Sentry Energy Production

Mapping Oil Production In Texas

It will certainly come as no surprise to anyone that Texas has long been regarded as one of the foremost oil producing states in the nation. It will probably not cause any raised eyebrows to reveal that, if the state of Texas were its own independent nation, it would immediately become one of the highest producers of oil in the world. Simply put, Texas is an oil producing giant. Despite the recent inroads made by other states, such as Alaska and especially North Dakota, it seems unlikely that the great state of Texas will relinquish its crown any time soon.

Deep In The Heart Of Texas

There are very few areas in Texas where no trace of oil can be found. Apart from the very Western tip, where the desert reigns supreme, and a small swath of land cutting across the Eastern interior, the state is abundantly rich in reserves of black gold. Oil production is the king of the Texas economy, with very few rivals. Companies such as Sentry Energy Production own many oil producing wells throughout the state, with billions of dollars in profit resulting from their holdings.

Where The Oil Fields Lie In Texas

A recent survey conducted by the Texas Railroad Commission aimed to set out exactly where the oil fields were richest in their production of black gold. The survey was conducted according to rigorous standards between June of 2012 and the succeeding June of 2013. The results were far from surprising, but still quite telling.

There are two major oil producing regions in the state of Texas, namely the Eagle Ford Shale (located in the southern region of the state, near the border with Mexico), and the Permian Basin (located in the western region of the state, near the border with New Mexico). Between them, these two regions pump out hundreds of millions of barrels per year.

Karnes County Is Number One For Oil Production

The survey also revealed the location of the number one oil producing county in all of Texas. The undisputed champion turned out to be Karnes County, an area located in the Eagle Ford Shale region some 60 miles southeast of San Antonio. This area produces an average amount of 46 million barrels of oil per year. This astonishing figure is unmatched by any other region in the state, although there are plenty of other areas that come more than reasonably close.

The Only Dry Regions

There are only three areas to be found in the entire state of Texas that do not produce any oil to speak of. These are the Hill Country (an elevated area, running from north to south, that bisects the central region of the state), the extreme northeast region (located in the Texas Panhandle), and the extreme southwestern portion that borders on the Sonora Desert and the adjoining regions of New Mexico and Mexico. Every other region of the state contributes in some way, great or small, to the oil producing activity that continues to fuel the Texas economy.

Forecast For The Future

With the recent advent of drastically reduced gas prices, it seems that the might of the American economy has finally reasserted itself. Texas oil production is a major player in this welcome development. Despite the perils and tribulations that undoubtedly lie ahead, there is every reason to believe that oil production in the great state of Texas will continue to be a major part of America’s superpower economy.

I love the symbolism!

It took me a bit to realize that there was a message on this image Sister Toldjah posted on Facebook:

The message was that Sis was blocked from receiving tweets from the North Carolina Democratic Party; I s’pose she’s been a thorn in their side for a while now, and she was just so gleeful that Thom Tillis was able to retire Kay Hagan from the United States Senate.

What caught my eye at first was the symbolism of the North Carolina Democratic Party’s image: That’s supposed to be a lighthouse in the middle, but to me, it just looked like a big old screw!

And that, I’d say, is the perfect image, not only for the state party, but the national Democratic Party as well.

I Should Have Been A Meteorologist – Be Wrong, Still Get Paid

Meteorologists use high powered computers to make models of the earth’s weather. What the meteorologists have is 21 modeling locations around the world and they use modeling to forecast the weather. Since what is going on right now is static or known information, they take that and produce a model of potential weather for about 12 days into the future. One of these models is called the “Spaghetti Plot” and it is run for what each 24 hour period will look like. Generally speaking what is pictured below is today’s, January 29th plots of the 21 different models. Generally they follow the different jets streams and look for the bends and curves which show upper level high and low pressure zones which then give them a hint of clouds, clear skies, temperature distributions and everything. Then what is done is then make a computer run for 24 hour intervals for the next 12 days. In this they see patterns or lack of patterns for the various “jet stream” flows. You can go to this website and click through the progression of days to see the patterns: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/ens/spag_f024_us.html

spag_f000_usbg

Now the above is today. Below is what the computers worked out for 10 days from today. In a perfect world, this should be in conformity with the above picture as far as the lines being close together. But they are not and giving the reason for calling it the “spaghetti plot”. This past few days had, using these models said New York City was to get a record snowfall of mybe 2 to 3 feet. They got about 4 inches. Based on these models and forecasts the NYC Mayor shut the city down. As it turned out, he was wrong BIG TIME.

