Is the Texas economy fixing to implode?

The so-called Texas Miracle, whether under Rick Perry's name or Greg Abbott's, has always been based on two things:

1. Robust oil profits;
2. Lots of cheap immigration.

Well, wingnuts of the Dan Patrick stripe, along with Trump federally, have gnawed away at the second.

And now, the first looks in trouble. (As does the smaller scale Permian-driven "New Mexico miracle"; see end of post for more.)

Non-coronavirus bad news for the Texas economy popped up Friday. Talks between Russia and Saudi Arabia for extending the OPEC+ expanded oil producers agreement broke down, and oil prices tanked along with it. WTI had been below $50/bbl before that, making the great majority of fracking wells in the Permian Basin unprofitable. We're now officially in Ponzi scheme territory, where the only reason companies will drill is fear of losing overvalued leases that cannibalize each other as is, as I've blogged about in recent weeks. Whether it will get as bad as what Aubrey McClendon inflicted on Chesapeake in the gas biz remains to be seen. It's not likely, but it's certainly possible.

And, at end of biz on Friday? West Texas Intermediate was at $42/bbl. And, it got worse over the weekend. The Saudis, after initial indications that they couldn't afford to fight the Russians, started doing so, first with a price splash. By last night, WTI was trading around $30 a barrel. There will be some bounce-back, to be sure. But, no way it gets back above $45 for some time.

And even that isn't likely any time close to soon. Goddam Sachs said oil could drop into the $20s, at least with spot dips, and its prediction is that WTI will remain in the $30s for the rest of the second and third quarters.

“The prognosis for the oil market is even more dire than in November 2014, when such a price war last started, as it comes to a head with the significant collapse in oil demand due to the coronavirus,” the firm added.

In addition, the Dallas Fed has already reported that hiring is flat out in the Permian. And, related to that, that rents have finally flattened.

Russia made clear, per that first link, that it wants this. Remember, the Saudis tried to force such a collapse a few years ago under MBS' pushing, but couldn't pull it off. Russia is less dependent on oil as a somewhat smaller sector of its economy and can take lower oil prices.

Update, Monday evening —

Oh, goodie! We get to read Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar give us some PR spin a passel of lies about the state of the Texas economy:

“The fundamentals of the Texas economy remain strong. The agency is monitoring weakness in financial markets, including commodities and energy markets. We have been tracking revenues carefully since markets began to soften. 

 "Certainly, Texas has exposure if oil prices remain depressed for a sustained period of time, and slowdowns in economic activity related to the COVID-19 outbreak could also be a headwind. We are still only six months into the current budget cycle, however, and it is too early to tell with certainty how current fluctuations will impact long-term economic performance and state revenues."

Yeah, nice try, Glenn. With half the new oil in the Permian actually being halfway to condensate, and between that and increasing water cuts, half the new drilling in the Permian being underwater, this would be a lie even before last Friday. OilPrice.com is predicting a daily surplus of 3 million barrels by the end of the second quarter.

That said, the amount of trouble oil majors as well as oil minors already face over economically unviable fracking says that the Saudis three years or whatever ago actually pulled it off more than they knew. Don't think the Russians don't know that, as well.

There's also the geopolitical angle. As it looks to extend its reach in Syria in particular and the Middle East in general (Yemen, anybody?) Putin wouldn't mind weakening Saudi Aramco, and some of the government it supports, just as much as ExxonMobil. Or it wouldn't mind continuing to help the legitimate government of Venezuela.

The flip side is that nationally, Larry Kudlow has already made murmurings of selective business help in the country's economy as needed. This also, of course, shows that other than in libertarian wet dreams, and the public speaking out of them, that the Platonic idea of capitalism simply doesn't exist.

I guess a silver lining is that a slowdown in drilling, per that second link, will delay Peak Permian by a couple of months. That said, at the fringes of the Permian, reinforcing what I said about companies seeking out marginal drilling, Apache is withdrawing from the Balmorhea area after claiming it had the secret sauce to find deposits in the Alpine formation there.

Another silver lining? This is possibly the best refudiation yet of #TheResistance that claims Trump is and has been colluding with Russia.

Update, March 30: DeSmog Blog now notes that many refineries are likely to be shuttering in weeks ahead. The typical refinery can't cut production below about 65 percent without shutting down whole units. The problem is a complex one, and more complex than in previous hydrocarbon gluts. A number of these refineries are on the Texas Gulf Coast, including one in Baytown that Exxon has already announced it is shutting.

