Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
doesn't matter our money is gone, stock is worthless
it means all our money is gone.
something is going on. why isnt this stock trading yet? been almost a month now. stock now worthless with this split reverse.
yes i did too 20.00
incredible deal he got .. took us all for everything. lost another 30.00 on my stock. what a company, now he will try to get people to buy at 5 cents then drop the price down again.
yeah you are missing alot more money. he ripped us off again, now he will start at 5 cents and do the same crap as before only he hides in another company. thwe price will drop not go up
ya good luck with that filing,, its not their money not their problem,,again look at the maddoff issue!!!!!!!derrr. they dont care what we lost ,, part of the market ,, all a gamble and the risk is loss of principle even at others gains and even though it may be a ponzee scheme. some are working on over ten years of losses ,we will never see our money again, face it ,its gone and knowone here has the power to do anything ,, and even if there was we would get nothing in return..stock not even worth selling, would cost more in taxes than stock is worth.
ask price is .0004 think ther eis great ponsey going on here
wow 3 million 750 thousand shares just traded at .0001
you cant figure it out/? we are screwwed ,, we will never see our money again,, he ripped all of us off and nothing can be done about it,, the sec is denying all , just like the maddoff case ,,, they were told about that years ago and of course they didnt care ,,, its the U.S. giovernment ,,they only care about them selves and how much money they can make while in the government cause they have insider trading, they cant help the united states cause they are to busy trying to make them selves rich..... do you really think they can help with this,,, a canadian company? obama dont want to have nothing to do with ,,,,,,,,,,, well anything.
transcanada (TRP 43.48 a share http://www.bing.com/search?q=transcanada&form=IE8SRC&src=IE-SearchBox
dont buy into the big company , look to buy the company that will be taken over, eventually someone will buy out pptl, keeping fingers crossed.
thats funny, lol
can anyone tell us if we will get our money back and/or break even on our investment, or is this all here say information set up by bruce to get people to buy the stock and then we come back to the same old crap sceem he plays to make money for himself like madoff did? patience is NOT a virtue after 7 years of holding the stock
using nortons 2011 , maybe its blocking all the pop ups ,,, dont know but glad i got it, no other sites are doing this only this one
note when logging into investors hub, there are attacks on my computer, but they are being blocked, just info for unsecure computers
was anamateur when i bought this shit stock years ago, but now i watch cnbc like others watch sports and do tons of research and now know what, and who to buy. guess i was an idiot then, and that is what an asshole ceo like bruce relies on just like MADOFF did, but NO MORE he can take his company and shove it up his bleapin ass. and the good thing when he does ,it will be dry , like his wells and i hope it hurts him more than it hurts us. every DOG will have his day, its only a matter of time, just hope we are all alive to see it and laugh at him. peace out fellow investors of pptl shit stock.
those stocks dont look too good for making money, especially the penny stock, i will NEVER deal with penny stocks again. prefer to do my research and buy good companies. good companies to make me money and pay me dividends. bought las vegas sands (lvs) last year @12.00 a share ,,its at 47.00 now ,they dont pay dividends though but what a gain, so as i said pptl can bleap there bleapin selves, i diversify and have learned my lesson, dont even care about em, stock is worthless, and i have moved on to better things.
ya i gave up too , wrote off what i could , but am finally making it up in other stocks, so i have only a minumal loss. buying other stocks for long term though, so pptl can go bleep themselves for all i care. i have erased them off my board, still have the stock but tired of looking at them on my account,, after 4 years who would not. couple of hundred thousand shares worth 70.00 they can go bleep there bleepin selves, not even worth selling and having to deal with the tax laws around the world.
rich get richer and the poor get poorer
PREMIUM PETROLM NEW (PPTL)
$ 0.0002 ?0.00 (0.00%)
Volume: 299,000
Bid Ask Last Traded Open Prev Close
0.0001 0.001 1:40:34 PM EST 0.0002 0.0002
Day's Range 52-Wk Range Avg Volume EPS P/E
0.0002 - 0.0002 - - - -
Market Cap Outstanding Float Dividend / Yield Ex-Div Dat
i apologize , i didnt have my facts straight when i said you WILL see .0001, we are already there . sorry guess the next bids are free
it cant be too hard to make this stock useless, all he has to do is buy the low , ,, wait for the bid to go up so we buy , then bid low again. have watched it closely and the bid sits there at low price long time , then someone buys, he does, you will see .0001 and then be worthless ,been watching this shit for over 6 years. he manipulates the stock,and people buy into it. you all laughed when i said he was like MADDOFF, but thats what he is. other companies experimenting with the same technology in U.S. are making money and stocks are in the 20.00 range. chesapeeke enegy is doing the same thing in texas, and others the same thing and their stock is NOT at.0002, not even close. all we can do is hold our shares even though they are worthless and will continue to be , i gave up years ago.
volume only shows number of shares trading , not number of people, watch volume equals shares if you have a live stream,so he is buyin up the stock, or someone is, it hasnt moved much in 6 + years, someone is getting rich or will be , but not the share holders
WOW thats an awesome deduction,,,,,,,, why havent any other companies thought of that one,,,he is a genius.must be a CANADIAN thing. i am not CANADIAN so i guess i was a fool for buyin the stock. i should have thought of the "THE END OF THE WORLD" before i bought it, guess thats why he is a CEO,,,hes paid the big bucks to think of those things,,,, crap guess i am screwed...
beg to differ on the steam and environment issues , please see link and listen to video http://blog.energytomorrow.org/2009/08/why-pick-on-canada.html
he will never get his thumb out and is playing us for fools just like madoff, we all lost so much already , so let the fight begin.,been waiting 6 + years for this stock to do something, now it aint even worth selling. i put the stock in the loss file, and have moved on to better stocks.
i dont believe you are an sec informant at all, because the sec would not put them selfs out in the open like this if they were investigating something. if they did they would not have a user id as sec informant they would use an alias. you think bruce will change because he see an sec informant on this site? we have all lost alot of money due to this alleged scam and we dont need anymore jokes and scams from users
that is what we have all been saying for years
i guess you havent looked at the price of the shares for the past 6 years. THE STOCK IS ALREADY WORTHLESS. it has been for years. are you really an informant , or is this a user id you chose to make us think you are? we can all choose an id like that too. if bruce was waiting for the stock to be worthless he would have sold along time ago. he is just enjoying the money coming in from the gullible investors just like madoff did.
the ask price dropped from.0009 to .0008
volume is showing a buy at .0009 why do they drop the price to .0008 when they can get .0009 they know they will get a bid of .0007. stock went from .0005 to .0009 today. someone is manipulating the stock
yes greg you are correct
This email is compliments of Scottrade.com
If you would like to modify or suspend this alert, please login to your Scottrade account and navigate to the "Alerts" page under the "My Account" tab.
