guy checking for leaks and turning valves, correct?

  4. 1. The Washington Post is generally considered a liberal newspaper (not right wing) and they are the ones who are calling the Keystone delay “absurd” and “embarrassing.”

    2. This is not a “right wing” blog, it’s a “classic liberal” (libertarian) blog on most issues, so neither I nor most of the regular commenters here represent or espouse the “right wing” philosophy that you rail against.

    3. Since it’s obviously your intention to mindlessly, thoughtlessly, and incessantly bash the “right wing,” I think it would be best to gradually take your effluvia and pollute the comment section of some real “right wing” blog, and I’m happy to be helping with that transition.

      • As easily predicted, Robert Psychotic’s claim is nowhere even close to the full story. The “35 jobs” refers to one State Department study of “..permanent jobs in pipeline maintenance and inspection.” However, “..both the federal government and the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University’s College of Industrial and Labor Relations examined TransCanada’s application and made their own job creation estimates, at 6,000-6,500 and 2,500-4,500 respectively. “

        Here’s how Forbes concludes:

        There is no way to accurately predict the number of short-term, ancillary, or spin-off jobs from any energy project. The number of jobs could exceed predictions, as construction jobs on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline exceeded most predictions. Alternatively, the number of jobs created could be far fewer, as was the case with spin-off jobs in Alaska. Regardless, uncertainty about the number of jobs which could be created is not an argument against energy resource development. Projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline will in fact create jobs (an unknown number), facilitate long term economic development, enhance state revenues, and bring the United States closer to energy security.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/2/#./?&_suid=1398362796758022259083592708417

    • The figure for the 35 jobs is Forbes magazine, not generally considered liberal.

      Actually, no. That number comes from CNN’s Van Jones on an episode of Crossfire, not from Forbes. And Van Jones most certainly is liberal. Also, that number comes from a report that focuses only on the construction, and nothing else.

      So, once again you show us why nobody takes you seriously here:

      You misquote a source
      You can’t get the facts right
      You are just a hateful troll

      So much for the “left” being rational and compassionate.

      • Moron,

        I didn’t quote ILR, I directly quoted the Forbes article you either didn’t read, or lied about. Of course, you know that but now you’re just looking for a way to distract from your fraudulent claims.

        Are you done embarrassing yourself yet?

      • No worries, my friend. I understand. Dr. Perry is in the process of removing all of his comments, so there will be more situations like this.

    • Dr. Perry, the guy is just filled with hate and as about close minded as they come. He’s obsessed with this God-like ideal of the Left coming to save the world from the evil Right and he is their Prophet. If you are not with him, you must be eliminated. There is no room for nuance, no room for debate, no room for dissent. Trying to explain something like “classical liberal” to him is utterly useless. You do not subscribe to his particular hallucination, so therefore you are the Devil Incarnate.

      People like him are the reason I decided not to go to seminary. I cannot deal with religious zealots, whether they be spiritual or secular.

        • Actually, it is Che. As you know, one of the things classical liberals hold dear is property rights and with that comes the right to association. This blog belongs to Dr. Perry. He does have the right to exclude who he wishes.

          Of course, expression, even like his, can be useful, but if Dr. Perry wishes to exclude him, then there is nothing wrong or hypocritical about it.

        • As vapid as I find his comments I vote to keep him, sort of like a piece of left wing litmus paper. No one here takes him seriously and I have learned a lot reading the comments to him. Not that he’s listening.

          • There was a situation a little while ago where Marque’s comments weren’t posting. He thought he was banned, but you looked into it and there was some kind of glitch that was causing them not to post, if I remember correctly.

          • My email account still not working – I had to change to another email account.

            But that is the point – delete now but another alais and another email account and the problem comes back

    • As a proud “right-winger”, I can affirm what Dr. Perry says.

      Of course, us “right-wingers” were the original “classical liberals”, but that was before the Lefts “march through the institutions”. Now that a thoroughly politicized judiciary has had a chance to hold forth on all of the deeply hidden penumbras of the Constitution, well, along with the founders, we’re just a bunch “extremists”.