==

And, despite Joe Monahan's denialism, the problems (and rightful concern) are spreading to New Mexico. Update: The state has officially banned public gatherings of more than 100 people.

Exxon is not serious about #climatechange part 4

I've written not just one, or two, but three previous pieces about how eXXXon is not that serious about climate change in general and certainly isn't serious about a carbon tax. (These have in part been shadow-blogging reactions to a business editor and columnist at a newspaper.)

This is how serious eXXXon really, truly is about climate change—
its expected shift in global energy production.

On carbon taxes, said columnist has said that a carbon tax does need sticks as well as carrots. Well, I think he still disagrees with me on the issue of rebating. I have been consistent in opposing direct rebates at least, because the actual pain of not getting money back is the single biggest stick of a carbon tax. That said, that's the single biggest stick that eXXXon would like to remove, too.

Well, DeSmog Blog points out now just how unserious Exxon is on climate change in general. It doesn't expect serious changes in fossil fuel production as a percentage of its portfolio over the next 25 years. It also claims that it won't have stranded reserves due to climate change regulatory issues — issues it continues to fight.

Its hypocrisy DOES include worrying about stranded reserves early in the Obama Administration, fearing that new deepwater drilling regs after the Deepwater Horizon blowout would cause exactly that.

And, eXXXon isn't even incorporated in Texas' largest city. Not sure why said columnist might be that worried about making sure to say Big Oil is taking climate change seriously.

It's probably more accurate to say that Big Oil is taking the possibility of other people taking climate change seriously, seriously itself.

DeSmog Blog shows we simply can't release those fossil fuels to keep a climate change-related temperature spike to no more than 2C. Hell, with eXXXon's projections, we can't even stay inside 3C.

So, again, how seriously does it take climate change?

eXXXon head-fakes on #carbontax part three

I guess two separate blog posts about Exxon Mobil's alleged enthusiasm for a carbon tax, and the reality behind that, aren't enough to get some allegedly green people to open their eyes.

They're now Tweeting the newest version of its idea, written in conjunction with other Big Oil companies and "moderate Republicans," a species in reality almost as extinct as the dinosaurs from which eXXXon gets its oil.

Here’s big problem No. 1:

The proposal also says companies that emit greenhouse gases should be protected from lawsuits over their contribution to climate change.

I presume that is eXXXon wanting a legal shield if New York State’s attorney general brings it to trial over misrepresenting to shareholders its liabilities over carbon. More details in the Carbon Leadership Council's "Four Pillars," the fourth of which is specifically titled "Significant Regulatory Rollback."

NO, NO, NO!

A legal flack at the piece then says if carbon is taxed high enough, that would be better than lawsuits. Un, Michael Gerrard, only if part of that carbon tax remediates climate damage also done. And, that doesn’t address the shareholder issue.

Then, a direct rebate of the tax?

NO, NO, NO! 

I’ve addressed various problems with that in both previous posts.

From the first blog post, I brought up this issue directly when I asked rhetorically if eXXXonMobil had suddenly "gotten religion" about climate change because it's calling for a carbon tax?

Don't you believe it, not for a minute, I responded.

Here's the nut graf:

The world's largest oil company wants a simple tax charged on extracted carbon, such as oil and gas, in lieu of complicated regulations or trading schemes that too often create unintended consequences. Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson also wants the money returned to the public to offset the cost to consumers.

Note the last sentence.

No, what that really does is remove any "bite" from a carbon tax, making it a toothless tiger, hence harmless to Tillerson, eXXXon and the rest of Big Oil.

And, there's also the fact that this might be a deliberate trap, as I noted in the second post.

How the hell are you going to cut rebates, as nearly exactly as possible, for 320 million Americans? You imagine how massive a bureaucracy that would take?

I suspect eXXXon already HAS imagined just that, and envisions a full rebate as a black knight, lead anchor, or whatever. Something that would make a carbon tax prohibitively expensive.

Next, "border adjustments" aren't the same as "carbon tariff." Until I hear "carbon tariff" out of these folks' mouths, I have another reason to stay skeptical.

Don't even cite Nature Conservancy. Yes, it protects land, but other than that, it's the most right of Gang Green environmental groups.

In my second blog post, I asked mainstream biz media:

Why don't you ask old Rex Tillerson about that, next time he talks up a carbon tax? Why don't you also ask him why his company continues to fund climate change denialist groups? That alone should tell you the carbon tax proposal it has on the floor is a head fake, a big biz move, or both.