News for 'PPTL' - (Precision Petroleum Corporation-Announces Discovery of Deese Sandstone Formation in the Teresa #1 Oil Well, Garvin County, Oklahoma)
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, Apr 17, 2009 (Marketwire via COMTEX) -- In a news
release Dated February 27, 2009, Precision Petroleum Corporation (the "Company")
(PINK SHEETS:PPTO) announced the purchase of an interest in a producing Viola
Limestone well, Teresa #1. The well is located at NW/4, of the SW/4 of Section
34, T4N-R2W, Garvin County, Oklahoma. Teresa #1 has been in production since
2004, and has produced in excess of 5,000 barrels of oil and 44,000 MCF of
natural gas. The Viola Limestone formation is a consistent oil & gas producer
and displays excellent porosity.
Richard Porterfield, Petroleum Engineer and President of the Company advises
that the Deese Sandstone formation, with a 25 foot pay zone, is also present in
the Teresa #1 well. The Deese Sandstone formation is above the Viola Limestone
and is behind pipe. As the Viola is depleted, the Company plans to perforate and
fracture the Deese reservoir which should substantially extend the well
reserves. Adjacent Deese wells have produced in excess of 40,000 barrels of oil.
Mr. Porterfield states that the presence of the Deese reservoir provides a major
economic opportunity for the C ompany over the next several years.
Precision Petroleum Corporation is an independent energy company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration and development of oil and natural gas properties in
the United States. Precision's objective is to seek out and develop
opportunities in the oil and natural gas sectors that represent a low risk
opportunity. As well, Precision aims to define larger projects that can be
developed with Joint Venture partners. More information about the company is
available at www.precisionpetroleumcorp.com.
Certain statements in this news release may contain forward-looking information
within the meaning of Rule 175 under the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 3b-6
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and are subject to the safe harbor
created by those rules. All statements, other than statements of fact, included
in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding potential
future plans and objectives of the company, are forward-looking statements that
involve risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements
will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ
materially from those anticipated in such statements. The Company does not
intend to, and undertakes no duty to, update any such forward looking statements
to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date such
forward looking statements were made.
SOURCE: Premium Petroleum Corp.
CONTACT: Precision Petroleum Corporation
1-405-722-2920
Email: info@precisionpetroleumcorp.com
&n bsp; Website: www.precisionpetroleumcorp.com
Copyright (C) 2009 Marketwire. All rights reserved.
-0-
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: Energy and Utilities\Oil and Gas
SUBJECT CODE: OIL/GAS EXPLORATION UPDATE
Source: Comtex Wall Street News
are correct and here is verification
yes greg you
This email is compliments of Scottrade.com
If you would like to modify or suspend this alert, please login to your Scottrade account and navigate to the "Alerts" page under the "My Account" tab.
News for 'PPTL' - (Precision Petroleum Corporation-Announces Discovery of Deese Sandstone Formation in the Teresa #1 Oil Well, Garvin County, Oklahoma)
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, Apr 17, 2009 (Marketwire via COMTEX) -- In a news
release Dated February 27, 2009, Precision Petroleum Corporation (the "Company")
(PINK SHEETS:PPTO) announced the purchase of an interest in a producing Viola
Limestone well, Teresa #1. The well is located at NW/4, of the SW/4 of Section
34, T4N-R2W, Garvin County, Oklahoma. Teresa #1 has been in production since
2004, and has produced in excess of 5,000 barrels of oil and 44,000 MCF of
natural gas. The Viola Limestone formation is a consistent oil & gas producer
and displays excellent porosity.
Richard Porterfield, Petroleum Engineer and President of the Company advises
that the Deese Sandstone formation, with a 25 foot pay zone, is also present in
the Teresa #1 well. The Deese Sandstone formation is above the Viola Limestone
and is behind pipe. As the Viola is depleted, the Company plans to perforate and
fracture the Deese reservoir which should substantially extend the well
reserves. Adjacent Deese wells have produced in excess of 40,000 barrels of oil.
Mr. Porterfield states that the presence of the Deese reservoir provides a major
economic opportunity for the C ompany over the next several years.
Precision Petroleum Corporation is an independent energy company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration and development of oil and natural gas properties in
the United States. Precision's objective is to seek out and develop
opportunities in the oil and natural gas sectors that represent a low risk
opportunity. As well, Precision aims to define larger projects that can be
developed with Joint Venture partners. More information about the company is
available at www.precisionpetroleumcorp.com.
Certain statements in this news release may contain forward-looking information
within the meaning of Rule 175 under the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 3b-6
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and are subject to the safe harbor
created by those rules. All statements, other than statements of fact, included
in this release, including, without limitation, statements regarding potential
future plans and objectives of the company, are forward-looking statements that
involve risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements
will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ
materially from those anticipated in such statements. The Company does not
intend to, and undertakes no duty to, update any such forward looking statements
to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date such
forward looking statements were made.
SOURCE: Premium Petroleum Corp.
CONTACT: Precision Petroleum Corporation
1-405-722-2920
Email: info@precisionpetroleumcorp.com
&n bsp; Website: www.precisionpetroleumcorp.com
Copyright (C) 2009 Marketwire. All rights reserved.