spag_f240_usbg

Now you should know where I’m heading here. There are huge computer systems churning out what is known today. You can see these same systems disagree sometimes wildly ten days from now. So, why should we believe Al Gore?

Barack Obama, Loretta Lynch and the right to work

We may consider it to be an axiom: if President Obama nominates someone for an important federal position, that someone should never, ever be given a position of responsibility.

Attorney General Nominee Defends Obama Immigration Changes
WASHINGTON — Jan 28, 2015, 9:01 PM ET | By ERICA WERNER and ERIC TUCKER, Associated Press

Confronting skeptical Republicans, attorney general nominee Loretta Lynch pledged a new start with Congress and independence from President Barack Obama Wednesday, even as she defended the president’s unilateral protections for millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

“If confirmed as attorney general, I would be myself. I would be Loretta Lynch,” the nominee told her Senate confirmation hearing as Republicans showered criticism on the current occupant of the job, Eric Holder. They said Holder was contemptuous of Congress and too politically close to Obama, and repeatedly demanded assurances that Lynch would do things differently.

“You’re not Eric Holder, are you?” Texas Republican John Cornyn, one of the current attorney general’s most persistent critics, asked at one point.

“No, I’m not, sir,” Lynch responded with a smile.

It was a moment that summed up a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that was often more about Obama and Holder than about Lynch, who is now the top federal prosecutor for parts of New York City and Long Island. If confirmed, she would become the nation’s first black female attorney general.

Holder, Cornyn contended, “operated as a politician using the awesome power conferred by our laws on the attorney general.”

Lynch asked the senator to take note of “the independence that I’ve always brought to every particular matter,” and she said that when merited she would say no to Obama.

OK, that’s disqualifying enough: Miss Lynch just lied to the committee. If President Obama tells her to do something, she will do it, period.

However, when (Senator Jeff) Sessions (R-AB) asked whether individuals in the country legally or those who are here unlawfully have more of a right to a job, Lynch replied, “The right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here.”

Really? Everyone in this country has the right to work, regardless of their immigration status? That’s certainly not what our laws say, laws which, if confirmed as Attorney General, Mrs Lynch will take an oath to enforce and defend.

But, that raises an interesting point:

Oh, no, you can count on the Democrats not to support right-to-work laws, not when they apply to American citizens who do not wish to join a labor union! Mrs Lynch and, presumably, the President support the right of illegal immigrants to work, to compete in the labor force with American citizens, but won’t support the right of American citizens to not join a labor union!

I wonder if any of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee holding hearings on Mrs Lynch’s nomination will have the nerve to press that point with her.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office is vacant in everything but name

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane, glamorized by The New York Times and called the “Democrats’ new ‘It’ Girl” by Real Clear Politics. (Photo: Mark Makela for The New York Times) Click to enlarge.

The First Street Journal has not been particularly charitable to the Commonwealth’s Attorney General, but that is understandable: we don’t suffer fools gladly, and having a fool for an Attorney General is not a good thing. But this article is from a “progressive” Pennsylvania site:

Kane Divorce Raising Questions
by: John Morgan | Sun Dec 28, 2014 at 16:32:20 PM EST

State AG Kathleen Kane is in trouble. Not just from Seth Williams, the Philly DA is called her out as a liar or that investigation into whether her office revealed secret grand jury testimony. Yes, she might get indicted for that one but her filing for divorce last week raises some interesting questions. Her campaign still owes her husband $1,700,000 according to her 2013 year end campaign finance report. She hasn’t filed any reports this year so it’s obvious she hasn’t paid him off yet. That would have generated a new report.