I make that same statement now to alleged greenies touting the eXXXon move. DO NOT trust these people. Like anybody who has worked for David Brock, they have forfeited the right to be trusted.

The fact that tech-neoliberals from Silicon Valley, like Steve Jobs' widow, are signing off on this, make me even more skeptical. So does that of Michael Bloomberg. Folks like this will only support something like this if it does little to hurt hypercapitalism, which comes ahead of truly addressing the problem.

Between individuals and businesses signing off, you've got petroleum and related businesses that would be hurt by a real carbon tax, vulture capitalists both inside and outside politics, and turd-polishing politicos and academics.

I'm still trying to figure out how skeptical, or not, basic income guru Scott Santens is of libertarian versions of basic income. His touting of this eXXXon PR move doesn't help him on the basic income count in my eyes.

#Exxon head-fakes on a #carbontax, part two

Last week, I did a first blog post advising people, including Houston-area Green Party legislative candidate Joe McElligott, to be very skeptical of eXXXon's support for a carbon tax with a 100 percent rebate of that tax. I said that a full rebate would remove the necessary " bite" from a carbon tax, with noting that most places in the world with a carbon tax do NOT rebate it.

Well, I didn't even think of one angle, whihc probably is eXXXon's ultimate bank shot on this.

How the hell are you going to cut rebates, as nearly exactly as possible, for 320 million Americans? You imagine how massive a bureaucracy that would take?

I suspect eXXXon already HAS imagined just that, and envisions a full rebate as a black knight, lead anchor, or whatever. Something that would make a carbon tax prohibitively expensive.

Mainstream biz media, why don't you ask old Rex Tillerson about that, next time he talks up a carbon tax? Why don't you also ask him why his company continues to fund climate change denialist groups? That alone should tell you the carbon tax proposal it has on the floor is a head fake, a big biz move, or both.

#Exxon head-fakes on #climatechange and a #carbontax

Has eXXXonMobil suddenly "gotten religion" about climate change because it's calling for a carbon tax?

Don't you believe it, not for a minute.

Here's the nut graf:

The world's largest oil company wants a simple tax charged on extracted carbon, such as oil and gas, in lieu of complicated regulations or trading schemes that too often create unintended consequences. Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson also wants the money returned to the public to offset the cost to consumers.

Note the last sentence.

No, what that really does is remove any "bite" from a carbon tax, making it a toothless tiger, hence harmless to Tillerson, eXXXon and the rest of Big Oil.

That's why this:

While Exxon first advocated for a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2009, the company has recently stepped up lobbying in Washington and around the world. The move was sparked by President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan, the world's adoption of the Paris Agreement to fight climate change and the U.S. House of Representatives' resolution to condemn any tax on carbon.

Is both true and trivial.

I don't want to harm the lower and middle classes too much, though.

So, here's the halfway house.

Use this money to fund new tax credits on renewable energy.

Like electric cars.

How about it, Rex?

Again, I'm not looking to penalize consumers, but, to really work, a carbon tax has to have bite. By bite, I mean something similar to sin taxes on booze and cigs.

What if I said the IRS said both you and your brother owed back taxes, but that if you both paid them all off, it would refund his taxes to you and vice versa? You'd think it had a hole in its collective head.

Or, per my sin tax reference above, we know cigarette smokers tilt poor, but we don't rebate excise taxes on each pack of Marlboros.

And, what's the right tax level, with or without a direct rebate?

A Houston-area Green Party Congressional candidate Tweets:

@cltomlinson

Carbon tax is way more efficient than cap-n-trade. Exxon has included carbon tax in their pricing since 1980's at $45/tC.

— Joe McElligott (@joegmac) July 5, 2016

Erm, I'm skeptical of many things without necessarily being cynical, but, it's eXXXon, and the two merge. Note first that a certain Democrat, non-socialist but alleged socialist, was elected President and took office then with Democratic Congressional majorities.

Second, does eXXXon's tax include just carbon, in the narrow sense, or "carbon," in the broad sense, i.e, methane and other greenhouse gases? We know eXXXon has a not-insignificant natural gas portfolio.

Third, does eXXXon favor a carbon tariff as well as tax? That's my stance.

Fourth, the fact that eXXXon's proposal is higher than already in place elsewhere in the developed world makes me more skeptical. Note also that many places with a carbon tax in place do NOT rebate.

