Awful jobs numbers come out

[Deleted member 21794]

Your post is a tad lacking in evidence. Your asking for comments on evidence you don’t provide.

What is your evidence that:

1. Increased flaring led to more production (as opposed to just stuffing more cash into producers’ pockets),

2. That any such alleged increased production led to more jobs, and

3. That no jobs were lost among those whose job is to control pollution.

Good luck.

1) You have it wrong. Increased production led to increased flaring. The Permian Basin provides significant quantities of both oil and gas. Allowing flaring led to increased production, which means an increase in flaring. Your words in parentheses indicate you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

2) The increase in flaring, which has tripled in the last 2 years, obviously means more jobs created. That is self-evident. Or would you like to go on record as saying an flaring increase of 400,000,000 cubic feet per day of gas, along with the oil that comes with it, can occur without additional jobs being created?

3) As that is not the topic, that is up to you to prove and show relevance. Good luck.

 

[middleview]

Actually, that is precisely what @The Thinker did. That you can't put two and two together and get four is not our problem.

Look at his link. Oil production is lower now than it was in August 2018...The new rules went in to effect in Sept 2018.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Look at his link. Oil production is lower now than it was in August 2018...The new rules went in to effect in Sept 2018.

Don't you owe me an admission that you were mistaken about Bush signing the 2009 Federal Budget? At least I have the decency to apologize to you when you point out that I made a mistake.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

1) You have it wrong. Increased production led to increased flaring. The Permian Basin provides significant quantities of both oil and gas. Allowing flaring led to increased production, which means an increase in flaring. Your words in parentheses indicate you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

2) The increase in flaring, which has tripled in the last 2 years, obviously means more jobs created. That is self-evident. Or would you like to go on record as saying an flaring increase of 400,000,000 cubic feet per day of gas, along with the oil that comes with it, can occur without additional jobs being created?

3) As that is not the topic, that is up to you to prove and show relevance. Good luck.

Using words like “obviously” and “self evident” is not evidence proving your case. To the contrary, you confirm that you have no evidence proving your assertions.

And jobs lost due to Trump measures allowing for more pollution is certainly relevant to determine whether a measure increases jobs. It’s a truism.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Look at his link. Oil production is lower now than it was in August 2018...The new rules went in to effect in Sept 2018.

And now you dodge with colorful pictures.

Let's try it again. Gas flared represents production that would not have occurred without the change in rules on gas flaring. True or false?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Using words like “obviously” and “self evident” is not evidence proving your case. To the contrary, you confirm that you have no evidence proving your assertions.

And jobs lost due to Trump measures allowing for more pollution is certainly relevant to determine whether a measure increases jobs. It’s a truism.

Gas flared represents production that would not have occurred without the change in rules on gas flaring. True or false?

 

[middleview]

1) You have it wrong. Increased production led to increased flaring. The Permian Basin provides significant quantities of both oil and gas. Allowing flaring led to increased production, which means an increase in flaring. Your words in parentheses indicate you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

2) The increase in flaring, which has tripled in the last 2 years, obviously means more jobs created. That is self-evident. Or would you like to go on record as saying an flaring increase of 400,000,000 cubic feet per day of gas, along with the oil that comes with it, can occur without additional jobs being created?

3) As that is not the topic, that is up to you to prove and show relevance. Good luck.

From your link:

Chevron’s outlook is supported by strong performance in the Permian, where the company has added almost 7 billion barrels of resource and doubled its portfolio value over the past two years. Permian unconventional net oil-equivalent production is now expected to reach 600,000 bpd by 2020 and 900,000 bpd by 2023.

 

[middleview]

And now you dodge with colorful pictures.

Let's try it again. Gas flared represents production that would not have occurred without the change in rules on gas flaring. True or false?

false

Chevron’s outlook is supported by strong performance in the Permian, where the company has added almost 7 billion barrels of resource and doubled its portfolio value over the past two years. Permian unconventional net oil-equivalent production is now expected to reach 600,000 bpd by 2020 and 900,000 bpd by 2023.

 

[Drumcollie]

Only 75K jobs in May. Just as bad, the March and April jobs numbers the Trumpies previously touted were each reduced by 75K. Wage growth stagnant too.

