Skip to main content

Bill Powers, editor of Powers Energy Investor, has a new book set for publication in May 2013 titled, "Cold, Hungry and in the Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth."

Powers' book will reveal that production rates in all of the shale basins are far lower than the oil and gas industry is claiming and are actually in alarmingly steep decline. In short, the "shale gas bubble" is about to burst.

Arthur Berman, another investment insider, echoed Powers in a recent interview with Oil Price, remarking that the decline rates in production in shale basins nationwide are "incredibly high."

Berman is a petroleum geologist, Associate Editor of the American Association of Petroleum Geolgists Bulletin and Director of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. He maintains the blog Petroleum Truth Report.
 

Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog

Food and Water Watch recently demonstrated that the dominant narrative, "100 years" of unconventional oil and gas in the United States, is false. At most, some 50 years of this dirty energy resource may exist beneath our feet.

Bill Powers, editor of Powers Energy Investor, has a new book set for publication in May 2013 titled, "Cold, Hungry and in the Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth."

Powers' book will reveal that production rates in all of the shale basins are far lower than the oil and gas industry is claiming and are actually in alarmingly steep decline. In short, the "shale gas bubble" is about to burst.

In a recent interview, Powers said the "bubble" will end up looking a lot like the housing bubble that burst in 2008-2009, and that U.S. shale gas will last no longer than ten years. He told The Energy Report:
 

My thesis is that the importance of shale gas has been grossly overstated; the U.S. has nowhere close to a 100-year supply. This myth has been perpetuated by self-interested industry, media and politicians...In the book, I take a very hard look at the facts. And I conclude that the U.S. has between a five- to seven-year supply of shale gas, and not 100 years.

The hotly-anticipated book may explain why shale gas industry giants like Chesapeake Energy have behaved more like real estate companies, making more money flipping over land leases than they do producing actual gas.

Powers told The Energy Report:
 

Put simply: There is production decline in the Haynesville and Barnett shales. Output is declining in the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma. Some of the older shale plays, such as the Fayetteville Shale, are starting to roll over. As these shale plays reverse direction and the Marcellus Shale slows down its production growth, overall U.S. production will fall.

Powers believes we are quickly approaching a gas crisis akin to what occured in the 1970's and because of that, prices will soon skyrocket.

Art Berman Also Sounds the "Shale Gas Bubble" Alarm

Arthur Berman, another investment insider, echoed Powers in a recent interview with Oil Price, remarking that the decline rates in production in shale basins nationwide are "incredibly high."

Berman is a petroleum geologist, Associate Editor of the American Association of Petroleum Geolgists Bulletin and Director of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil. He maintains the blog Petroleum Truth Report.

"In the Eagleford shale, which is supposed to be the mother of all shale oil plays, the annual decline rate is higher than 42%," he stated. "They're going to have to drill hundreds, almost 1000 wells in the Eagleford shale, every year, to keep production flat. Just for one play, we're talking about $10 or $12 billion a year just to replace supply."

Berman believes there's a possibility that this could lead to an economic crisis akin to which happened during the Big Bank bailouts of 2008.

"I add all these things up and it starts to approach the amount of money needed to bail out the banking industry. Where is that money going to come from?," he asked the interviewee.

Who Will Be Left "Cold, Dark and Hungry" and Living in the "Dark Ages"?

It's a deep dive into shale gas production numbers that have led insiders like Powers, Berman and others to conclude that the behavior of the industry is akin to Enron's behavior in the 1990s, described by some as a "Ponzi Scheme" in a June 2011 investigation by The New York Times.

"What a glorious vision of the future: It's cold, it's dark and we're all hungry," Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon said of anti-fracking activists in Sept. 2011. "I have no interest in turning the clock back to the dark ages like our opponents do."

The reality, though, is far murkier. It appears the real culprit "turning the clock back to the dark ages" may actually be the unconventional oil and gas industry after all.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (142+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TXsharon, DRo, cany, Persiflage, blueoasis, marleycat, kevinpdx, armadillo, Wreck Smurfy, sc kitty, Bush Bites, PeteZerria, NYmom, Paper Cup, Odysseus, Kingsmeg, Dhavo, corncam, bluedust, pickandshovel, n8rboy, bfbenn, Smoh, emidesu, Mr Robert, native, antooo, millwood, doubledutch, emmasnacker, tle, frisco, wilderness voice, astral66, buckstop, glitterscale, ek hornbeck, IndieGuy, protectspice, lcrp, harlinchi, codairem, JeffW, biggiefries, Shockwave, Meteor Blades, Egalitare, Matilda, No one gets out alive, akze29, chantedor, 6412093, Dobber, pot, Danno11, Pompatus, Agathena, dotsright, antirove, hubcap, defluxion10, subtropolis, pgm 01, cacamp, Karl Rover, phonegery, FutureNow, tofumagoo, countwebb, basquebob, 3goldens, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, kaliope, JanetT in MD, Aaa T Tudeattack, Lujane, wonkydonkey, splashy, Sandino, OtherDoug, Nebraskablue, congenitalefty, NJpeach, Kdoug, Ignacio Magaloni, Lily O Lady, LaughingPlanet, ShockandAwed, outragedinSF, pvasileff, grollen, PeterHug, thomask, deepeco, ivote2004, chickeeee, Creosote, mofembot, bluesheep, riverlover, jadt65, JimWilson, begone, chimene, rat racer, Just Bob, northsylvania, ChemBob, vicki, Hawaiian, cordgrass, jhop7, OregonWetDog, maryabein, haremoor, billlaurelMD, davelf2, TexasLefty, Cedwyn, pollwatcher, zerelda, Temmoku, createpeace, ItsSimpleSimon, Only Needs a Beat, Wino, SeaTurtle, cv lurking gf, Crashing Vor, telamonides, FrY10cK, PrometheusUnbound, War on Error, TKO333, Arahahex, opinionated, terabytes, aitchdee, Calamity Jean, Pragmatus, Carol in San Antonio, Eric Nelson
  •  I suppose that they (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, phonegery, Rei, chimene

    falsified the working gas in underground storage volume data as well?