I would MUCH prefer $20/ton, no rebate, to eXXXon's idea. I suspect it would be more effective.

And, let's use the money for climate mitigation. Fund electric car purchases. Fund hybrid-drive buses. (GM's Allison division has made them for years; did you know that?) Fund more mass transit in more rural areas.

Beyond that, it's clear that eXXXon's stance on carbon and climate change is just that: a stance, for PR reasons. I agree with Alternet. It seems clear eXXXon has a PR, and a legal strategy of "uncertainty," or hedging the issue, just like Big Tobacco, at whose feet eXXXon and the rest of Big Oil has studied so hard. And, a Green Party Congressional candidate who unskeptically  swallows it should look in the mirror.

Beyond that, Exxon, if it really did care about climate change, could publicly disavow the likes of Lamar Smith at any time. But it doesn't.

Forget #Benghazi; forget #Clintonemail stuff; this could be the bomb

Ken Silverstein, long-time proprietor of the Washington Babylon blog and news analysis corner at Harper's, says the Clinton Foundation has less than a month to get its accounting books run through some major clean-up operations, or else start worrying about fraud.

Couldn't happen to a nicer gent, if the Slickster is in trouble. Actually, it could; Silverstein says that long-term Clinton insider Ira Magaziner, the driving force behind 1993's Clintoncare, which (despite the GOP hating it — they first loved it) made Obamacare look actually liberal in some ways, could also get run over by the wheels of justice, too.

And, the IRS ain't Trey Gowdy. If this all comes down the pike, 'twill be fun to listen to Bill spin this.

'Twill be more fun yet to listen to Hillary spin this, since Ira was really in thick with her, and Clintoncare is really, as we all know, Hillarycare.

Actually, the most fun would be to listen to Hillary throwing lamps at Bill, per old Secret Service rumors.

How possible is any of this?

Well, Ken notes that the Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's watch list; notes that a New York attorney, Charles Ortel, formerly of Dillon Read, says that under New York State law, at least, intent doesn't have to be proven.

Most oily in all of this is what got them dinged by Charity Navigator — spending less than 10 cents of the funds raised dollar on AIDS related program. At the center of that oiliness, the man probably more oily than either Clinton: Magaziner.

The foundation is worried enough that, in response to previous comments and reporting by Ortel, it's then-acting CEO promised in April to have made "mistakes" in tax filing and that amended filings would be done by Nov. 16.

So, set your clocks!

Even if the accounting restatements match IRS muster, this will still have impact. It opens the door to new stories about the foundation in general, and per the Charity Navigator watch list bit, opens the door to stories about how little the foundation spends on actual, well, you know, actual charitable work.

We already know, as in her desire to investigate Exxon because the company stopped supporting the foundation, that her (and presumably the Slickster's) hypocrisy knows few bounds.

In turn, that points to one other thing. The Nov. 16 date will lead to new looks at the incestuous relationship between the foundation and Clinton campaigns. It will also give more fuel to the fires on Clinton's left about how regressive many of the foundation's corporate donors are, or have been. Like eXXXon.

It will also bring the more oily of Clinton's connections, like Magaziner and Sid Blumenthal, to the light of day. These moles may scurry back into their dark, shit-laden corners, but the additional exposure can't help her campaign.

Getting to a post-oil world? This book has challenges, but few answers

TEnding the Fossil Fuel Era by Thomas Princen
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Parts of this book were good indeed. I certainly believe we should leave coal in the ground as much as possible. More carbon-intense oil, the same.

And, the US probably could lower its per capital energy consumption, at least on electricity, to Europe or Japan. However, given the much larger size of the US, and Canada, lowering fuel consumption that much is not realistic.

Nor is the idea, hinted at by the authors, of taking overall per-capita energy consumption to even lower than that. Oh, physically, it might be realistic. Just ask Americans to not only drive no more than Europeans, to live in European-sized houses ... AND, along with Europeans, to pretty much stop using the Internet, big-screen TVs, "devices, etc.

It's a challenge, indeed, and seemingly a pretty idealistic one.

Per my header, the biggest inaccuracy was claiming the majority of US electric generation comes from coal. Not true, and not true for a decade. A narrow plurality still comes from coal, but well short of a majority. And, no, I'm not cutting the authors semantic slack. Three university professors should know the difference between "majority" and "plurality." (As of 2014, 39 percent of US electric generation came from coal and 27 percent from natural gas. My guess is that gas passes coal within a decade.)