So what happens to her stated plans to run for re-election. Forget for a minute that she’s dead candidate walking. How viable is she as a potential candidate? Her ex can very possibly bankrupt her campaign committee with a simple lawsuit for repayment. She didn’t raise any funds this year and has about $592,000 cash on hand according that year old campaign finance report. Since she hasn’t filed a report since then this means her committee hasn’t raised or disbursed any funds. Her 2014 year end report should reflect this if she’s following the law (a big if with this official).

So how does she run for re-election with no money?

How does anyone in their right mind contribute to her campaign knowing they’re really just sending money to her ex?

Is anyone still willing to contribute to her efforts after all this bad publicity?

How many opponents are waiting to pounce knowing she’s politically crippled?

There’s no such thing as an amicable divorce. The fact Chris Kane doesn’t have an attorney makes me think she blindsided him with this lawsuit. If I’m him the second thing I do is hire a civil litigator and go after my money. That bankrupts her campaign.

Questions, questions.

That’s the entire post; the internal hyperlinks were added by me. The article author, John Morgan, might be a Democrat, and a self-described “progressive,” which around these parts is simply a cover word for socialist, but he hasn’t been much of a fan of our state Attorney General going back to the days of her primary campaign against Patrick Murphy, not mincing words and calling her an out-and-out liar. The First Street Journal agrees with that assessment, and the editors of The Philadelphia Inquirer, though slightly mincing their words, appear to agree as well. That she chose this time to divorce her husband, when she has so much other stuff going on, is just one more thinh keeping her from doing her job.

At this point, Mrs Kane has become completely ineffective, which could be considered a good thing, given that when she has been trying to do her job, she’s been doing it badly. Unfortunately, as the Commonwealth’s chief law enforcement officer, we really can’t have an Attorney General’s office that is vacant in all but name. She hasn’t been indicted — at least, not yet — and the state Supreme Court has ordered Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman not to proceed until at least March, by which time the Court will decide not on the merits of the grand jury’s report concerning Mrs Kane,1 but on the Attorney General’s complaint that the appointment of a special prosecutor was legally inappropriate.

State law does not require Mrs Kane to resign if she is indicted; she could be forced from office only after she is actually convicted. Governor Tom Wolf (D-PA) cannot just fire her; the Attorney General is an independently elected official in Pennsylvania. Nor do we suggest that Mrs Kane ought to resign because she may be indicted; we suggest that she ought to resign because she is just plain incompetent.
___________________________

  1. There is some irony involved here: the grand jury (supposedly) recommended that Mrs Kane be indicted for leaking secret grand jury information for political purposes, but for us to have heard this story, secret grand jury information had to have been leaked.

Let’s break out the irony meter

From the Delaware Liberal, where site owner Jason Scott refuses to allow me to comment because I always show him up1:

Delaware is First in something else not to be proud of….
Filed in National | by Delaware Dem | on January 27, 2015

….and that is in states with the most uneven and unequal economic recovery. According to a new research paper released yesterday by the Economic Policy Institute, in 39 states, the top 1% of wage earners earned at least half of all income gains between 2009 and 2012. In 17 of those states, the top 1% earned all income growth, while everyone else’s wages stayed stagnant or declined.

But where did the 1% gain the most?

You guessed it.

The Great State of Delaware.

In Delaware, between 2009 and 2012, real income growth in all incomes increased by 0.7%. However, when incomes are divided into the top 1% of incomes versus the bottom 99%, things change. Between 2009 and 2012, wages actually decline for the bottom 99% by 1.6%, while increasing during the same time period for the top 1% by…. wait for it….. 15%!

That means the top 1% gets 301% of all income growth over the three years between 2009 and 2012. That means the top 1% earned THREE TIMES THEIR UNFAIR SHARE OF 100% OF ALL INCOME.

And it gets worse. Since 1979, in all economic expansions this state has experienced, the top 1% has captured 110.9% of all income growth. The bottom 99% saw their wages decline by 10.9% during that same time period. Before 1979, the statistic was reversed. 108.1% of all income growth went to the bottom 99% prior to 1979.