    •  I don't see much of an increase in this data (4+ / 0-)
      •  Do The Math (0+ / 0-)

        The storage and supply data may tweak the parameters around the edges, but the math works out the same.

        #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

        by ivote2004 on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 01:06:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's worse than that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PrometheusUnbound

          because on average, reserves figures rise every year.

          Most people have a horrible misunderstanding of reserves.  The reality is that there's hydrocarbons almost everywhere on the planet, and all that changes is the extraction cost.  So what is declared as "reserves" is a tiny fraction of the planet thats been explored (and just ignoring the huge amount of "across" that's not been explored, there's a practically limitless amount of "down"), which has oil that's economical to produce at today's prices, with today's technology.    But of course all elements of that picture are constantly changing.  The oceans and arctic are just starting to get explored, "deep" keeps getting cheaper, production from less viable reserves in general keeps getting cheaper, and any increase in prices raises the "reserves" figure by orders of magnitude.  Hence reserves tend to grow faster they're consumed.

          •  To put it another way... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Happy Days

            Picture that you're mining for gold, and there's rare loose surface nuggets, then an order of magnitude more gold dust in river sediments, then an order of magnitude more shallowly buried veins in rock, then an order of magnitude more that's deeper and more scattered, then another order of magnitude, then another, etc.

            You start mining by simply picking up nuggets with you bare hands.  Oh no, you're exhausting the easy to get gold.  But that's why you switch to panning.  Oh, but you're exhausting the gold dust!  So you switch to shallow mining of rich veins.  Oh, but you're exhausting them!  So you go deeper and sparser.  Etc.

            And what happens in reality?  Production doesn't decline - it increases.  Reserves don't decline - they increase.  Production cost doesn't increase - in the long term, compared to the cost of people walking around hand-picking nuggets, production cost decreases.

            Now this is perhaps a bad example because we're at the moment in the middle of a gold spike due to the economic crisis and gold markets are often distorted by other factors, but let it suffice to say that compared to preindustrial man's harvesting of gold when it was nice and convenient in surface nuggets, far less of the world economy's resources are dedicated to collecting it while many orders of magnitude more are collected.

          •  Peak CHEAP Oil, those extraction costs matter (4+ / 0-)

            We will NEVER run out of oil, because it will become so expensive that solar and wind will be far cheaper.  But if we don't subsidize solar and wind NOW, we may not have the cheap oil/gas resources to make the transition without huge economic contractions that will make 2008 look like a picnic.

            Fracking technology just digs that fossil fuel needle deeper into our economic arm and makes the coming cheap oil shock even more dangerous.

            •   (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Happy Days

              That's the point, there will not be "huge contractions".  The oil markets will always fluctuate because they're based on gambling (to be quite honest!).  The companies bet on what oil prices are going to be in the 10 years or so it takes to start a new project and pick which projects to begin based on that.  But you increase the projection price $20 and you double the reserves.  Increase it another $20 and you double the reserves again. Etc.  And the overall prices drop with time as tech advances.  Sometimes tech advances faster than reserve recovery challenge and demand growth and prices overall drop.  Sometimes reserve recovery challenge and demand growth rises faster than tech advances and prices rise.  As a whole, oil prices are pretty similar to what they were at the start of the 20th century, in inflation-adjusted dollars, back when oil abundant in near-surface gusher wells in convenient locations.

              Wind and solar have nothing to do with oil, try again.  

              •  Your discussion is missing something important. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TKO333, opinionated, pollwatcher

                EROEI. Energy Returned on Energy Invested.

                Back when the commodities reports still used the phrase "Pennsylvania light sweet crude", EROI could be as much as 100:1.

                Now that the easy oil is gone and we're drilling in 5000' of Ocean water (killing 11 men and almost ruining the GOM in the process) and pressure washing sand in Alberta to get the oil off of it, EROEI can be as low as 8:1.

                This is dirty expensive oil and we burn more and more fossil fuels as we try to extract what is left. I fear that we won't stop until EROEI reaches 1:1. By that time the human race is likely to be in a world of hurt not only from energy shortages but also global warming.

                Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

                by FrY10cK on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 07:32:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  EROEI is irrelevant concerning a single form of (0+ / 0-)

                  energy.  It's like saying that if it takes more energy to make alkaline batteries than they contain that there's no purpose to making alkaline batteries.

                  See elsewhere in the thread where I go into more detail on this.

                  •  Batteries are a storage mediium not a source (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pollwatcher, zenyata

                    of energy.

                    What is your source that will provide an EROEI equivalent to easy 100:1 oil?

                    You're right that there are huge fossil fuel reserves left. They're difficult, dirty, and expensive to extract. Likewise to refine. That's why the EROEI goes down every year.

                    http://www.theoildrum.com Educate yourself.

                    Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

                    by FrY10cK on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 03:04:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oil can likewise be an energy storage medium. (0+ / 0-)

                      There's no requirement that it has to be a net energy source.  THis equation makes no sense:

                      2 MJ oil -> 1 MJ oil

                      But the following do:

                      2 MJ coal -> 1 MJ oil
                      2 MJ nuclear -> 1 MJ oil
                      2 MJ solar -> 1 MJ oil
                      2 MJ geothermal -> 1 MJ oil
                      2 MJ wind -> 1 MJ oil

                      ... because you can't put any of the abundant things on the left hand side in your car.