But the fatcats are happy!

https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/15093-wage-and-hiring-figures-for-small-businesses.html

It's not the 800,000 Obama was losing we he took over because of Pelosi.

 

[Drumcollie]

Bull *edited*.

And I don't care how many sections of your ass you pull those fake numbers from, the fact is that Obama prolonged the downturn in the economy for a full year after he took the oath of office. (And that economy was knocked down by the Nancy Pelosi Congress. Had Obama done nothing, that economy would have been back to full speed on its own by the summer. But Obama succeeded in making this the worst recovery in history.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-trump-booming-economy/
For eight years, President Obama presided over the worst economic recovery in modern times.

The recovery turned around when Republicans were elected...Same thing happened to Bill Clinton. Funny how the reverse never turns out good for Democrats.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Don't you owe me an admission that you were mistaken about Bush signing the 2009 Federal Budget? At least I have the decency to apologize to you when you point out that I made a mistake.

He's still forgetting something on the flaring issue: the spot price for oil.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/RWTCD.htm

Oil was trading in the $60s and los $70s prior to the rule change. It has trended down to the low $50s since the rule change.

Hopefully, *middleview* is bright enough to understand the relationship between the price of a commodity and how much is produced. I'm not optimistic.

The fact remains, gas that is flared is by definition production that would not have occurred had the rules not been changed.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

It's not the 800,000 Obama was losing we he took over because of Pelosi.

Crikey. Pinning the GWB epic economic crash on Obama.

You just can’t get loonier than that.

 

[Drumcollie]

Nope. Nothing is worse than Obama's depression numbers unemployment figures. He was the worst thing to hit this economy since FDR.
And Trump inherited the worst clusterfuck since Reagan inherited the Carter disaster.

To Obama's credit...He took office after years of Pelosi as Speaker.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

From your link:

Chevron’s outlook is supported by strong performance in the Permian, where the company has added almost 7 billion barrels of resource and doubled its portfolio value over the past two years. Permian unconventional net oil-equivalent production is now expected to reach 600,000 bpd by 2020 and 900,000 bpd by 2023.

That does NOTHING to disprove simple reality. Increased gas flared under the new rules is production that would not have occurred otherwise.

Everyone who's informed already knows lots of smart people are putting money into the Permian Basin. That's only news to someone like you who knows nothing.

By the way, what else is in that article that you decided to just plagiarize like your pal Joe Biden? Ah, never mind. I can see what you wanted to hide- the date of the article.

Now: with facts and logic, tell me why Chevron's plans debunk my assertion. You yourself just said production is down, yet now post information about Chevron expanding. Explain with facts and logic.

Oh and for bonus points, what do you think happened about two years ago that motivated Chevron to double their portfolio in the Permian Basin? Hint: inauguration 2017.

Keep digging. I'm having a blast@

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Gas flared represents production that would not have occurred without the change in rules on gas flaring. True or false?

False.

Not to mention irrelevant to your assertions.

Face it - you have no evidence to support your assertions. Give it a rest. Lick your wounds in the corner.

;-)

 

[Drumcollie]

Crikey. Pinning the GWB epic economic crash on Obama.

You just can’t get loonier than that.

Yes you can...Welcome to blame Bush.

 

[Drumcollie]

Download:

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.9
2013 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 6.9 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.2 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.7 5.8 5.6
2015 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.0
2016 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.7
2017 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.1
2018 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.9
2019 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

So much better for jobs when dems don't have control.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

False.

Not to mention irrelevant to your assertions.

Face it - you have no evidence to support your assertions. Give it a rest. Lick your wounds in the corner.

;-)

Translation: True. I have no choice but to simply lie once again. I better double down and call it irrelevant for good measure.

 

[EatTheRich]

He's still forgetting something on the flaring issue: the spot price for oil.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/RWTCD.htm

Oil was trading in the $60s and los $70s prior to the rule change. It has trended down to the low $50s since the rule change.

Hopefully, *middleview* is bright enough to understand the relationship between the price of a commodity and how much is produced. I'm not optimistic.

The fact remains, gas that is flared is by definition production that would not have occurred had the rules not been changed.

A smaller price means less is produced.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

A smaller price means less is produced.

You're a step ahead. Good for you.