Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (60589)	12/25/2012 4:05:55 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Don't Kill The Economically Beneficial Shale-Gas Boom Let's not smother the shale-gas boom. It is the crown jewel of the disappointing economic recovery. Why tamper with success? Yet, there are those who argue that shale gas' benefits could be maximized if we restricted gas exports, mainly as liquefied natural gas (LNG). This would, it's argued, keep prices low for U.S. consumers and manufacturers, contributing powerfully to the revival of American industry. Sounds convincing. It isn't. Limiting LNG exports might initially cut prices, but the long-run consequences would be perverse. By depressing prices, we might kill the boom. Production would become less profitable or unprofitable, and new drilling would slow or stop. This is not just supply and demand. It's also history. From 1954 to the early-1990s, the federal government regulated prices for interstate natural gas. Prices were held artificially low. "Shortages" developed in the 1970s; drilling suffered. The shale-gas boom — the most important energy event in decades — is mostly a market phenomenon. The drilling techniques to extract gas from tight formations long considered uneconomic were first demonstrated by a small Texas company, Mitchell Energy. Curbing Carbon Other firms then perfected these techniques: "fracking" — injecting formations with highly-pressurized liquids — and "horizontal drilling." Government agencies are studying whether added environmental regulation of fracking and wastewater disposal is needed. So far, hazards seem manageable. Mainly, the boom should be left alone to build on its considerable gains. Since 2000, U.S. natural gas production has risen by a quarter, with the increase coming mostly from shale gas. From 2000 to 2012, its share of production zoomed from less than 2% to 34%. By 2040, the Energy Information Administration, the source of these figures, expects overall gas production to increase by nearly 40%. Shale gas' share would rise to about half. By one study, the gas boom has created nearly 500,000 jobs for producers and their suppliers. Surging output has reduced wellhead prices more than half from stratospheric 2008 levels. In 2012, residential gas bills (which also cover transportation and distribution costs) are down 21% from 2008. Manufacturers consume about a third of U.S. natural gas as both a heating fuel and a petrochemical feedstock. Low prices are promoting investment by energy-intensive firms. Companies have announced at least 100 new projects or expansions worth an estimated $90 billion, estimates Dow Chemical. Greenhouse gas emissions have also been curbed because natural gas, when used as an alternative to coal to generate electricity, produces about half as much carbon dioxide. Finally, fracking and horizontal drilling have been applied to oil, spawning a parallel boom. In 2012, U.S. oil production is up 25% from 2008. That's about another 400,000 production and supplier jobs, estimates the consulting firm IHS. The complaint that LNG exports might unwisely drive up natural gas prices comes from politicians and gas consumers. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., argues the Obama administration should ensure that "unfettered natural gas exports don't harm U.S. consumers and manufacturers." Not Like Wheat Dow Chemical says a "rush to export liquefied natural gas" could jeopardize the "tremendous competitive advantage for American industry" from low-price shale gas. In theory, LNG might divert large volumes of natural gas because the wellhead price of U.S. gas is, on an energy-equivalent basis, much cheaper than oil. But in practice, this isn't likely: LNG isn't easily substituted for oil and is costly. The expense of liquefying it to minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit and transporting it long distances in refrigerator tankers raises the price sharply. LNG projects are fabulously expensive. Sabine Pass in Louisiana, a project approved by the Department of Energy, will cost $11 billion and could provide customers in Britain, South Korea, India and Spain with gas equal to about 3% of present U.S. supply. Exporting natural gas simply isn't as easy as exporting wheat. Unsurprisingly, LNG satisfied less than 10% of global gas demand in 2010. Bridging The Trade Gap Nor are American producers guaranteed contracts. Other large suppliers (Qatar, Australia) might undercut U.S. prices. But the global LNG market could absorb some American shale-gas production. Why discourage this? A study commissioned by the Department of Energy suggests that the price impact would be modest. The truth is that the U.S. needs domestic and foreign buyers for its natural gas. Supply is outpacing demand, leading to a collapse in prices and drilling activity. Gas rigs are down half from a year ago, reports the energy firm Baker Hughes. Prices can't be held at artificially low levels. Companies won't drill unless they can profitably sell what they find. A policy that discriminates against producers in favor of consumers by restricting foreign sales will hurt both. The gas boom will recede as an engine of growth. For years, Americans have complained about trade deficits. Now that we have something more to sell, we shouldn't turn away customers

To: Wayners who wrote (60589)	12/25/2012 4:07:51 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

To: Wayners who wrote (60589)	12/29/2012 4:31:18 PM
From: greatplains_guy	Respond to of 71588