                      They're difficult, dirty, and expensive to extract.
                      Dirty only matters for the environment not for economics.  And you double reserves figures every $20 or so you raise the base price of oil.  Every extra degree of "difficulty" puts orders of magnitude more oil on the market and the cost is hardly apocalyptic.
                      •  Umm ... (0+ / 0-)
                        ... the cost is hardly apocalyptic.
                        Burning 1 MJ to retrieve 8 MJ when our industrial economy (especially agriculture) is predicated on 100:1 easy fossil fuels? Do you really think we'd be drilling in 5000' of ocean water (an amazing technological feat -- also dirty, dangerous and expensive) if there was an abundance of fossil fuels? Speaking of dirty, how much hot water do you think it takes to pressure wash Alberta tar sands to get the oil off of it? Where do you thing the dirty water goes?

                        Decreasing EROEI is a change the human race has not prepared for. Wind and solar are great except all of the equipment is manufactured using massive amounts of fossil fuels. Geothermal is great. In Wyoming and Iceland.

                        And when are all those new nuclear plants coming online? And what do you propose we do with all the spent fuel currently sitting in grid-dependent cooling ponds? You know what happens to spent fuel cooling ponds when the power goes out right? They catch fire.

                        The worst though is this: All your equations show an EROEI of 1:2.  How in the hell does that make any sense? We liquefy 2 MJ of coal to make 1 MJ of fuel for driving to Walmart and Dairy Queen? Now we add the greenhouse gasses from our Humvee fuel production to the emissions from the Humvees themselves?

                        Please start reading what the petroleum engineers and geologists have to say at www.theoildrum.com

                        Reaganomics noun pl: belief that unregulated capitalism can produce unlimited goods for unlimited people on a planet with finite resources and we the people can increase revenue by decreasing revenue.

                        by FrY10cK on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 11:40:02 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You're not even reading my posts (0+ / 0-)

                          Keep this up and I'll stop responding altogether.  

                          Burning 1 MJ to retrieve 8 MJ when our industrial economy (especially agriculture) is predicated on 100:1 easy fossil fuels?
                          To repost:
                          There's no requirement that it has to be a net energy source.  THis equation makes no sense:
                          2 MJ oil -> 1 MJ oil
                          But the following do:
                          2 MJ coal -> 1 MJ oil
                           2 MJ nuclear -> 1 MJ oil
                           2 MJ solar -> 1 MJ oil
                           2 MJ geothermal -> 1 MJ oil
                           2 MJ wind -> 1 MJ oil
                          ... because you can't put any of the abundant things on the left hand side in your car.
                          Argue against the points your opponent is actually making.  Otherwise you're hitting a straw man.
                          Do you really think we'd be drilling in 5000' of ocean water (an amazing technological feat -- also dirty, dangerous and expensive) if there was an abundance of fossil fuels?
                          Of course it's a huge technological feat.  It's also a massive freaking payoff.  A single multi-well platform on a good field can produce hundreds of thousand barrels of oil (tens of millions of dollars) per day, billions of dollars per year.  Billions, with a B.  Why should anyone be shocked that oil companies would want to develop them?  The industry will always go wherever the payoff is biggest.
                          Speaking of dirty, how much hot water do you think it takes to pressure wash Alberta tar sands to get the oil off of it? Where do you thing the dirty water goes?
                          Not only grossly misleading, but irrelevant for topics of energy and economics (you have this weird habit of mixing up the two topics), so I'm not even going to address it.
                          Wind and solar are great except all of the equipment is manufactured using massive amounts of fossil fuels.
                          Myth.  Modern wind and solar have energy paybacks in under a year.
                          Geothermal is great. In Wyoming and Iceland.
                          And EGS, anywhere on the planet.  The MIT geothermal study showed that the US has hundreds of thousands of times more geothermal capacity from EGS than it consumes.
                          And when are all those new nuclear plants coming online?
                          Your logic train is not only derailed but sitting at the bottom of a ditch.  "plans to build" != "capability to build".  Just like with oil, people will always produce only what economics dictates is the best option at any given point in time, not everything that is physically possible to produce.
                          And what do you propose we do with all the spent fuel currently sitting in grid-dependent cooling ponds? You know what happens to spent fuel cooling ponds when the power goes out right? They catch fire.
                          All of which has nothing to do with whether the world can power itself so I'm not even going to address it.
                          The worst though is this: All your equations show an EROEI of 1:2.
                          Which is half an order of magnitude worse than the worst oil recovery mechanism in use today.  And is even worse than the EROEI for most pure CO2 + water + energy methods to produce oil, the most energy intensive.
                          How in the hell does that make any sense?
                          Do I really have to quote myself a third time?
                          ... because you can't put any of the abundant things on the left hand side in your car.
                          Please actually Read The Post before you respond.  Heck, even read the title: "Oil can likewise be an energy storage medium."  It's amazing that people like you can often have no problem with the usage of a fuel cell, which wastes 2/3rds of its cycle energy and can't convert its waste product (water) back into fuel on-board the vehicle, requiring industrial recreation of the hydrogen using energy, but you can't even conprehend the concept of lossily burning and industrial recreating creating  (using energy) of hydrocarbons.  What part of "energy storage medium" is difficult for you?  

                          Yes, I've spent time at The Oil Drum before, and it's a magnet for kooks.

          •  You got some math, sources, or any other hard data (0+ / 0-)

            to support this insane reasoning?

            The oceans and arctic are just starting to get explored, "deep" keeps getting cheaper, production from less viable reserves in general keeps getting cheaper, and any increase in prices raises the "reserves" figure by orders of magnitude.  Hence reserves tend to grow faster they're consumed.
            Shell just gave up in the arctic.  "Too unsafe" I believe they said.

            Oh, and by the way, as prices go up, guess what happens to demand.