The biggest omission? In looking at either incorporated Western oil companies or nationalized ones getting out of the fossil fuel business, the chapter on that has an incomplete list of suggestions. It notes that some "majors" have gotten out of retail sales, and suggests that distribution will be next (with it already starting), then refining. The implication is that oil majors will eventually complete the divestiture process.

But, the authors nowhere mention the alternative idea of diversification. Why wouldn't either Exxon, or Saudi Aramco, buy a solar panel or wind turbine manufacturer? Indeed, it's puzzling that oil companies haven't already started this, despite BP's PR stunt a few years ago of claiming to be "Beyond Petroleum."

The authors, speaking of divesting, nowhere mention the divestiture drive campaign of pushing colleges, state pension funds, etc., to get rid of oil stocks.

Finally, the issue of "Peak Oil" is nowhere mentioned; it's vaguely hinted at, but nowhere directly mentioned.

So, if you are concerned about our energy and environmental future and want some challenges, read this book. But, you might want to bring your own answers.


View all my reviews
ype your summary here Type rest of the post here

Exxon CEO delivers bracing dose of reality on #oilprices

ExxonMobil CEO
Rex Tillerson

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, not in this blog's Hall of Fame, due to the company's stance on climate change, and funding the deniers in the past, even more so under his predecessor Lee Raymond, nonetheless is willing to be honest about the world of oil itself.

So, folks like the GOP contingent of the Texas Legislature, especially Lite Guv Dan Patrick and his Texas Senate GOP minions, along with Comptroller Glenn Hegar, need to listen up to Rex's latest message.

He says oil will stay at $55 through at least part of 2017. Yes, two full years or more of oil (I presume he means WTI, not Brent) at an average of $55/barrel. BP's Bob Dudley is saying the same.

Both cite expected low demand growth and a world that is still awash with supplies over that whole time. On the demand side, besides Europe's and Japan's economies still being slow, and China slowing down, let's not forget that more stringent CAFE standards here in the US will kick in during the years ahead, dampening need here.

Meanwhile, as I blogged a couple of weeks ago, domestic storage at Cushing, Okla., continues to fill up, and will probably max out by the end of May. Commodities speculators are already buying storage elsewhere, but, given the words of Tillerson and Dudley, look ever more to be making losing bets. Because, we're awash in supply and prices haven't soared even with the speculators taking that much oil off the market. It's amazing how dumb some of these people can be.

Indeed, Tillerson said in another interview that Cushing maxing out could push prices even lower. Others, like Tom Kloza of OPIS, a respected name in oil analysis, are saying the same — that a Cushing maxout could push WTI back to $40/bbl. Inventories are already at an 80-year high and climbing.

Of course, spring and summer gas blending and other things mean that there will be ups and downs around that center point of $55. In fact, Tillerson said elsewhere he expects some volatility ahead.

That said, oil companies in the past have tried to buy up production when worried about that, or buy up overlaps if that might produce efficiencies. And, in what would be the mother of all non-nationalized oil companies, speculation continues to mount that Exxon is eyeballing a BP takeover.

And, as for claims that OPEC is dead? Tosh. The Gulf states, at least, have lower overhead than non-nationalized US oil companies, even in dying conventional plays, and certainly for tight oil.

Update: The city of Houston is getting a bracing dose of reality, too, as housing sales tumble.

#ExxonValdez — remembering 25 years

One dead whale in Prince William Sound, 1989, via Exxon.
AP photo via Houston Chronicle

In the spring of 1989, I was in the first full year of graduate divinity school. I still belonged to, and believed in the tenets of, a fundamentalist Lutheran church. (No, family and friends, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod doesn't fit a narrower definition of Christian fundamentalists, but it does fit nicely in a broader sociology of religion definition.)

Anyway, I digress.

I was also, for the most part, still steeped in my parents' political beliefs, between my dad's Eisenhower-Main Street conservativism (with his twinge of Eisenhower-Main Street racism), and my mom's "None Dare Call It Treason" moving to Art Bell-listening Tea Party progenitorship (as I know with that anecdotal proof positive that the Tea Party idea is nothing new).

Anyway, again I digress.

I was already a bit of an environmentalist, at least in the sense of believing that Christian creationism did imply some sort of "good stewardship." And I was moving a bit beyond that, even.