      I for one would be sad to see you go. I believe everyone, no matter how vile, should have the right to speak. And then there’s the added benefit to libertarians and “right-wingers” alike of having our arguments seem deeply intelligent by comparison to yours.

  5. “The figure for the 35 jobs is Forbes magazine, not generally considered liberal.”

    The number comes from the state department, not Forbes magazine.

    If you bothered reading the report from the state department, it states that the 35 jobs are for OPERATIONS of the pipeline. It doesn’t consider jobs created outside the OPERATIONS of the pipeline. This means that there’s more economic benefits out side the 35 jobs.

    • What’s the point of bringing up “right wingers” into this discussion? I’m debating against your claim that Keystone will only create 35 jobs, which you misquoted and misinterpreted.

      • Where did I misquote? Forbes said 35 long term jobs. The Cornell study cited by Paul…one of YOU guys…above…did not say it would even CREATE jobs; it may COST them

        Funny you ignored that.

        • Paul is not “one of my guys.” What he says doesn’t concern this discussion. I’m am talking to you about the 35 jobs that you misquoted from the article:

          “A State Department study projects only 35 permanent jobs in pipeline maintenance and inspection.”

          You said the pipeline only creates 35 jobs. This is incorrect. The article clearly states that the pipeline likely create 35 pipeline maintenance and inspection jobs.

  6. Here is one analysis of the jobs related to Keystone XL:

    The latest State Department report, which also defines a “job” as a position filled for one year, estimates that the project would create 16,100 jobs directly related to Keystone XL. Another approximately 26,000 year-long jobs would created indirectly (restaurant and store workers, for example, needed to accommodate the temporarily increased population along the pipeline). That brings the State Department’s total to 42,100 year-long jobs.

    Included in that number, the report estimates that about 10,400 seasonal workers would be recruited for construction of the pipeline for jobs lasting four to eight months. If those short stints are calculated into an average annual jobs, that works out to 3,900 jobs over one year of construction, or 1,950 jobs each year for two years, the State Department wrote. After one to two years, the vast majority would leave, and 35 people would be permanently employed, according to the report.

    • But, as mentioned before, that is just the workers on construction. It does not include workers in the fields (which will be able to increase production), the refineries (which would be able to refine quicker), transporters, chemists, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. This also excludes any and all economic value created.

      If the goal is to create jobs, that’s easy: just ban all labor-saving devices, from dishwashers to heavy machinery. But the goal is to create value and prosperity.

          • Or public school math :-P

            But just to be clear, that was referring to a comment by Bobby swearing that everything says the pipeline would create 0 permanent jobs, even though everything he cited said it would create at least 35

    • I suspect the analysis for the Energy East Pipeline would look very similar. few long term jobs (likley a few more as the pipeline would be longer than Alberta to Cushing) (Note that Cushing to the Gulf Coast is pumping oil and reducing the WTI Brent spread already).

  7. Actually, it’s because of the hate-filled rants (a la “LibertarianRetardMorons”).

    As for the rest, well, it’s just basic math:

    Renewables (all together) account for just 7.8% of energy consumption in the US. That number is actually just about the same where it was in 1963, the last time carbon emissions were this low. The fact that share of consumption hasn’t changed, but emissions have plummeted suggests renewables cannot be the cause. However, natural gas can be. Natural gas is known to be cleaner than coal and its share of consumption climbed to 40%. That corresponds with the drop in emissions.

    It’s not complicated. It’s actually rather simple.

  8. “No wonder all you LibertarianRetardMorons™ got the crap beat out you at recess in the grade school schoolyard.”

    Well a nice quality comment from one of the more respected posters on this blog!!

    Given the strong streak of independence that is common with most of the libertarians who post here, and the strong affinity for the nanny state that permeates your comments, it is obvious who got the crap beat out of them in grade school. Too bad it did not knock any sense into you Marmico.

  9. North Dakota real standard of living is not nearly 20 percent higher than S. Dakota because the new high wage jobs are in oil boom areas where costs are at least 20% higher.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>