            Furthermore, once it takes one BTU invested to pull one BTU out of the ground, your so-called "reserves" plummet to zero!  Open a physics book.  Of course, by the time that happens, the gods will be basting us in our own gravy!

            •  Lol (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Happy Days
              Shell just gave up in the arctic.
              Indeed, Shell just ended their arctic activities - For The Year.  There's this little thing called "winter" you may have heard of.

              Look, I live in Iceland, don't tell me that the arctic isn't getting heavily explored for oil.  They recently even found some in Icelandic waters, in a region called the Dragon Zone.  It's big news here.

              Oh, and by the way, as prices go up, guess what happens to demand.
              Barely dropped when it hit 150.  But in all regards, why wouldn't a drop in demand be a good thing?  Oh, we'll eventually hit a "peak" alright, but it'll be a demand peak.  Same as the world didn't end when, for lighting, people switched from tallow to whale oil, whale oil to paraffin, paraffin to kerosene, or kerosene to electricity.
              Furthermore, once it takes one BTU invested to pull one BTU out of the ground, your so-called "reserves" plummet to zero!
              Utterly false and a very common misconception.  That only applies to energy in general, not a specific form of energy.  The Nazis powered their air force by using several times more energy in coal than they got out in aviation fuel.  And it let them run one of the most successful air forces in military history (until the allies bombed the refineries flat).  South Africa did the same thing during apartheid.  

              Oil is an expensive form of energy.  One can convert cheaper forms of energy into oil.  At a most basic level, oil can be produced from water, carbon dioxide, and any form of energy.  Of course, carbon dioxide is one of the most expensive ways to make oil.  Cheaper is biomass, cheaper still is coal, cheaper still is bitumen, and on and on.

              Now, you could argue that we're somehow going to hit "peak energy", but that'd be a pretty absurd argument.  The last EGS study in the US showed several hundred thousand times more geothermal potential than the US uses.  More solar energy hits the earth in an hour than the world uses in a year.  Breeder reactors and seawater fuel extraction could power the Earth for hundreds of thousands of years.  Etc.  Peak energy is an absurdity.

    •  care to explain your point? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr Robert, sebastianguy99, svboston

      I'd love to hear another side to this.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:32:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the price of natural gas (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cacamp

        collapsed this spring because there was real concern that overproduction would max out the potential storage capacity in the u.s. before the winter heating season.

        the reported volumes in storage accumulation each week is defined as the amount of production less consumption.  the fact is that natural gas is way way way oversupplied right now and if the winter heating season is less than normal we will likely exceed our maximum storage capacity.

        in addition, companies are spending billions of dollars in the south coast preparing for eventual exportation of LNG so this CT diary is pretty bogus as far as I can tell.

        http://ir.eia.gov/...

    •  Different (?) researcher, same conclusions Dec '11 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, Creosote

      with regard to the hype, though not the asset bubble:

      http://www.slate.com/...

      Hope he is getting some credit--great article!  

      The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Clayton Act, Section 6.

      by Ignacio Magaloni on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 10:13:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My thoughts exactly. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      New Minas, Happy Days

      I remember reading about how the "Shale gas bubble was about to burst" 6 months ago, and a year ago, and a year and a half ago, and two years ago...

      It's just another form of the same sort of peak oil scaremongering that's been going on since oil and natural gas first started to be produced (the first "peakers" were clamouring about how the US's only good oil fields were in Pennsylvania and they were about to be exhausted).  The peak is right around the corner, and just you forget that it's been "right around the corner" every year for the past century and a half.

      1855 ad for Kier's Rock Oil: "Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature's laboratory."

      •  US Production Peaked in the 1970's (0+ / 0-)

        Hubbert 's peak oil prediction for the U.S. was at worst a few years off.

        The US response - a massive drilling effort during the 1970's and early 1980's that eventually went bust because cheap Saudi oil flooded the market (coupled with mysterious inflation of their reserve numbers - with, as far as anyone can tell, no basis in reality...)

        The result of our massive drilling campaign ?  Oil production that never came close to getting us back to our peak production numbers...

        Peak oil has nothing to do with running out of oil - it has EVERYTHING to do with running out of cheap oil.  Our economies aren't built on oil - they are built on ready access to cheap oil.  At the peak of a production curve, by definition, somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% of oil remains... far from running out.  Unfortunately it's just that it's the increasingly expensive stuff that remains in that second 50%.

        •  That's a completely meaningless figure. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Happy Days

          The US is not an isolated system.  Oil production will always occur where it's cheapest.  If at a given point in time it's cheapest in the US, it'll happen in the US.  If at a given point in time it's cheaper somewhere else, it'll happen somewhere else.

          Hubbert's predictions for the US looked good at first but have increasingly gone awry.  First off, the shape of his curve on the downslope is wrong for the US - it's been far shallower, and it keeps shallowing up.  The shape is in general pretty awful for trying to match with a country's oil production - peakers often show a handful of graphs for different countries that it works well for, like Norway (although now even Norway is going awry), but conveniently omit, for example, Canada   Back in "the day", the peakers were shoving their curve for Canada onto the early 1970s.  Oops.  Sort of like what happened with the Hubbert Curves they used to stick on US natural gas production

          You can try to wedge a shape onto any arbitrary set of data by changing its scale and width.  That doesn't give it any relevance.  And to reiterate the key point, where it's produced is irrelevant.  It'll always be produced wherever it's cheapest, given the current balance of geologic availability, political stability, technology, etc.  For example, the increasing recent return of oil production to the US (despite all of the domestic opposition) is a technological one, from a number of different perspectives.  At the rate shale keeps increasing by orders of magnitude, too, the US could end up another Canada.  But again, it's irrelevant.  The oil companies will put their money wherever it's cheapest.

