Exxon’s Natural Gas Holdings Grow With $31 Billion Deal - Investment Is A Bet That "Fossil Fuels" Will Remain A Critical Energy Source For Decades

The news just seems to be all bad for Greenies lately.

This morning, we learned that Africans care so little about Global Warming that they are willing to walk out of the Copenhagen Summit EN MASSE, if they are not assured their slice of the Western pie. In other words, they have to be bribed to participate, even though it will be no skin off their backs.

Amazing.

And now, we find Exxon is betting big on Natural Gas. Will we never move on to a Green Economy? Will we never live peacefully with the Leviathan of Utopia?

From the New York Times:

In the biggest energy deal in years, Exxon Mobil said on Monday that it had agreed to buy XTO Energy, a domestic producer of natural gas, in an all-stock deal valued at $31 billion to increase its holdings in unconventional resources in the United States.

The deal includes the assumption of $10 billion in debt.

The purchase allows Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, to expand in shale gas, an area that has grown tremendously in the last few years. It will give Exxon the equivalent of about 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas throughout the United States.

The acquisition extends Exxon’s bet that fossil fuels will remain a critical part of the nation’s energy supplies for decades to come.

In recent years, energy companies have discovered large reserves of natural gas tightly trapped in shale rocks in Texas, Colorado and Wisconsin, as well as in the Northeast. The discoveries have led to a gas drilling boom that has greatly expanded domestic resources, while also raising some environmental concerns.

Exxon will set up a production unit to manage its global portfolio of unconventional resources, which include shale gas, tight gas, coal bed methane and shale oil. It will be based in Fort Worth in XTO’s current offices.

It brings a tear to you eye, don't it?

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Anyway, you might be interested to know that it is unlikely Natural Gas is a "Fossil Fuel" in the first place. Check this out, from Wikipedia:

Natural gas is a gas consisting primarily of methane. It is found associated with fossil fuels, in coal beds, as methane clathrates, and is created by methanogenic organisms in marshes, bogs, and landfills.

Add to this, the fact that oil has also been found to be a naturally-occurring substance, not a "fossil fuel", and it just seems like every argument Greenies make is just coming down like a house of cards.

Pole Dancing Classes Mandatory in Singapore

Below is a weekend reading list of posts published yesterday and today at Bob McCarty Writes. Enjoy:

• Pole Dancing Classes Mandatory in Singapore -- THIS IS NOT A JOKE! Frustrated officials in the Singaporean government, hoping to raise young adults’ interest in making babies instead of just money, have lost their collective mind and ordered pole dancing to be taught in its elite schools, according to a recent post at the Former American Professor in China blog...

• Breitbart Confirms Why ‘I Don’t Listen to Hollywood’ -- In the “Uncommon Knowledge” video above, The Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson interviews Andrew Breitbart about a wide range of topics related to the intertwining of the entertainment industry and politics. If you have 30 minutes to spare, I strongly recommend you watch the entire program and then share it with folks you know...

• ‘Pack Up Your Troubles in Your New S__t Bag’ -- The kind of bag Americans might soon need is different than the song-inspiring bag into which they packed all their troubles nearly a century ago — and it’s not a “kit” bag...

• Investigation Launched Into Abortion Doc’s Murder -- Below is the the first paragraph of a just-released news release about the Justice Department’s decision to launch an investigation into the murder of controversial late-term abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller...

• No Rain, But Many Umbrellas at Tiananmen Square -- On the 20th anniversary of the bloodshed known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, there appeared to have been little or no rain clouds at the site in Beijing where university students waged an anti-government protest. There were, however, enough umbrella-toting government officials present to prevent members of the Western news media from reporting much news from the heart of mainland China...

• Prediction: Crude Oil Price to Jump 31 Percent! -- When Rush Limbaugh mentioned Goldman Sachs' prediction about the price of oil on his radio show Friday, I decided to share the statement American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard issued Thursday about the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 2009 energy bill...