-0-
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: Energy and Utilities\Oil and Gas
SUBJECT CODE: OIL/GAS EXPLORATION UPDATE
Source: Comtex Wall Street News
are correct and here is verification
none of the articles i posted suggest otherwise if read you would know ehhh
what ever you have read are actual copies of articles , so i am with the program , copy paste doesnt lie
In short, Eastern oil consumers and Western oil producers most likely disagree about who controls what, and who it "belongs" to. Control of oil comes from the marketplace, not from any buyer. Let's just imagine that the Canadian government mandated oil sales to China. China would then buy less from everyone else and American firms would still end up paying about the same price on the world market and getting about the same amount. The only difference? According to John Palmer, economics professor at the University of Western Ontario, "We would force Canadian producers to pay more to ship it to China instead of the United States. In the process, we would further strain Canada-U.S. relations while donating cheap oil, by probably subsidizing the transport costs, to China." Prime Minister Paul Martin should keep that — among other things — in mind when he decides to use oil to threaten the United States. Speaking two weeks ago in New York, the Prime Minister attempted to address the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. He hinted that Canada would look at China and India as a marketplace for "our" oil, restricting energy exports to the United States, if the Bush administration doesn't smarten up. Apart from how morally questionable it is to suggest that trading with a dictatorship like China is a preferable/equal option to trading with a free country like America, there is also the matter of reality. Canada is dependent on the American market, which buys approximately 85 per cent of what we have to offer. This is not to mention how our Prime Minister is causing further deterioration of already tenuous Canada-U.S. relations. In the world market, oil is fungible. Who sells how much to whom is of little import. The price is determined by supply and demand, not a single oil company, or state. Certainly, if American demand dropped, so would the world price, but American firms do not set oil prices. It would be nice if Canadian politicians would realize all of this and find less childish ways to deal with our largest trading partner. We always seem to be reacting against the United States, rather than carefully thinking through our rhetoric and our options. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rondi Adamson is a Toronto writer whose work has been published in the Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal Europe and USA Today. http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1129931412339&call_pageid=968256290204
Note: http://www.thestar.com/...
Home / News / World / Canada
Canada encouraged by Obama talk on trade, oil
By Rob Gillies
Associated Press Writer / February 19, 2009
Email| Print| Single Page| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + OTTAWA—President Barack Obama's announcement Thursday of a clean-energy dialogue and his comments on the country's controversial oil sands industry has reassured some Canadians worried about possible U.S. restrictions on Canadian oil shipments.
Obama also won praise for his stance on trade, and though he stuck to his pledge to eventually seek changes in the North American Free Trade Agreement, he said he intended to do it in a way that wouldn't disrupt commerce.
Even on the thorny issue of Afghanistan, where Canada has decided to withdraw its troops in 2011, the new American president managed to avoid ruffling feathers by declining to ask war-weary Canadians to stay longer.
The Obama visit "sets a really good tone for Canadian and American relations and it should set a tone for any discussions any of those issues," said Robert Bothwell, director of the international relations program at the University of Toronto.
Former U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci said Canadian officials were worried about pressure from environmentalists to restrict imports to the U.S. of oil derived from oil sands, where refining generates high levels of the greenhouse gases blamed for climate change.
Cellucci suggested they quit worrying following Thursday's talks between Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"Clearly, Obama is not going to shut down all the coal burning plants in the United States," Cellucci said. "He's putting the oil sands into the same basket. It sounds to me like he's not going to support restricting oil from the oil sands from coming into the United States."
The two leaders announced a pact to advance carbon-reduction technologies, which promptly was welcomed by officials in Ottawa and in Alberta, home to the oil sands.
"Here in Canada you have the issue of the oil sands. In the United States we have issues around coal," Obama said. "My expectation is that this clean energy dialogue will move us in the right direction. We are not going to solve this problem overnight as the prime minister indicated. We have to complete our domestic debate and discussion on these issues."
Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight said he was buoyed by Obama's remarks.
"What we're hearing coming out now bodes very well for Alberta," Knight said. "I think what it indicates is that he's a very thoughtful leader and he's looking for real solutions to these problems. We believe that we're able to help him with that."
Obama's comments on trade drew cautious praise from Canada's business community. Obama predicted "increased integration of efforts on energy and various" industries and said he does not believe the controversial "buy America" clause in his stimulus package will significantly discriminate against Canadian industry.
"In my view the meeting was as good as it could get," said Thomas d'Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.
But d'Aquino and others cautioned that "the devil is in the details" and that in the U.S. system, the president shares power with Congress on most economic matters.
"It's a good basis for moving forward, but we've seen good starts before," noted Jayson Myers of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.
"We'll see as time goes on how buy America provisions are interpreted, we'll see how the administration balances border security with efficiency, and we'll certainly see (the impact) of this plethora of regulations coming out of the departments of the U.S. governments."
Nelson Wiseman, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, said there was no point for Obama to ask Canada to extend its mission in Afghanistan because Canada still has two and a half years left in their commitment.
"All kinds of things can change by then," Wiseman said. "Harper might not be prime minister in two years."
Canada, which has lost more than 100 soldiers in Afghanistan, is withdrawing its 2,500 combat forces out of the volatile south in 2011.
© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More articles in Canada
Email
Email
Print
Print
Single page
Single page
Reprints
Reprints
Share
Share
Comment
Comment
Share on Digg Share on Facebook Save this article powered by Del.icio.us Your Name
Your e-mail address
(for return address purposes)
E-mail address of recipients
(separate multiple addresses with commas)
Name and both e-mail fields are required. Message (optional)
Disclaimer: Boston.com does not share this information or keep it permanently, as it is for the sole purpose of sending this one time e-mail.
February 19, 2009, 6:30 am
Obama and Canada’s Controversial Oil Patch
By Ian Austen
Reuters
A poster in Ottawa bids President Barack Obama to end U.S. purchase of oil from Canada’s oil sands. President Obama is visiting the Canadian capital on Thursday.