          You have an entirely backwards view of reserves.  Reserves increase by orders of magnitude as the price rises.  Raise the expected production price by about $20 and global oil reserves double.  Raise it by another $20 and reserves double again.  These aren't apocalyptic price numbers.  And, lest we not forget, technology is always battling against this, moving prices in the opposite direction.  The balance between demand increases and the usage of the rarer, easier stuff, and technology, goes back and forth, but on average has held about even in the past century (oil prices are, in inflation-adjusted dollars, similar to that at around the start of the 1900s when there were Spindletops and Lakeviews everywhere.)

          What you describe as a "massive drilling campaign" is highly deceptive.  Again, oil always follows the economics.  In the 1970s much of the lower-48 economics shifted from large fields to small, easy to access but isolated fields (of which there are countless, most still untapped today).  If you've been driving along a road and see a few oil wells pumping in some farmer's field, that's what's being talked about.  These are little cheap wells, you could drill hundreds for the price of one Deepwater Horizon, but they don't individually produce a lot.  So yes, there were "lots of wells drilled", but that's a meaningless figure.  They produced the amount of oil they were expected to.

          At the end of the 80s, the economics shifted again.  Offshore gulf oil began to exceed the economics of these numerous little fieds (again, primarily due to advancing technology).  Hence the rate of well drilling dropped as the money moved again toward centralization.  But the trend is reversing as now new fields like the Bakken which require a bunch of wells start becoming cheaper.

          •  I like to compare domestic production (0+ / 0-)
          •  You seem to know your O&G a lot better than most (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rei

            who are commenting here.

            Some people fight fire with fire. Professionals use water.

            by Happy Days on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 12:18:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The only problem (0+ / 0-)

            with saying that the US is not an "isolated" system - is that is EXACTLY what these false proclamations regarding US energy "independence" are trying to give the impression of...  That we can become domestically "independent" producers - which to me implies we are reliant only on what we produce to power our own demands.

            The bottom line is that the worldwide demand for oil is higher than ever before.  The oil fields that matter - the super giants - peak and decline and no matter what technology is thrown at them they NEVER return to production numbers close to what their peak levels were.  North Sea, Prudhoe Bay, Cantarell in Mexico, Ghawar showing increasing water cuts...  all the "unconventional" (i.e. expensive) plays in the world are only allowing us the ability to continue "running to stand still".

            Increasing demand worldwide has made the market much more volatile and allowed for serious swings in prices over the past 5 years or so - there's no good evidence that the precarious national / global economies are robust enough to deal with higher prices that will be inevitable as unconventional sources are forced to pick up more of the slack for the former swing producers.  Reliance on unconventional plays and increasing technology is not something I'd be willing to bet on where demand is capped by a ceiling of ~$120 oil or has a floor of seemingly cheap $75 oil resulting from a stagnant economy.

  •  If this is a bubble it should be deflated early (10+ / 0-)

    allowing over inflated projections to keep the bubble swollen until it collapses would be catastrophic... except for the scammers who get out ahead of that... and the last ones holding the leases etc. will be badly hit along with the rest of the economy and regular folks trying to survive... again.

    Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

    by IreGyre on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 05:00:10 PM PST

  •  Here's the plan (38+ / 0-)

    There have been so many absurd predictions lately about the US and North America becoming "energy independent" by 2020. By some accounts the US will become the largest petroleum exporter in the world by 2030. Certain quarters are shouting these upcoming developments as loud as they can.

    In my opinion, it's an attempt to move the Overton Window on the national perception of our energy production and consumption. Their goal, I firmly believe, is to hang the failure to achieve these milestone around the necks of Democrats in 2016. When energy independence and the status of "world's largest petroleum exporter" fail to materialize, the Republicans and their moneyed backers will blame Democrats. And they will do so in spite of the fact that the predictions being made today are totally unbelievable and without merit.

    We know the GOP are living in their own bubble of crazy. It's a lot easier when the crazies are trying to influence people who have no innate understandnig of math in the first place. If people understood math and energy we would have had a responsible energy policy in this country several decades ago. The fact that we don't is proof enough, in my opinion, that the public at large is ripe for the picking on this issue.

    •  Domestic Oil Production Down 50% Since 1980 (18+ / 0-)

      http://www.indexmundi.com/...

      Fracking is just a little speed bump at the botto of a long hill.

      To be "energy independent" we need to discover two North Slope oil fields a year, forever.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 06:02:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats may deserve the blame they get (12+ / 0-)

      Democrats seem as anxious to claim credit for the USA becoming energy independant due to shale gas as the GOPers. And a whole lot of democrats are in favor of the trans-canada pipeline scam across the nation in which zero pretroleum is actually going to be sold and used here, it's all for export.

      I think the blame will be deservidly spread around.

      America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

      by cacamp on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:31:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the International Energy Agency (11+ / 0-)

      12-page pdf report on that:
      iea.org
      Quote from the Executive Summary-

      The recent rebound in US oil and gas production, driven by upstream technologies that are unlocking light tight oil and shale gas resources, is spurring economic activity – with less expensive gas and electricity prices giving industry a competitive edge – and steadily changing the role of North America in global energy trade.
      By around 2020, the United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer (overtaking Saudi Arabia until the mid-2020s) and starts to see the impact of new fuel-efficiency measures in transport. The result is a continued fall in US oil imports, to the extent that North America becomes a net oil exporter around 2030.

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:33:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  At what expense? (0+ / 0-)

        "By around 2020, the United States is projected to become the largest global oil producer..."

        If we (the U.S.) become the 'largest producer', will it be through the use of fracking and other undesirable (IMO) techniques?

        We should be much, much farther along the path of developing alternative energy sources both to preserve the environment and to conserve our natural resources.