Then, a seemingly drunken captain, Joseph Hazelwood, sailing a past-its-due-date, environmentally inadequate oil tanker, ran it aground on Alaskan rocks. And caused a massive animal die-off and other problems for which eXXXon (that's the correct spelling, folks) still refuses to admit full responsibility today.

That includes full financial responsibility, getting punitive damages cut to 10 percent of the original award due to "quirks" in maritime common law, per Wikipedia. And, since then? I've not seen either major party make major changes to environmental civil law to increase punitive damages for "takings" of reducing environmental and scenic value.

As for me? I took the next steps toward becoming a real environmentalist. (In the next five years, I took a chunk of steps toward becoming a real secularist [I avoid the Big A label, as much at times due to some Big As as well as Christian fundamentalists] and becoming a real liberal. By the end of the 1990s, I had moved beyond the Democratic Party, in fact and fortunately.) As part of that, I also became even more of an environmentalist, and a more activist one.

Indeed, while I had the pleasure of living in the Dallas area for most of the first decade of this century, I even "visited" a couple of eXXXon's annual shareholder meetings, as you can see. 

And, per the poster, we had even more to protest against eXXXon by 2008, or earlier. Since then, eXXXon has continued to be just as responsible of a corporate citizen on global warming and climate change, and now on oil and gas fracking, as it was on the Exxon Valdez. So eXXXon is the gift that keeps on giving.

And, in more ways than one. Per Wikipedia's story on the disaster, when in the original suit, eXXXon was hit with $5 billion in punitive damages, it got a $4.8 billion line of credit from J.P. Morgan. To insulate itself, Morgan created the first modern credit default swap.

In other words, eXXXon's Alaskan oil slick helped crap on the American economy nearly 20 years later. That said, why would anything about any unholy alliance between Wall Street and Big Oil surprise you? See: "Bros., Koch" for more.

Meanwhile, as High Country News notes, eXXXon's "cleanup" wasn't. There's still officially 21,000 gallons of oil in Prince William Sound and unofficially, much more.

===

And Perry reminds us, in light of the Houston Ship Channel collision over the weekend, that things haven't changed a lot. That includes the damage to wildlife, not just the inconvenience to the modern economy.

eXXXon words deny AGW, but its actions

Say something 180 degrees opposite. Joe Romm nails it.

Per Romm, it's clear eXXXon is on the side of the "reality based community" in its actions, too; this year's Arctic sea ice has hit another record low.

Water the fracking is happening?

Plenty of other people have blogged about the 1987 EPA study showing, at least in one case, that fracking for oil or gas can contaminate water supplies.

I have just a few takeaways to add.

From page 3 of the story:

State inspectors and drilling experts suggested in interviews that the contamination in Mr. Parsons’ well might have been caused when fracking pushed chemicals from the gas well into nearby abandoned wells where the fracking pressure might have helped them migrate up toward the water well.

This well was fracked using gas and water, and with far less pressure and water than is commonly used today.

OK, so if LESS pressure and water were used today, all the oil/gas industry excuses, such as the fracking chemicals migrating through abandoned mines, water wells, etc., a one-time incident, are suspect.

That said, there's this page 2 comment:

Even critics of fracking tend to agree that if wells are designed properly, drilling fluids should not affect underground drinking water.

But, what does "designed properly" mean? Has the Environmental Protection Agency, or the U.S. Geological Society, or any oil and gas company, done any modeling to determine what "designed properly" means?

Assuming such modeling is about nonexistent, then the increased water and pressure usage of today means that oil-gas industry attempts to explain away issues carries even less weight. It's possible that frack jobs are enough better designed since 1984, the date of the contamination-causing job, to offset the potential problems from using more water under higher pressure. But it's certainly not guaranteed.

And, do local or state governments, or the feds, in light of Deepwater Horizon, require posting of bonds of sufficient value to deter shortcutting on what is theoretically a "designed properly" frack job?

Given that the story talks about a 2004 EPA study of fracking in coal-bed methane that was found to be industry-influenced, I think we know those answers.

So, let's ignore this comment, and let's assume reXXX from eXXXon knew better all along:

“There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured in the history of the industry, and there is not one, not one, reported case of a freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. Not one,” Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive of ExxonMobil, said last year at a Congressional hearing on drilling.

After all, if it's eXXXon and the truth, their relationship is pretty nebulous at best.

#Yellowstone is the latest reason you can't trust #Exxon

ExxonMobil, known on this blog as triple-X eXXXon, has again shown it simply cannot be trusted with anything regarding Big Oil.