In the unlikely event that Barack Obama has some free time during his first trip to a foreign country as president on Thursday, he can take in Ottawa’s first Tar Sands Film Festival.
It is just one of several events organized this week by environmentalists in Canada and the United States, as well as native groups, to encourage the new administration to put pressure on Canada over pollution from Alberta’s huge oil-extraction projects.
The tar sands — or oil sands, as the industry prefers to call them — have made Canada the United States’ largest supplier of imported crude oil. But they also generate more greenhouse gases than conventional oil sources as well as large, toxic tailings ponds. For many environmentalists, the oil sands are the epitome of dirty oil.
“Our approach has been that the tar sands need to be cleaned up or shut down,” said Rick Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defence, a group based in Toronto, during one of several anti-oil sands conference calls with journalists this week.
Alberta is the political base of Canada’s current Conservative government and the home to Canada’s oil and gas industry. After coming to power in 2006, the government abandoned Canada’s earlier climate change pledges, replacing them with a new system which, among other things, allows the oil sands operators to increase their overall level of greenhouse gases — so long as they lower the rate at which they emit them through efficiencies.
Since President Obama’s election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has suggested that Canada would like to participate in any climate change initiatives by the new American administration as a continental partner. The catch is that Mr. Harper also appears to be seeking exemptions for the oil sands.
“The tar sands need to be cleaned up or shut down.”
— Rick Smith,
Environmental Defence
David Collyer, the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, was also busy speaking with reporters in advance of the presidential visit. While he acknowledged that the industry must reduce emissions, he also emphasized that the United States must take a “more balanced approached” to the oil sands debate — one that also factors in the value of having a nearby source of oil in a politically stable ally.
Unsurprisingly, that idea isn’t shared by environmentalists.
“You can’t really talk about energy security unless you’re talking about climate security,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, the director of the Canada program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Our climate really is on the brink of disaster.”
Comments by President Obama during an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, suggest that both sides may be disappointed following his quick trip to Ottawa.
At one point, the president acknowledged that “oil sands creates a big carbon footprint.” But he also echoed an argument of the oil industry and the Canadian government in adding that their problems are not unique or insurmountable.
“I think that it is possible for us to create a set of clean energy mechanisms that allow us to use things not just like oil sands, but also coal,” he said. “The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, but we have our own homegrown problems in terms of dealing with a cheap energy source that creates a big carbon footprint.”
E-mail This Print Share
Close Linkedin
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
My Space
Yahoo! BuzzPermalink
Climate Change, Conventional Energy, Energy Business, Energy Economics, Energy Politics, Environmental Politics, General Pollution, alberta, barack obama, environmental defence, NRDC, oil sands, stephen harper, tar sands Related Posts
From Green Inc.
Alberta Addresses Oil Sands’ Gigantic Footprint
Q&A: Energy Independence, Obama and Canada’s Oil Sands
Unconventional Oil on the March
Efficiency Help Wanted
A Climate Pass for Oil Sands?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous post
Alberta Addresses Oil Sands’ Gigantic Footprint
Next post
Will the Stimulus Help Wind and Solar?
From 1 to 25 of 53 Comments
1 2 3 Next »
1. February 19, 2009
7:24 am
Link
“Our approach has been that the tar sands need to be cleaned up or shut down,” said Rick Smith.
Are these people nuts? So Mr. Smith would rather send our money to the middle east, forment the financing of Iran, help radical islam, and greatly contribute to the economic woes of not only everyday American’s but the world’s peoples!
Oh, so I guess that ethonal is okay, let’s triple crop prices and starve millions so that we can claim we are cleaning up the planet.
— Bill
2. February 19, 2009
7:44 am
Link
Yeah, let’s shut all that horrible stuff down, bankrupt the main companies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, get rid of the tens of thousand of jobs and watch the price of oil go to $500/bbl. Hellooo….
— Brad
3. February 19, 2009
7:50 am
Link
Greenhouse gases? Obama and Pelosi are traveling the world in massive jets. The King and Queen can do what they want. Bread and circus
— Lyle Vos
4. February 19, 2009
7:52 am
Link
We need to draw a line in the “sand”…Our climate is our future — and energy sourcing is simply one component of what we contribute (or don’t) to our environmental climate.
Additionally, the issue is compounded by the fact that our economy is inextricably bound with energy sourcing. Until the US resolves its energy dependencies, we will never recover from the current economy debacle.
We cannot sell out our long-term climate future by short-term solutions to our energy issues.
In short, oil should be used primarily for lubrication and hydraulics — and not be burned up in combustible fuel engines. A typical car can be lubricated with a gallon of oil while it uses over $400 of oil to simply move it the 3,000 miles during oil changes.
We must begin a major, immediate shift to alternative energy, to any energy source that reduces our use of carbon-based fuels, such as coal or oil, the COIL fuels. And coal and tar-sands are absolutely the worst ingredient for preserving our environment. Let’s save these diminishing resources to a time 1,000 years from now when we really need them. The US is ALSO where the largest natural gas deposits are, as well — and natural gas burns very clean.
Yes, we will have short-term problems and inconveniences as we shift our sourcing and get our national electric grid into place — but we will have started. In a moment’s breath of eternigy, the issue will be resolved.
Forget the conventional practices of the past, it’s the future we must address intelligently and creatively.
— seth j hersh nyc
5. February 19, 2009
8:08 am
Link
To Seth:
Actu intelligently and creatively requires also to act practically with a plan that can be implemented. Natural Gas does meet many of those standards.
— Bill
6. February 19, 2009
8:09 am
Link
Furthermore, I can just imagine what the US reaction would be if Stephen Harper (you do know the Canadian Prime Minister don’t you?) came down here and told us to stop our coal production or oil shale development. I see Hypocrisy at work. Has anyone ever heard of Sovereignty? Now we have the right to oversee developments in other countries?
