reply to post by BanTv
I keep tabs on every shale deposit.
It does not matter at all what the reserve numbers are. What matters is the rate of production of net energy, which has been declining since 2005.
That decline has happened despite the industries largest ever increase in capital expenditures.
That decline will significantly escalate sometime in the near future when fracking levels off, and it has already started to level off.
Those who can grok this simple truth, which has been obvious to the mathematically and geologically literate since the early 1970's, are using it to create a situation that will destroy america as a world power.
Those who are living in denial and who refuse to see the plain truth ARE ASSISTING those who wish to destroy America.
I don't want America destroyed, so I am trying to publish hard numbers to wake a few people up.
reply to post by pikestaff
The issue is production of net energy, not gross energy in the ground. Production of net energy is falling. Gross energy in the ground does not apply.
JP Morgan: A New Type of Dirty Energy By Jen Alic | Wed, 08 May 2013 22:13 |
As US power plants lose money, a bit of market manipulation goes a long way … ask JPMorgan Chase. The banking giant is accused of manipulating energy prices in Michigan and California to make money-losing power plants appear more profitable to investors—and now it faces penalties from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which regulates the sale of electricity. Detailed in a New York Times report, JPMorgan Chase is accused of selling electricity to authorities in California and Michigan between 2010 and 2011 at prices calculated to appear falsely attractive. How much did these two US states pay for this manipulate on: $83 million—that’s in excess of what they would have paid normally. The scandal heated up in November, when FERC imposed a temporary, 6-month ban on JPMorgan’s ability to trade physical power at market-based rates, beginning in April this year. The reason: The bank failed to disclose information to FERC and the California authorities during the market manipulation investigation. JPMorgan blew off the ban with a shrug.
Did Goldman Goose Oil? How Goldman Sachs was at the center of the oil trading fiasco that bankrupted pipeline giant Semgroup. When oil prices spiked last summer to $147 a barrel, the biggest corporate casualty was oil pipeline giant Semgroup Holdings, a $14 billion (sales) private firm in Tulsa, Okla. It had racked up $2.4 billion in trading losses betting that oil prices would go down, including $290 million in accounts personally managed by then chief executive Thomas Kivisto. Its short positions amounted to the equivalent of 20% of the nation’s crude oil inventories. With the credit crunch eliminating any hope of meeting a $500 million margin call, Semgroup filed for bankruptcy on July 22. But now some of the people involved in cleaning up the financial mess are suggesting that Semgroup’s collapse was more than just bad judgment and worse timing. There is evidence of a malevolent hand at work: oil price manipulation by traders orchestrating a short squeeze to push up the price of West Texas Intermediate crude to the point that it would generate fatal losses in Semgroup’s accounts.
The panic of 1893 was caused by a run on gold engineered by the bankers themselves. The powerful winners that emerged from that panic were [J.P.] Morgan, along with James Stillman, then head of National City Bank in New York - the bank of Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust-and a handful of brokerage houses led by [August] Belmont and Kuhn Loeb & Co.
The good news arrived in a confidential letter from the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. The nation’s biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase, had won the right to expand its reach in a lucrative business that has nothing to do with banking: electricity. Areas like electricity are generally off limits to banks because of the risks involved. But with its June 2010 letter, the Fed let JPMorgan take an even bigger role selling electricity in California and the Midwest, saying the push would “reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public that outweigh any potential adverse effects.” Three months later, JPMorgan traders began a scheme to manipulate electricity prices, ultimately forcing consumers in those regions to pay more every time they flicked on a light switch or an air-conditioner, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission subsequently contended.