• Must-Read: The Speech Obama Should Have Made -- As I read the transcript of the speech President Barack Obama delivered to the Muslim world from Cairo University, I was struck by what the president said and didn’t say in the speech. Sol Sanders was struck as well. The big difference, however, is that he made his observations prior to the speech in his piece published Wednesday in the World Tribune...

‘Environmental Radicals’ Obama’s Achilles Heel

President Barack Obama has put America into the hands of “environmental radicals.” It is only a matter of time before “his vast popularity runs aground on his energy policies,” according to Jon Basil Utley, writing in Reason magazine.

“In the name of saving the planet from global warming, [Obama] has delayed new oil drilling, an action that will have major political repercussions once the world economy recovers. Instead of using some of the stimulus billions to produce more gas and oil, Obama’s appointees dream of ‘renewable’ energy derived from corn, wind, sunshine, and even grass,” Mr. Utley says in his article.

Read more about this writer's reasonable -- pun intended -- point of view here.

Energy Symposium Held Without ‘Fossil Fuelers’

The non-partisan Reform Institute’s National Energy Symposium drew more than 45 corporate executives, policymakers and industry experts to Washington, D.C., Tuesday to openly discuss the nation’s energy, environmental and economic challenges. It appears, however, that representatives of the nation’s largest oil and natural gas exploration and production firms (a.k.a., the “fossil fuelers”) were strangely missing from the event. Read more about it here.

OIL CLOSES ABOVE $100/BARREL FOR FIRST TIME - and what we can do about it!

*******UPDATE - 2/20/08: AS I WROTE BELOW (YESTERDAY!) IT'S ALL ABOUT SUPPLY AND DEMAND - NYTIMES:

Supply Fears Push Oil to Triple Digits
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

HOUSTON — Crude oil closed above $100 a barrel for the first time Tuesday, vaulting through a longstanding psychological barrier amid persistent concern about whether production can keep up with rising global demand.

The day’s price rise of more than 4 percent capped a week-long run-up that began when President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela threatened to cut off oil exports to the United States over a legal struggle with Exxon Mobil. Crude oil fell from a record $100.10 a barrel in New York on speculation that a U.S. Energy Department report will show stockpiles rose for a sixth week, according to Reuters. Crude oil for March delivery dropped as much as 90 cents, or 0.9 percent, to $99.11 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

... World supplies have been trimmed by substantial cutbacks in production in Iraq and Nigeria in recent weeks. Nigeria alone has lost about 10 percent of its daily production since guerrillas stepped up their sabotage and kidnapping of oil workers in the Niger Delta at the end of last year. Some analysts fear that OPEC could cut production further when it meets next month to counter the prospect that a softening world economy may eventually weaken demand and push prices down.

Oil is expensive.

Expensive oil drives up costs, increases inflation, and decreases the discretionary income people have to spend - and so increases the threat of recession, too.

And a recession in the USA causes the entire world to go into a recession - because the entire world depends on US consumption.

ON ALL COUNTS IT IS BAD.

There is an easy solution: INCREASE SUPPLIES.

This can be dome easily: just let the oil companies drill for more oil in places they think there is a great chance of finding a lot; (their belief is what will incentivize them to invest billions - and it won't cost the taxpayer a single penny!).

All that is necessary to have this happen is for Congress to OPEN UP ANWR, and demand that FLA and CA open up the waters off their coasts for drilling.

THERE IS NO RISK TO THE ENVIRONMENT:

• Canada safely and cleanly drills for oil right next door the ANWR.
• Louisiana allows drilling in the Gulf - off its coast. NOT ONE OF THESE OFF-SHORE RIGS LEAKED DURING KATRINA - THE WORST HURRICANE IN THE GULF'S HISTORY.
• And the waters off of California are easier to drill in than the North Sea - where Norway and the UK have safely drilled FOR DECADES!