— Brad
7. February 19, 2009
8:14 am
Link
i dont think too many americans really understand the environmental impact of the tar sands operations. sometime if you are flying over alberta you might get it -
— canadian woman
8. February 19, 2009
8:25 am
Link
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones. The US is the world’s number one polluter, so maybe we should clean up our own act first such as getting rid of the coal burning electricity generating plants.
After Three Mile Island, this country went back to generating electricity using dirty coal: each plant that burns coal generates more pollution than all the tar sands plants put together, and, we have scores of these power stations. As most of the coal is shipped from Wyoming to the east, the freight trains hauling the stuff generate more pollution than the tar sands plants. The UK, France and Germany generate about 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants yet we insist on dumping tons of pollution in the air every day.
My guess is the President understands this plus he most likely prefers having a friend like Canada be our major energy provider rather than terrorist supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia.
— KJ
9. February 19, 2009
8:29 am
Link
Seth, you need to do some basic research. The US is running low on it’s natural gas reserves. Take a look at the BP Statistical Review. The biggest natural gas deposits, by far, are in Russia, Iran and Qatar. And I think before we tell our neighbors to clean up their act the US should set the example. Best would be to start with you and the citizens of New York. We can start by halting all deliveris of oil, oil products and coal-based electricity. We should also stop all oil trading and related activities in the City. When your survival is threatened it is possible that you may well change your tune. Isn’t it easy to tell others what to do?
— Brad
10. February 19, 2009
8:33 am
Link
so far Obama has done very well so theres no reason to think he won’t do something smart here.
We as americans need to stop our overuse of oil and coal and start to take environmental concerns seriously because we are getting very close to the edge of disaster but all you need do is read comment 1 and 2 to see greed and a unwillingness to make even the slightest compromise to lifestyle far outweighs brains in this country. I really don’t care how many oil companies suffer the loss of billions of dollars in profits because the oil companies care little to none at all about human suffering they cause everyday with their polluting coal and oil nor do they care about the immense environmental damage they have cause world wide!
A good start would be to cut the amount of “dirty oil” we buy from these sources till we buy none at all, if gas goes up a dollar or so who cares? I drive a high millage car and car pool everyday, anyone who unwilling to make sacrifice in their lifestyle will be out of luck and out of money, tough! The time is now to start saving the environment and eliminating oil sands is a good start.
— norm
11. February 19, 2009
8:39 am
Link
Worries about security of supply for oil are not really paramount if we are going to stop using oil. So, buying our oil from anywhere during the market glut we create by cutting our consumption will not be a big issue.
Tar sands are irreducibly expensive to produce because about 20% of the final energy output is needed to extract them. Since we are going to be getting off of oil, it makes sense to avoid oil sources that are expensive since our reduced consumption will make low cost oil more plentiful.
It seems hard to make a business case or a security case for tar sand oil.
— Chris Dudley
12. February 19, 2009
8:46 am
Link
The president said, “I think that it is possible for us to create a set of clean energy mechanisms that allow us to use things not just like oil sands, but also coal.” This is impossible.
It simply won’t happen.
We’re addicts. As long as we’re getting our fix, we’ll sit apathetically on our butts waiting for the next fix. We have to get away from oil altogether before we can expect new technology. If the government said “No” to dirty oil and coal, and if consumers still demanded and paid for energy, then and only then would technological advances and industry step up. Our money is important to people who want it.
As consumers, we have to reduce our dependence on dirty coal and oil.
As voters, we have to contact legislators and executives to turn away from old ways and embrace new technology and regulations.
As people, we need to recognize and redress our addiction–circle up the chairs and call the teevee, people, we need an intervention!
http://www.salamanderpoints.com
— Rr Salamander
13. February 19, 2009
8:55 am
Link
Norm: Just what is “overuse”? Is that everything over and above your specific needs Norm? How close are we to “the edge of disaster”? What makes you think that the oil companies care “little to none” about human suffering? Can you please quantify and qualify these statements? Otherwise these statements are nonsense. You always state “they”. Sorry but “they” is us!
Can you imagine the massive death that would take place if we ceased the production of hydrocarbons? You need some basic Science and Physics courses. Clearly you have no concept of the magnitude of energy we require to maintain a civilized population of 6-odd billion individuals. And you are at the top of the heap when it comes to energy consumption. I suggest you go live in some place like D.R. Congo where you can get an idea of what it is like in a low-energy society.
Thus. if you can’t apportion goods through the market the government has to allocate. And all we have to do is look at the failed Socialist and Communist examples to see how well that was done.
I probably use far less energy that you do but I certainly don’t want you to be telling me how much I should be using. Just what form of Government are you suggesting?
— Brad
14. February 19, 2009
9:13 am
Link
In response to Seth of NYC — I was with you right up until you included natural gas as part of the solution. On the contrary, natural gas is part of the problem. Although natural gas is somewhat cleaner burning than oil, it hardly ” burns very clean.” First, it emits more than 70% of the CO2 that oil does to produce the same amount of energy. Add to that the fact that methane, the primary component of natural gas, is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and that it escapes during the production process from intentional venting, leaky pipes, etc.; when this is factored in, the greenhouse benefits of natural gas are either greatly reduced or (more than) completely eliminated, depending which studies you believe.
Finally, the shale gas deposits that have people like Boone Pickens and Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon declaring that natural gas is the bridge to our energy future are yet another unconventional fossil fuel; like the tar sands in the main article above, production of shale gas requires much greater investments of energy and exacts terrible environmental costs. As we speak, shale gas production is threatening the NYC watershed, the Wild and Scenic Upper Delaware, and much of Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New York with the same destruction it has visited upon much more remote parts of the West. Let’s move to a truly carbon-free economy and not sacrifice these areas to a misguided energy policy.