The latest? The state of Montana has cut ties with an eXXXon command post overseeing, or whatever, its Yellowstone River oil spill.

Why? Because eXXXon is trying to restrict public access. It claims that that's just security doing its job.

And, here's another laugh line:

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana said the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials will hold the first congressional hearing on the spill and on pipeline safety Thursday.

Yeah, a Big Oil suckup and all-around wingnut is actually going to do anything. Notice how this "hearing" is six days off.

On the ground?

(Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer) criticized Exxon Mobil for its response, pointing out discrepancies in the company’s reports of how long it took to shut down the pipeline and saying company officials were downplaying damage to wildlife.

Good luck getting any of that info.

Exxon still "spinning" on gobal warming

And, even suckering people who should know better.

It's all over the place that eXXXonMobil has gotten busted for giving past support to yet another anthropogenic global warming denier.

The "sucker," perhaps, too? Jamie Vernon, doing fill-in blogging for Chris Mooney at Discover, with this happy-dopey post about eXXXon's non-admission of guilt, taking off from a NYT blog which had some eXXXon spinning in it. Spinning like this, from Alan Jeffers, an ExxonMobil spokesperson who said:

“I am not prepared to talk about the individual grant requirements, but if their positions are distracting to how we are going to meet the energy needs of the world, then we didn’t want to fund them.”

To which, I said:

Jamie ... you're being naive (and maybe Chris is too). You said:

However, I was heartened by comments from Alan Jeffers, an ExxonMobil spokesperson who said, “I am not prepared to talk about the individual grant requirements, but if their positions are distracting to how we are going to meet the energy needs of the world, then we didn’t want to fund them.”

Note that eXXXon's Jeffers said zip, zilch, nada about AGW. He said eXXXon was worried about "if their positions are distracting to how we are going to meet the energy needs of the world."

In other words, for eXXXon, the bottom line is still the bottom line. IF the Soons of the world threaten its massive profits in trying "to meet the energy needs of the world," then they're a problem. If not, not.

The skinny on corporate tax dodgers

They're bad.

The worst? Arguably, GE. Other bad ones? Some of the are Hewlett-Packard, Verizon, Chevron, Ford, ExxonMobil and Bank of America. Exxon, for example, actually pays taxes at a 47 percent rate - but none of that in the US.

ExxonMobilBP?

That's a scary thought. But, some investors and oil analysts are saying that BP may lose so much market value over Deepwater Horizon that either ExxonMobil or Royal Dutch Shell considers making a play for it.

ExxonMobilBP?

That's a scary thought. But, some investors and oil analysts are saying that BP may lose so much market value over Deepwater Horizon that either ExxonMobil or Royal Dutch Shell considers making a play for it.

15 ExxonValdezes — Why BP is working to hide the spill truth

It looks like BP's Gulf oil spill may be gushing out as much oil every four days as the Exxon Valdez spilled off the coast of Alaska.

Well, I guess if your credibility is just this side, or just the other side, of Exxon's, and is built on publish relations shinola apparent lying, you've got good temptations to continue more of the same, as now seems clear.

The level of apparent cover-up? Pretty bad.

Two weeks ago, the government put out a round estimate of the size of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico: 5,000 barrels a day. Repeated endlessly in news reports, it has become conventional wisdom.

But scientists and environmental groups are raising sharp questions about that estimate, declaring that the leak must be far larger. They also criticize BP for refusing to use well-known scientific techniques that would give a more precise figure.

The criticism escalated on Thursday, a day after the release of a video that showed a huge black plume of oil gushing from the broken well at a seemingly high rate. BP has repeatedly claimed that measuring the plume would be impossible.

Richard Camilli and Andy Bowen, of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, were originally asked by BP to conduct flow rate measurements of undersea vents then BP changed its mind. And it won't say why.

Probably, though, because it's trying to hide this ... the same reason it won't let independent researchers see its underwater video:

BP later acknowledged to Congress that the worst case, if the leak accelerated, would be 60,000 barrels a day, a flow rate that would dump a plume the size of the Exxon Valdez spill into the gulf every four days. BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, has estimated that the reservoir tapped by the out-of-control well holds at least 50 million barrels of oil.

OK, BP says it could be two months before it gets the "bleeding" stopped. That is 15 consecutive four-day ExxonValdez spill equivalents, if the worst predictions are true.