        "We don't have village idiots any more; we have Republicans." - Positronicus

        by Maverick80229 on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 05:57:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Independence is an illusion. (0+ / 0-)

      Might as well assign it as a characteristic of energy, since it certainly doesn't apply to humans.
      Also, "energy independence" is a euphemism for U.S. autonomy and that, in turn, is a euphemism for U.S. supremacy -- all in the interst of denying the reality that all organic existence is inter-dependent.
      Why? What interest does the myth of supremacy and independence serve? Mostly, IMHO, it compensates for a deep sense of insecurity, growing out of personal incompetence. People with few or no practical talents with which to sustain themselves not only deny their limitations but define their need to be sustained as an entitlement to give orders. In other words, the need to be served is mentally transformed into an entitlement.

      "Because I am weak, I get to demand that you carry out my orders and take care of me."

      Why not just accept that everyone is entitled to be cared for and be done with it?  Because that premise assumes an obligation to provide mutual aid and comfort and that scares the incompetent (e.g. People who can't boil water) out of their wits. The myth of superiority sustains people who suffer from an inferiority complex.
      Where does it come from? Ironically, it may be that modest deficiencies when it comes to practical talents are compounded by the myth of independence, which some people deploy because they are just plain mean.

      "Not only is there no obligation that I do anything for you, but because you aren't independent and self-sustaining, I'm entitled to take whatever I want from you."

      That is, the myth of independence serves to justify predatory theft. It's like the Spaniards arguing the Inca didn't sufficiently appreciate and value the gold, so the Conquistadors were entitle to steal it and take it home. Blaming the victim is convenient in so many ways.

      Whence comes the deep sense of insecurity in the U.S?

      We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 06:04:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for this. (18+ / 0-)

    Nothing these companies claim ever sounds right to me and I'm sick of these energy commercials on MSNBC.

    Stay fired up: now is the time to focus on downticket change! #Forward

    by emidesu on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 05:50:38 PM PST

  •  our diets are largely dependent on natural gas (23+ / 0-)

    Natural gas is the primary input towards manufacturing ammonia, which is an indispensable fertilizer for crops like corn and soybeans.

    If natural gas indeed becomes more scarce, its use should be limited to agriculture and home heating.  We really need to look towards other sources for electricity generation.

    In addition, we need to stop using corn for ethanol production, and reserve this crop for food.

  •  Who is going to get screwed this time? (9+ / 0-)

    I have been upset that fracking is coming to our area. Do you have any idea what happens to the people who have signed leases and had their land leases flipped? There have been a lot of leases signed and the landowners wouldn't listen at all to our Frackban group. So from what I gather Chesapeake has been profiting from land speculation instead of gas wells? Anymore info would be appreciated.

    •  The mineral owners are not overly impacted even (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      texasmom, Lujane

      if there is basically fraudlent lease flipping. If the drilling happens, things will proceed as per the original lease contract. If there is a scam, the lessors will have their payments, and there will be no activity on the land.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:18:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I believe a lot of companies are delaying (6+ / 0-)

        drilling in hopes that natural gas prices will rise - as they are starting to do.  I'm not sure gas prices around $3 makes drilling a pricey horizontal shale well worth it.  The companies may try to extend the leases for another 2 years, which would mean paying the landowners another leasing bonus.

        It looks like natural gas prices were at or approaching their 52-wk. high on Wednesday, so all this could change with a continued rise.

        The truth always matters.

        by texasmom on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:30:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oil Depletion Allowance in Peril so ........ (9+ / 0-)

    OMG the Gas is depleting much FASTER than we thought!

    If they estimate the reserves high, then they risk loosing the depletion allowance.

    If they estimate the reserves low, then they risk SERIOUS investment in solar, and fusion, and thorium reactor  research which could bring those technologies on line within 15 years, essentially rendering oil a lubricant, not a gross commodity.

    This may be an attempt to skew oil prices, but I think we need to take it seriously and make the investment in infrastructure to make oil and gas use safe and rare.  One of the things that comes to mind is that solar is a square footage controlled technology, and the terrestrial desert areas are located far from the cities that need the power. A single 200 X 320 X 60 story apt building consumes much much more power than roof solar cells can generate. Going to take some large numbers of square miles with power collection grids with connections to every square meter to power the Northern States.
    Building that grid to transport that power is going to be messy and have an environmental impact. It might be positive. The shade created by the solar panels might actually habitable niches for wildlife, we will have to see.  If the fine grain disruption of the environment by the grid is going to be too much, then we need to think again about space based power satellites like those designed and tested in the Carter Administration, and killed first thing, as a priority by the Reagan Administration.  

    To Goldman Sachs in according to their desires, From us in accordance with the IRS.

    by Bluehawk on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 06:31:41 PM PST

  •  Gas is definitely the New Girl. It'll be (12+ / 0-)

    interesting to see what happens. I know that producers are losing their shirts. They extracted too much too fast and now the cost of the stuff is well below the cost of extraction. Not sure what the price will settle into. As for supply that'll just have to play out, I guess.

    No matter how ya slice it, though, Nat Gas pricing has historically been volatile and assumptions that price will stabilize in the long term is sort of a gamble....would I finance a new mutlimillion dollar gas generation plant on untested assurances of the market that the very nature of Nat Gus price volatility has changed forever?

    Uh.....no.