— Tom
15. February 19, 2009
9:17 am
Link
If you put this into the context of the larger environmental differences between the US and Canada, it becomes ridiculous. Canada is so far more green in every other way, that to ask the US to oppose the Tar Sands is like asking China to insist that Norway use greener technology in its North Sea oil rigs.
http://www.boldizar.com
— Boldizar
16. February 19, 2009
9:22 am
Link
Tom, it is easy to pontificate on this issue. Please explain the reality of how we can move to a “carbon free” economy. It is an impossibility. Perhaps we could have a less carbon-intensive economy but never a “carbon-free” economy. Have you ever taken a basic course in Organic Chemistry? Let’s stop the nonsense here and speak in real terms. It would be nice to see all of you stop the sound bite speak and discuss facts.
How do we get to a less carbon intensive economy from here without freezing to death or dying from starvation? What is the transition strategy you propose?
No more euphemistic platitudes please…..
— Brad
17. February 19, 2009
9:23 am
Link
If less time and money was wasted on hyping wind and solar as our answer to our oil needs, and directed them instead into an already active hydrogen economy, we wouldn’t need to be extracting oil from Canadian oil sands. And since hydrogen can be produced locally from sewage treatment plants, it will be a cleaner source of energy that doesn’t require large trucks or ships to transport the product all over creation.
— U.S. Common Sense
18. February 19, 2009
9:37 am
Link
U.S Common sense. What?!! Just where do you think this hydrogen comes from? It is stripped from hydrocarbons and the byproducts are CO2 and a lot of wasted energy. Specifically, the hydrocarbon the hydrogen is stripped from after microbial decay in a sewage treatment plants is methane: CH4. Hasn’t anyone here ever taken a basic Chemistry course???
And why don’t you make a minor calculation and let me know how many sewage treatment plants if would take to power the United States? Like I said earlier - let’s get real here.
— Brad
19. February 19, 2009
9:54 am
Link
Brad (#9),
There has been proved reserve growth in natural gas in recent years and also increased estimates of the technically recoverable gas resource. The current midrange estimate given by an industry group is 88 years of natural gas at the current rate of production while their high estimate is 118 years of natural gas.
http://www.cleanskies.org/upload/MediaFiles/Files/Downloads2/finalncippt2.pdf
In terms of energy production (but not volume production) US coal production has been stagnant or decreasing since 1998 while gas has been rising. It could be that we are past the sweet spot for coal production but we are hitting our stride for gas production. Certainly it is gas and wind that dominate new electricity generation.
— Chris Dudley
20. February 19, 2009
10:21 am
Link
Brad I think you need to get real be fore you bash New York City. If you look at the statistics New Yorkers use far less energy on a per person basis than the rest of the country. Yes the city uses a lot of energy but then we have over 8 million people living here. That’s a greater population than all but eleven states. I ride my bike to work unless the weather is bad and then use mass transit on those days. Can you say the same. I also live in a 400 sq ft apartment. Where more americans live in houses of over 2,500 sq ft. Whose residence do you think uses more energy to heat and cool? I think before you bash New York you should start thinking about the efficient use of energy that compact living promotes.
— Bobby
21. February 19, 2009
10:51 am
Link
Chris I agree with the exception that the term “reserve” is an economic term. And with the price of gas now being so low, those reserves that were quoted at an earlier date, with a higher natural gas price- basis, are now dropping. Additionally, there will most likely be a rather harsh impact on gas (and oil) prices due to the current shut-in of production and easing off of exploration.
Generally, it is not economically advantageous to produce either oil or gas at current prices - most certainly not for marginal producers like shale gas and relatively unproductive oil wells. Most of the gas the US has been putting on line of late was shale gas and these wells are fairly prolific but only for relatively short period of time.
Hence, when demand and supply get temporarily into balance additional supplies will simply not be available going forward from that point due to decreased development activity and the unrelenting gravity of resource depletion.
Current princing is uneconomic and this cuts capital investment into the sector. Because of depletion a constant stream of capital investment is needed to maintain even a diminishing supply and this has been lacking due to the difficulty of obtaining finance.
So at some point we are going to have another energy crisis. And this is why I get nervous when I hear everyone whinging about living in a “carbon-free” world and shutting off the supply hydrocarbons at a critical juncture.
Most people do not understand the economic dynamics, and the underlying thermodynamics of the energy sector. They are also clueless about how dependent we really are on a smoothly functioning global energy market.
The recent economic shock to the global financial system has upset the dynamics of the global supply of energy. This may well, for quite a few people, end up being a matter of life and death - purely on a survival basis. I hope I an wrong because the political ramifications do not bear consideration. We need a safety margin. And when we have a 70% dependency on imported oil, have an extremely energy intensive suburban and exurban infrastructure and a populaton lacking in a basic understanding of the production, use and transformation of the natural resources allowing for such a structure - it is a recipe for political chaos.
— Brad
22. February 19, 2009
11:04 am
Link
Bobby, that was not the point. And actually, though I am an American, I have been residing in Switzerland for the past twenty years. Contrary to the US, and even NYC, the infrastructure here is far more energy efficient than it is there. And though I do have a slightly larger habitation in a small viillage it has a 300 year design life and is exceptionally energy efficient. And from this village I can get anywhere in Europe without a car using clean, reliable and punctual public transport. I am not a proponent of controlling how other people live or dictating their lifestyles - that is a personal choice dependent on personal enlightenment. You have made a personal choice to live that way and if you are happy with it - fine. If you want to force people to live like you do then you might have a problem.
— Brad
23. February 19, 2009
11:24 am
Link
“It seems hard to make a business case or a security case for tar sand oil.” - Chris Dudley
Ok, I’ll take a shot. But it would help my case if they would let journalists show us the flag draped coffins.
The US has used a large part of its military might, political will, and diplomacy to protect and ensure us of cheap oil for our growth. The euphemism is “strategic interests”.
Terrorist hate us because we fought a political battle with Russia in Afghanistan and oil battles in Kuwait and Iraq. We are actively pursuing a middle east made in our image. Our oil money corrupts their leaders and their religions.
Economically, the price of “cheap” oil that went to 140 a barrel caused a major shock to our economy that exposed weaknesses in our lending practices.