The Guardian has further independent commentary on the likely size of the spill.

That said, is it fair to call the Obama Administration "slow" on this?

Hell, yes. Given BP's past safety record, from Prudhoe Bay to Houston, over the past decade, notably under the leadership of current CEO Tony Hayward, it should have been skeptical of BP's claims about the size of the problem from the moment it happened.

And, given BushCo-era shenanigans, it should have been reforming the Minerals Management Service before the blowout. Obama himself could have included that as part of his offshore drilling proposal.

It's been helping oil drillers deliberately avoid getting environmental impact permits from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“You simply are not allowed to conclude that the drilling will have an impact,” said one scientist who has worked for the minerals agency for more than a decade. “If you find the risks of a spill are high or you conclude that a certain species will be affected, your report gets disappeared in a desk drawer and they find another scientist to redo it or they rewrite it for you.”

AND ... Our Beloved Neoliberal Leader Obama's proposed reform of the Minerals Management Service apparently won't touch this NOAA work-around.

(That's despite his promise today to get tough with the oil and gas drilling industry, claiming it was time to move beyond finger pointing. The "cozy relationship" he mentioned? Isn't that, too, part and parcel of neoliberalism?)

So, Obamiacs, quit defending him on environmental issues, or his response to this tragic, but quite avoidable, catastrophe.

Meanwhile, speaking of environmental issues, weather forecasters expect an above-average year for Atlantic hurricanes.

What might a few big storms do to that oil?

Update, May 15: Meanwhile, another government entity, the EPA, readily signed off on BP's never-before done, never-before tested, use of deep sea dispersents.

Oxygen waters on the seafloor around the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe have already fallen by 30 percent and will fall more.

Meanwhile, there are oil and gas plumes from just below the surface to 4,000 feet deep.

Researchers Vernon Asper and Arne Dierks said in Web posts that the plumes were "perhaps due to the deep injection of dispersants which BP has stated that they are conducting."

In other words, the dispersants may be contributing to the oil-caused deoxygenation.

That's why BP's "backup" plan to use dispersants in deepwater for the first time, without testing, is so criminal.

The decision (to allow this) by the Environmental Protection Agency angered state officials and fishermen, who complained that regulators ignored their concerns about the effects on the environment and fish.

"The EPA is conducting a giant experiment with our most productive fisheries by approving the use of these powerful chemicals on a massive, unprecedented scale," John Williams, executive director of the Southern Shrimp Alliance, said in a news release.

BP. Blatantly Polluting. And, the technocratic neoliberalocity is cooperating.

Carbon storage: Overrated, unlikely

And, that not some environmentalist challenging ExxonMobil, Massey Coal, etc., in touting the worth of carbon capture and storage. It's renowned oilfield economist Michael Economides.

What's the problem? Pressure build-up with storage attempts:
"It is like putting a bicycle pump up against a wall. It would be hard to inject CO2 into a closed system without eventually producing so much pressure that it fractured the rock and allowed the carbon to migrate to other zones and possibly escape to the surface," Economides said.
ExxonMobil and Massey, via the American Petroleum Institute, are already trying to shoot down Economides' paper, and he's already fired back.

Citizens United and climate change

If Congressional Democrats don't realize how much toughter the SCOTUS decision made it to pass health care in the future, unless they have political cojones, what about climate change? Don't you think eXXXonMobil is just waiting to restart its deniers' campaign, with more money than ever allowed before being directed straight to campaign ads?

Rex Tillerson looks at green light, plays Jay Gatsby

ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson is now calling for a carbon tax, saying it’s more “transparent” than a cap-and-trade system.

Well, given what a mess the EU’s cap-and-trade system has become, he’s right.

But, if you thing he’s doing this out of the goodness of his heart, or some newfound greenness, I’ve got some “clean coal” in Barack Obama’s Illinois to sell you.

Having protested outside multiple annual eXXXon shareholder meetings here in Dallas, there's no way Rex Tillerson has looked at the green light and seen anything but Jay Gatsby's orgiastic future.

Best case scenario, from the point of view of We the People? He thinks this will save his corporation more money than a cap-and-trade system.

Not so good case? He thinks that either, or all of the above below:
• He can get a tax watered down as hurting the economy in today’s environment;
• he can muddy the waters of public consumption and have that become fallout in Congress;
• He can play some sort of either bait-and-switch or moving the goalposts after Congress says OK to the tax idea.