  •  Boom! A Cautionary Energy Tale (18+ / 0-)

    We have lived this story already.  Anyone that wants to know how it ends, should read about what happened with the Trenton Gas Field in Indiana and Ohio from 1880 to 1900.  As one of the largest oil and gas fields discovered up until that time, whole energy intensive industries moved to Northern Indiana.  That is how Ball Glass got started in Muncie, IN.  Some estimates say that over 90% of the gas was wasted in burning the gas as it came out of the well (this was called a flambeau).  At the center of the gas field, where the pressures were the highest, a small town called Harrisburg was renamed to Gas City and a plan was enacted to build a new industrial city on the Mississinewa River that was to rival Pittsburgh, PA.  The never ending supply of gas stopped flowing around 1899.  More specifically, the pressure was burned off.  Only 10% of the estimated 1 billion barrels of oil was removed.  As the gas pressure dissipated, it made it nearly impossible to get the remaining oil.  There is still over 900 million barrels of oil remaining under Indiana.

    While this isn't the same geological issue with shale, the lessons might be the same.  A huge boom that lead to the dramatic decline of a resource.

    "When a nation goes down, or a society perishes, one condition may always be found; they forgot where they came from. They lost sight of what had brought them along." --Carl Sandburg

    by Mote Dai on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 06:40:51 PM PST

    •  Well, now we know... (4+ / 0-)

      ...where we could pump the carbon dioxide from all those "clean" coal plants, to recover all that oil!

      Oh, wiat...

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:09:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't laugh! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lujane, Calamity Jean

        Numerous odd ideas have been floated over the years to get that oil (still estimated at 900 million barrels).  Now that new oil extraction technologies have been developed that don't require high ground gas pressures, I bet someone is already drawing up investment plans to go after it.  

        "When a nation goes down, or a society perishes, one condition may always be found; they forgot where they came from. They lost sight of what had brought them along." --Carl Sandburg

        by Mote Dai on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:25:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roger Fox, Mote Dai, Calamity Jean

          ...they shouldn't have drawn out all of the natural gas, then. But they'd need a whole tishload of either nitrogen or carbon dioxide to extract that big a load of oil, and I don't know where they would get it easily.

          Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

          by JeffW on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:12:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Most of it was wasted (13+ / 0-)

            Indiana tried to regulate the industry and stop the flambeau practice.  Some gas providers voluntarily stopped the practice.  The State passed regulations were fought tooth and nail in the courts with the State Supreme Court finally saying the State regs were OK at about the time the damage was done and the pressure had dropped to levels too low to extract the associated oil.  The gas providers overstated the amount of gas available and actively fought regulation, even the kind that would protect the resource itself, through years of court action.  Sounds a little familiar, doesn't it?

            "When a nation goes down, or a society perishes, one condition may always be found; they forgot where they came from. They lost sight of what had brought them along." --Carl Sandburg

            by Mote Dai on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:21:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Let the Environmentalists Freeze in the Dark (18+ / 0-)

    That was a popular number sticker in my home town circa 1972 -- when coal companies predicted the clean air act would lead to high electric prices and energy shortages that would leave most Americans without power.

    Boy, those big energy guys are always right, huh?

  •  production already in decline (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane, ivote2004, Calamity Jean

    US Natural Gas production has been declining slowly since the beginning of the year and will probably decline more rapidly soon as the number of new wells being drilled has dropped off sharply.  Prices are already rising although none of this has yet bubbled up to the media.

  •  Why am I not surprised? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Time lost where we could have been putting up more wind turbines, and maybe a new nuclear reactor of two.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:04:17 PM PST

  •  These companies... (10+ / 0-)

    ...apparently hire their petroleum geologists from the same source conservatives use for their public opinion polling.

    Freedom isn't "on the march." Freedom dances.

    by WarrenS on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:05:43 PM PST

  •  I was confused concerning the term Shale Gas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    Seems this is natural gas trapped in shale and then you have regular natural gas deposits. My first impression upon reading this was that we'll run out of gas in less than ten years.......

    "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

    by fugwb on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:13:26 PM PST

  •  Maybe another advantage (17+ / 0-)

    to inflating supply estimates is that it helps generate public acceptance for fracking.  Ruining a state's water supply for ten years of gas production isn't very tempting, but trading the water supply for a hundred years of gas riches?  That's a trade too many are willing to make.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:21:52 PM PST

  •  Let's hope not (0+ / 0-)

    Or let's hope that it levels out rather than tanks.  People need those jobs.

    Who ya gonna shoot wit dat homie, you'd rather blast an original instead of a phony, true macaroni, you don't even know me, and why does your gun say n****z only?

    by mim5677 on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:46:51 PM PST

  •  Cheap natural gas and high production (8+ / 0-)

    are the result of new discoveries with high initial production.

    In the Marcellus shale plays in PA, most wells have peak production in the first few weeks, followed by a rapid decline. I look at Marcellus shale fracking as a shaken soda bottle. Lots of initial activity and then the fizz slowly fades away.

    In PA, average NG daily production in Marcellus is 600 Mcf year one but only 100 Mcf by year four. But for horizontal wells (where fracking is used) year one daily production averages over 1200 Mcf. However, by year four average daily production is below 100 Mcf.

    So after the first year, well output declines by 60-80% and by year 3, the wells are sipper wells.

    The only way gas stays cheap and production stays high is continuous drilling and discovery - constantly finding more and more shaken soda bottles.

    I don't think that is likely.

  •  hard to tell what to think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99

    Experts have been predicting peak oil and shortages for several decades. Soon they can get the stuff out if the arctic. What will happen first, getting off it due to warming or running out?

  •  good diary and comments (0+ / 0-)

    someday, our folks are going to have to make their gas and oil from plants or mine it on other planets. Too bad I won't know what they come up with.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:49:00 PM PST

    •  or mine it on other planets. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Creosote, Karl Rover

      Not exactly.

      Energy-to-mass ratios are horrible when seen through the lens of the delta V required to exit planetary gravity wells. Fuel from other planets will be Helium-3, as it is ridiculously valuable and has a high power release. Many speak of harvesting it from solar wind impregnated lunar regolith, but the cost of extraction from millions of tons of dust and pebbles is very high. It is more likely that the fusion fuel will be derived from tritium-3 degradation products through gaseous fractionation. The problem with the atomic route of acquisition is the multiple decade half-life.