Afraid of Unemployment, Americans Cling to Their Jobs By Peter Coy December 20, 2012 Americans who are lucky enough to have jobs are hanging on to them longer. A new analysis of Census Bureau data shows that median job tenure in 2012 was the highest since at least the early 1980s. The Employment Benefit Research Institute said on Dec. 19 that the median time on the job for American wage and salary workers aged 25 and older was 5.4 years as of the beginning of 2012. That was up from 4.7 years in 2000, when hiring was strong, the jobless rate was low, and it was easy for quitters to get new jobs. The year 2013 “should be pretty similar to 2010-12? in that people will continue to hang on to their jobs, Craig Copeland, the EBRI senior research associate who wrote the report, said in an interview. “The unemployment rate is still high. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of job creation.” EBRI drew on Census data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in October but delved into the numbers more deeply than the government agency’s report did. (Another difference: The BLS focused on workers 16 and over, while EBRI focused on workers 25 and older.) Men’s median tenure was 40 percent longer than women’s in 1983: 5.9 years on the job for men vs. 4.2 years for women. The decline of manufacturing and unionization shortened men’s tenure. Women’s tenure rose because more of them began pursuing careers, not just casual employment. This year the gap was just 2 percent: 5.5 years for men and 5.4 years for women. The truism that civil servants have steadier jobs is true: Median tenure in the public sector was 8.3 years for wage and salary workers aged 20 and up, nearly twice the 4.3 years for private-sector workers. There’s other evidence that jobholders remain nervous. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the quit rate in October—the number of quits as a percentage of total employment—was just 1.5 percent. That’s a third lower than the rate in December 2007, the peak of the last business cycle. And it’s not too far above the 2009 low of 1.2 percent. One last thing about job tenure that’s worth noting: Overall, it’s pretty short. The job for life is a rare thing. That has implications for public policy. Many workers in companies with traditional pensions are leaving before they accumulate meaningful retirement benefits. And people with 401(k)s who skip from company to company could burn up their savings if they take lump-sum payouts instead of rolling over their old plans into new ones. Writes Copeland: “Enrollments in means-tested welfare programs could increase significantly if large numbers of retirees prematurely exhaust their own savings reserves.” Coy is Bloomberg Businessweek's economics editor. businessweek.com

To: Wayners who wrote (60589)	2/14/2013 8:56:11 PM
From: greatplains_guy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

EPA caught sabotaging fracking Ed Lasky February 14, 2013 Once again, government misbehavior is coming to light, this time involving the Environmental Protection Agency, and we can thank the inspector general program -- which President Obama would like to gut. I have written numerous columns regarding President Obama's War against Inspectors General. These are the taxpayer advocates within various government agencies who seek to ensure that fraud, waste and abuse of power is prevented. Hence, Obama determined opposition to them that has gone to such lengths as character assassination, attempts to form a new $30 billion-dollar agency without an Inspector General, failing to replace Inspectors General when they depart. Now comes news that again illustrates the reasons Obama has tried to gut the Inspector General program: one is investigating possible abused or power at the EPA as part of its crusade against energy producers. Lachan Markay at the Washington Free Beacon reports: A federal watchdog is investigating Environmental Protection Agency enforcement actions against a Texas natural gas company that the agency claimed contaminated drinking water through its drilling activities in the state. The investigation, initiated in July 2012 but announced publicly for the first time on Tuesday, could substantiate allegations that the agency ignored information in its investigation that might have cast doubt on its findings. According to a letter from the EPA's inspector general, the investigation will seek to determine whether aggressive legal action taken by EPA's Region 6 office against Range Resources "conformed to agency guidelines, regulations, and policy." The investigation will focus on the EPA's actions against Range Resources, one of the pioneers in fracking. EPA administrator Al Armendariz (whose comments regarding crucifying oil and gas companies led to his later ouster when they came to light via a video) had issued an emergency order against Range, claiming the company had contaminated two natural gas wells with methane released from drilling activities. The problem? The EPA's internal emails show that even the agency's own experts doubted the science behind the allegations. One EPA employee in a court-ordered deposition has admitted the EPA war aware that groundwater in the area contained methane prior to Range's drilling but chose to hit the delete button when it released its official records used to justify actions against the company. The EPA has been an adamant foe of domestic energy development in America for the last four years (and beyond). Their actions in Texas and elsewhere have revealed that they will step outside the bounds of the rules and regulations -- and the law -- that governs their agency when it suits them. This is par for the course in the Age of Obama -- and that is why he also has done everything he can to eviscerate the Inspector General program. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that "sunlight is the best disinfectant". Inspectors General shine this spotlight on government activities. That is the problem for Obama. He does not want any light shone on his actions-or those taken by his people. The promises of transparency by Barack Obama do not apply when it comes to his own presidency. He wants citizens to be kept in the dark. Why? Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter \| AmericanThinker on Facebook americanthinker.com