Venezuela represents another enemy of the US as long as it can “afford” to be,.through the sale of oil, to us!?
Finding oil in a country directly adjacent to ours that is arguable our best friend in the world is a godsend. We have an opportunity to have oil price and political stability along with a lot of great jobs and stable supplies for midwest refineries.
If we can assure Canada of a customer willing to pay a premium for their product, they can clean up the process and keep the ducks out…
The civil discourse between us and the Canadians is a breath of fresh air from a major oil supplier. Eh?
— Mark - Dallas
24. February 19, 2009
11:26 am
Link
Brad, at no point in my post did I say that I feel this is the way everyone should live. I was pointing out the energy efficiency of this way of life. Something you seemed to be saying was not the case when you suggested cutting off all energy supplies to New York. Perhaps you are not aware of the progress NYC has made in the last few years in cleaning up it’s bus fleet and promoting green living. Also having traveled quite a bit in Europe I am aware of it’s far superior rail system. That being said it is not true that you can get anywhere in Europe by mass transit. Believe me as a person who has never liked driving and tries to avoid automobiles at all cost, I’ve tried and there are places that you can not get to with out one.
— Bobby
25. February 19, 2009
11:56 am
Link
OK - I’ll give you that -I am wrong and you are correct with regard to getting to specific locations in Europe. Personally, it is tough sometimes, but I have not had all that much of a problem. But I can see how that may be true since I have not gone everywhere in Europe. However, there are few places in Switzerland that can not be reached using public transport. With one pass you can have access to all public transport. And the entire rail system is electric and that idependent power grid is supplied by hydroelectricity from the Alps. As a country it is very efficient. And fortunately, it is not part of the EU.
And I can accept the great strides NYC has made regarding the use of energy. Again, that was not the pint. The point I was making had more to do with the fact that Seth, contrary to your post, was trying to get other people, in another soveriegn nation to do what he felt was in his best percieved interest. As a sovereign nation, Canadians have the right to decide for themselves what they do without undue interference from their Southern neighbors. If some Americans don’t want to buy oil derived from tar sands then they should reduce their personal consumption. And since oil is a fungible commodity, if the US won’t buy it - it can be sold, or swapped elsewhere in international markets. So, much like the fact that we ended up with Middle Eastern oil through third parties during the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970’s we would most likely end up with Canadian oil. Thus, the whole concept of complaining about Canadian energy production does not make much sense anyway.
— Brad
1 2 3 Next »Add your comments...
Your Name Required
Your E-mail Required, will not be published
Your Comment
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.
Ads by Google what's this?
Bill Gross's Blog
Thoughts on Business, Innovation, & Energy Challenges the World Faces
www.BillGross.com
Energy Saving Switches
Save On Electric Bills w/ D-Link's Energy Saving Switches. Buy Now!
www.DlinkShop.com/Green_Switches
Reducing Oil Dependence
Commuting Strategies for Saving Gas & Reaching Energy Independence
www.icfi.com/conservegas
Search This Blog Previous Post:
Alberta Addresses Oil Sands’ Gigantic Footprint
Next Post:
Will the Stimulus Help Wind and Solar?
NEW SECTION
Visit the New Energy & Environment Section
Comment of the Moment
“ Aaahhhhh, smart legislators doing smart things with their money.”
— Tim
Q&A: Ontario's Green Energy Plan Markets
03/03/2009 2:11 PM ET
ENERGY AND POWER INDEXESNASD Clean Edge
113.13
+1.44%+1.61
ISE Green Energy
16.16
+1.57%+0.25
NYSE Energy
7,544.20
+0.83%+61.75
03/03/2009 2:11 PM ET
Get Quotes My Portfolios »
TIPS & SUGGESTIONS
Talk to Green Inc.
Got a hot tip on breaking green news, or a suggestion for areas of coverage? Email us directly at greeninc@nytimes.com.
Green Inc. Staff
Tom Zeller Jr.
Editor
After a year as an editor at large for National Geographic magazine, Tom returned to The New York Times in July 2008 to help expand the paper's coverage of sustainable energy development and green business. He has spent much of the last decade as a reporter and editor covering a variety of topics for The Times – from technology and cyberfraud to culture and politics.
Posts | Profile
Kate Galbraith
Reporter
Ms. Galbraith joined The New York Times in June 2008 to write about renewable energy. She spent the previous year as a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, and before that she was the Southwest correspondent for The Economist based in Austin, Tex. She is an avid runner and hiker, having grown up camping most summers in the Sierra Nevada.
Posts | Profile
James Kanter
Reporter
Mr. Kanter has been a staff correspondent for The International Herald Tribune in Paris and Brussels since 2005, covering European business affairs and the business of green. His previous experience includes four years in Southeast Asia, where he was the editor in chief of The Cambodia Daily in Phnom Penh and oversaw coverage of environmental issues like uncontrolled logging.
Posts | Profile
Senior Contributors
Felicity Barringer, San Francisco; Clifford Krauss, Houston; Micheline Maynard, Detroit; Jad Mouawad, New York; Matthew L. Wald, Washington
Other Correspondents
Leora Broydo Vestel, Nick Chambers, Azadeh Ensha, Jared Flesher, Joe Hutsko, John Lorinc, Erik Olsen, Libby Tucker
On the Web: Energy & Environment
Earth2Tech
Tendril Dials Up Cell Phone Energy Tool
AutoblogGreen
Geneva 2009: Clever EDAG "Light Car Open-Source" is like safety television for tailgaters
greenthinkers.org
BPA-Free: Aladdin's Recycled Recyclable Tumbler
Mongabay.com news
With landmark agreement by 35 villages, Papua New Guinea creates first nature reserve
News.blog: Apple (CNET News.com)
Nintendo: DSi is no iPod rival
What's This?
Powered by Blogrunner
Latest From Green Inc.
Experiments in District Heating (0 comments)
More Shakeups in the Solar Industry (1 comment)
Carbon Footprint Wars: Brown vs. Sarkozy (1 comment)
Greening the Prison-Industrial Complex (2 comments)
NRG Puts Exelon on Notice (0 comments)
About Green Inc.