      But, that is, some time off indeed.

      :O

      Atheistic Determinist and Contemplative Contrarian.

      by ShockandAwed on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 10:46:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have to repeat something I said already (4+ / 0-)

    A lot of very serious and knowledgeable people are betting that this is real and not a bubble, simply due to the changes in budgeting for infrastructure and exploration that I've seen in the oil and gas industry, and this is among companies that aren't in the shale gas business themselves but see continued low prices which make their projects uneconomic. Several years ago there was a lot of preparatory work being done on natural gas out of the Canadian Arctic, and now no one is talking about it any more.

    And this is traditional gas sources that people know are there, and which they were preparing to start extracting, but almost everything has slowed down or come to a complete stop because of the forecasts for unconventional natural gas sources.

    Berman also has a problems because he's had to change his tune over the last few years, making predictions about the viability of gas discoveries that have gone on to be some of the biggest producers in the world, which has forced him to step back from his initial claims.

  •  North Slope gas? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sherri in TX

    Alaskan politicians have been pushing a gas line to bring North Slope gas to market, whether it's a trans-Canada line or one to a seaport for LNG export.  As North Slope oil output continues to decrease so do state revenues, so many Alaskans would be happy for the economic boost that constructing another pipeline would bring as well as the increase in state revenue from gas.  Higher gas prices make financing a gas line easier, too..

    "Everybody wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die" --- Albert King

    by HarpboyAK on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 12:23:08 AM PST

  •  Not this shit again.. (0+ / 0-)

    Berman is a man with an agenda and gets debunked over and over again.

    •  "is a man with an agenda" (0+ / 0-)

      says someone who offers a detailed one sentence "rebuttal"

      When you are having to resort to getting hydrocarbons out of shale you know you are in serious trouble energy wise...

      The decline rates on these wells tell the tale - a big shot of gas early on and a trickle for years after...

      In addition, it is being demonstrated that contrary to what the industry likes to portray, the better producing wells settle on sweet spots, while many outlying wells are lousy producers... funny, doesn't sound so "unconventional" after all...  in fact - sounds pretty typical - like we have always known - significant amounts of hydrocarbons aren't just everywhere for the taking - they tend to accumulate in favorable geologic structures.  We've only strayed outside these best structures because we have technology (nothing new at all by the way) that we HAVE to utilize now because we have reached a certain level of desperation.

      Not to worry though - if we drill millions of these wells - we should be in good shape...

      ain't gonna be cheap though

  •  liquified natural gas exports (0+ / 0-)

    why are there people trying to do this all along the east coast?

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 05:29:30 AM PST

    •  According to (0+ / 0-)

      the referenced Food & Water Watch study, you could double your money by buying and freezing (liquifying) natural gas in the US, and shipping it to Europe and selling it.

      The East Coast proposals are probably targeting those markets.

  •  Get off the fossil fuel merry-go-round. (0+ / 0-)

    The more and sooner we can become dependent on renewable energy sources (solar and wind), the better off the American community will be.  My husband are on that track in our home.

    being mindful and keepin' it real

    by Raggedy Ann on Fri Nov 23, 2012 at 06:24:45 AM PST

Meteor Blades, Bob Johnson, fly, GainesT1958, dwellscho, Odysseus, grollen, roonie, glitterscale, bob in ny, native, Danno11, NYmom, PeterHug, OtherDoug, Shockwave, Sherri in TX, Wintermute, billlaurelMD, Pompatus, frisco, hubcap, Creosote, davelf2, opinionated, wonkydonkey, Agathena, CoolOnion, CalNM, themank, barath, farmerhunt, Dhavo, ivote2004, Ignacio Magaloni, Cedwyn, antirove, aitchdee, TXsharon, JimWilson, defluxion10, Calidrissp, lcrp, riverlover, outragedinSF, Burton Halli, zerelda, TexasLefty, humphrey, marina, 3goldens, subtropolis, ek hornbeck, sc kitty, JohnB47, basquebob, Kdoug, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, FutureNow, SaraBeth, Sandino, kaliope, Alan Arizona, Paper Cup, xaxnar, begone, martini, Kingsmeg, Mr Bojangles, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, cookseytalbott, blueoasis, gpoutney, Crashing Vor, armadillo, CA Nana, Persiflage, Temmoku, Aaa T Tudeattack, ammasdarling, pgm 01, out of left field, oklacoma dem, moodyinsavannah, bfbenn, terabytes, deepeco, DWG, SeaTurtle, millwood, jhop7, Wreck Smurfy, Chico David RN, vet, seriously70, JeffW, jakebob, Calamity Jean, Lujane, tofumagoo, pickandshovel, bluesheep, mofembot, codairem, emidesu, Karl Rover, sydneyluv, protectspice, RWN, maxcat06, Kansas Born, CanyonWren, Nebraskablue, War on Error, petral, sfarkash, haremoor, nancat357, astral66, Just Bob, LaughingPlanet, NJpeach, eb23, biggiefries, RJP9999, cordgrass, samanthab, ItsSimpleSimon, DiegoUK, DrTerwilliker, Hawaiian, Dems in 08, soaglow, Maximilien Robespierre, Jasel, marleycat, thomask, Muskegon Critic, chickeeee, createpeace, n8rboy, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, jadt65, DRo, Mentatmark, Auriandra, PrometheusUnbound, No one gets out alive, Only Needs a Beat, chmood, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, congenitalefty, Mr Robert, Arahahex, FrY10cK, George3, James Wells, doubledutch, Lily O Lady, countwebb, Dan Schapiro, averblue, ShockandAwed, OregonWetDog

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site