People who claim that burning oil creates too much CO2 and that CO2 is causing global warming are WRONG:

• there is no "man-made" global warming;
• the world is actually cooling; this winter (2007-8) is one of the coldest and snowiest in DECADES - for both hemispheres.
• And the prior warming trend was NOT outside historical norms/cycles.
• AND CO2 IS A LAGGING INDICATOR OR PRIOR WARMING PERIODS AND NOT A CAUSE.

Therefore, there is simply no excuse for NOT ALLOWING the energy companies risk their own capital and drill as much as they want.

The moratorium on drilling in ANWR and off the coasts of FLA and CA are a MUCH GRAVER RISK than global warming or leaks or any other risk of "damage" to the local environment.

Continuing the moratorium is IRRATIONAL, and SELF-DESTRUCTIVE.

It puts at risk the entire world's economy.

OVERLY EXPENSIVE OIL is one of the two or three MOST important issues facing the entire world.

The USA must lead on this issue and IMMEDIATELY take the necessary steps in Congress to increase supplies.

I PREDICT, THE DAY THE CONGRESS ACTS THE PRICE OF OIL WILL DROP 25%.

That would help the entire world's economy IMMEDIATELY.

And it would also mean the USA would NOT be sending as much money to the Middle East, not per barrel, and not as many barrels, either.

IT'S A WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN!

Oil Importing And Exporting: A Complex Of Shared Interests

It is often stated that, in order to reduce the power of the Arab/Islamic world, we have to reduce our dependence on oil imports from the nations of the Middle East. On the surface this seems like a truism. However, let us think this over.

First, sorry to be pedantic, but oil is a commodity sold on the world market. The price of oil is dictated by supply and demand. If America buys its oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, or any other nation, it is still a bidder on the open market, and its bidding offer effects the price of oil on the world market no matter which country it buys from. In other words, if Saudi Arabia can charge $100 per barrel of oil, then so can Canada, and so can Mexico and any other country selling oil on the open market.

It is a little known fact that, comparatively, the United States gets far less of its oil from Middle Eastern nations, as a percentage, than do the other largest oil importers in Europe and China.

The United States currently gets about 17% of its oil imports from the Middle East.

Europe and China respectively gets approximately 31% and 44% of their oil from Middle Eastern countries.

Ok, so now think for a second what would happen if America were suddenly to make it its policy to buy all of its oil from non-Middle Eastern countries?

First, as America would be limiting the pool of oil suppliers from which it could prospectively buy, the price of oil would immediately go up for American buyers.

Second, since America would then no longer be an importer of Middle Eastern oil, the amount of oil available on the Middle Eastern market would be increased, and the price from those Middle Eastern suppliers, would then drop for Europe and China.

Third, and this is the most important point, to my mind; because the United States would then no longer be a buyer of oil from Middle Eastern countries, whereas the Europe and China would be, the United States influence in the Middle East would decrease, and the influence of China and Europe would increase.

Think of it this way, if you own a shop, the opinion of the customers who come through your door and make purchases matters very much to you.

It is a very crude understanding of economics which says, the seller has the power. The truth is, the buyer and seller have shared interests in the success of each others business. In fact, the buyer and seller are, indeed, partners in the promotion of each others interests.

Were the United States to discontinue buying oil from Middle Eastern nations, our power to influence political decisions in the Middle East would also decrease. In so far as the United States is a force for good on the world stage, it would be dangerous to the world as a whole for our power to decrease in the volatile world of Middle Eastern politics.

All economics, and all sectors of the business world, are composed of groups of organizations who have shared interests. The sum total of these shared interests composes the direction of the economic system on an economic as well as a political level.

Therefore, we must continue to buy oil from Middle Eastern nations until the day that oil no longer matters to the world's economy.

Peak Oil?

Oooops. That title is for the peak oil folks. It looks like all that has peaked is the "easy to get" oil.

Evidently there is a new abundance with current technology - and prices.

You can get the details at: Peak Oil?

Reliapundit adds: Great link! I added the pretty pictures to help dispel the notion that opil rigs are bad. And I want to remind everyone that not a single oil rig caused any environmental damage as a result of Katrina: THEY ARE CLEAN AND SAFE.

And pretty.