How will the pressures of climate change, limited fossil fuel resources and the mainstreaming of "green" consciousness reshape society? Follow the money. From renewable energy policy to carbon markets to dubious eco-advertising, our energy and environment reporters track the high-stakes pursuit of a greener globe.
Email | Twitter | Facebook | RSS | Atom
Blogroll
Blogs
AutoBlog Green Blue Marble Blog Bright Green Blog, Christian Science Monitor Conscious Consuming Cool Green Science, The Nature Conservancy Dominion Energy's E-Conserve Blog Environmental Economics gGadget.org GoodCleanTech Green Business Green Trust Sustainability Groovy Green Joel Makower Los Angeles Times: Greenspace Sustainablog The Inspired Economist The Inspired Economist The Oil Drum Wall Street Journal: Environmental Capital World Changing Consumers
Climate Ark Green-e Greener Choices Grist Jamble Magazine MetroGreen+Business National Geographic Green Guide Solar Buzz The Daily Green Treehugger Institutions
Climate Matters @Columbia DOE: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Energy Star European and Chicago Climate Exchanges European Commission Directorate General for Environment European Federation for Transport and Environment International Energy Agency National Renewable Energy Laboratory United Nations Environment Program United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change US Department of Energy World Meteorlogical Association Jobs
EcoEmploy Green Dream Jobs GreenCareers from Monster GreenJobs from Treehugger Grist Jobs Renewable Energy Jobs News Sources
Alternative Energy Investments Alternative Energy News BBC News: Global Climate Change Climate Biz Climate Change News Digest CNet: Green Tech Consumer Reports: Greener Choices Environmental News Network Green Business News Green: From the Washington Post GreenBiz.com Greentech Media Greenwire Point Carbon Renewable Energy World Yale Environment 360 Organizations
American Wind Energy Association Association for the Study of Peak Oil Carbon Disclosure Project Environmental Defense Friends of the Earth Independent Energy Producers Association Interstate Renewable Energy Council National Biodiesel Board Rocky Mountain Institute Solar Energy Industries Association Sustainable Buildings Industry Council The Pew Center on Global Climate Change The Post Carbon Institute United States Energy Association Feeds
Archive Select Month March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 Ads by Google what's this?
Norfolk Energy Audit
Call Us For Thorough Home Energy Auditing and Save On Utilities.
www.AffordableEnergySolution.com
Domestic Energy Resources
Find out how much oil exists within the United States
EnergyTomorrow.org
Energy Audit Franchise
America's Original and Largest Energy Audit Company
EnergyDoctors.Org
HomeWorld U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times CompanyPrivacy Policy Search Corrections RSS First Look Help Contact Us Work for Us Media Kit Site Map
December 2008 Import Highlights: February 27, 2009
Monthly data on the origins of crude oil imports in December 2008 has been released and it shows that two countries exported more than 1.30 million barrels per day to the United States. Including those countries, four countries exported over 1.00 million barrels per day of crude oil to the United States (see table below). The top five exporting countries accounted for 59 percent of United States crude oil imports in December while the top ten sources accounted for approximately 87 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports. The top sources of US crude oil imports for December were Canada (2.033 million barrels per day), Saudi Arabia (1.394 million barrels per day), Mexico (1.126 million barrels per day), Venezuela (1.028 million barrels per day), and Nigeria (0.869 million barrels per day). The rest of the top ten sources, in order, were Angola (0.553 million barrels per day), Iraq (0.519 million barrels per day), Ecuador (0.252 million barrels per day), Algeria (0.235 million barrels per day), and Brazil (0.208 million barrels per day). Total crude oil imports averaged 9.419 million barrels per day in December, which is a decrease of (.504) million barrels per day from November 2008.
Canada remained the largest exporter of total petroleum in December, exporting 2.600 million barrels per day to the United States, which is an increase from last month (.068 thousand barrels per day). The second largest exporter of total petroleum was Saudi Arabia with 1.471 million barrels per day
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Dec-08 Nov-08 YTD 2008 Dec-07 YTD 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 2,033 2,028 1,931 1,796 1,888
SAUDI ARABIA 1,394 1,487 1,506 1,675 1,447
MEXICO 1,126 1,296 1,185 1,234 1,409
VENEZUELA 1,028 1,080 1,041 1,246 1,148
NIGERIA 869 775 923 1,210 1,084
ANGOLA 553 450 504 439 498
IRAQ 519 476 627 378 484
ECUADOR 252 222 214 195 198
ALGERIA 235 381 311 348 443
BRAZIL 208 280 231 171 165
KUWAIT 194 292 206 158 175
COLOMBIA 148 160 178 113 137
CHAD 105 75 102 92 77
CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) 95 61 67 31 63
AZERBAIJAN 78 71 73 134 57
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Dec-08 Nov-08 YTD 2008 Dec-07 YTD 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CANADA 2,600 2,532 2,459 2,372 2,455
SAUDI ARABIA 1,471 1,514 1,532 1,686 1,485
MEXICO 1,228 1,406 1,299 1,322 1,532
VENEZUELA 1,159 1,236 1,191 1,387 1,361
NIGERIA 939 827 990 1,271 1,134
ANGOLA 562 450 513 439 508
IRAQ 519 476 627 378 484
ALGERIA 484 677 547 600 670
RUSSIA 382 450 463 306 414
VIRGIN ISLANDS 289 338 320 387 346
ECUADOR 258 229 221 201 203
BRAZIL 225 285 258 178 200
KUWAIT 219 292 210 158 181
NETHERLANDS 203 137 167 157 128
COLOMBIA 198 176 200 130 155
Note: The data in the tables above exclude oil imports into the U.S. territories.
Contact Us • Feedback • Privacy/Security • Careers • About EIA
Fedstats • USA.gov • Dept. of Energy
has anyone noticed the price is .0019 but they are asking .0017?