So, thank you President Reagan, the murderer of the middle class.

That’s the whole article, and, quite naturally, what Hube refers to as the Liberal Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers blames it on the Republicans.

But, let’s look at the map that Delaware Dem provided: it seems that in the far-right state of Texas, that which so horrifies Delaware Dem is pretty far down the scale. Mississippi and Kentucky and Indiana and North Dakota and Montana and Alaska, all solidly red states,2 are in the second lowest category, while the lowest category holds West Virginia, another red state which went redder still in the 2014 elections.

As for the more unequal states, your Editor notes that they are dominated by the blue states: California, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, Massachusetts,3 Connecticut, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, and blue-due-to-heavy-federal-government-employee Virginia.

These aren’t exact comparisons, of course: there are variations by state, as the Carolinas show greater progress by the top producers, and Missouri is just an outlier by almost any standard, while very blue Hawai’i and Vermont are on the lower end of the scale. But if DD is going to complain that his home state is a bastion of inequality, if he were to look at the map he posted, honestly, he’d start to see the same pattern I did.

Could it possibly be that the policies advocated and put in place by more conservative state governments4 have something to do with income growth being shared a bit more than seems to be the case, generally speaking, in the more liberal states?
_________________________

  1. This is not something I regard as a great accomplishment; showing up Mr Scott is something a seventh grader could do.
  2. John Hitchcock’s objections beside the point, I accept the “red state” designation for those carried by Republican presidential candidates.
  3. Home of the Delaware Liberals’ favorite Senator, Elizabeth Warren, who tells us that taxes must be raised on the top producers but famously declined to pay a higher state tax rate voluntarily when she had the chance.
  4. Kentucky’s state government is primarily Democratic, but they are more conservative Democrats than we see in the national party.

Rape is rape, and being stupid and drunk does not excuse rape

From the Associated Press:

2 Ex-Vanderbilt Students Convicted of Rape
By The Associated Press | January 27, 2015

Brandon Vandenburg Credit Larry Mccormack/The Tennessean, via Associated Press

NASHVILLE — Two former Vanderbilt football players were convicted on Tuesday of raping a fellow student in 2013 after a jury rejected claims that they were too drunk to know what they were doing and that a college culture of binge drinking and promiscuous sex should be blamed for the attack.The jury deliberated for three hours before announcing its verdict against the two former players, Brandon Vandenburg and Cory Batey. Mr. Batey was stoic, staring ahead, and Mr. Vandenburg shook his head no, appearing stunned as the verdict was read. His father had an outburst and abruptly left the courtroom.

The victim, who was a 21-year-old neuroscience and economics major at the time of the attack, cried as each guilty verdict was announced.

Both men were convicted of four counts of aggravated rape, one count of attempted aggravated rape and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. They face decades in prison at their sentencing, scheduled for March 6.

Cory Batey Credit Samuel M. Simpkins/The Tennessean, via Associated Press

More at the link. Pandora of the Delaware Liberal has more of the details, and they aren’t pretty.

So, what happened? The victim went out drinking with her boyfriend, one of the two men convicted of raping her, and got so stinking drunk that she was passing out; she does not remember what happened, but her scumbag boyfriend recorded it on his cell phone! The men were intoxicated, but were not so drunk that they couldn’t take conscious action.

The obvious moral of the story: if you are dumb enough to get stinking drunk, you place yourself in a state in which you cannot make reasonable choices, and you cannot defend yourself. Two young men are now going to spend some real hard time because of something that they were too stupid and too drunk to know better than to do, and even after they get out of prison, they’ll be registered sex offenders and convicted felons, and they’ll never be able to find decent jobs. They ruined the rest of their lives because of stupidity and alcohol.

The victim? I have no way of knowing how much harm she has suffered. She doesn’t remember the attack, and according to Pandora’s source, didn’t want to get Mr Vandenberg in trouble; he was her boyfriend at the time. How much psychological harm she bears, we do not know, and I’d guess that only her close friends, over time, will ever know. But, as much as the feminists would hate this, she helped to make herself into a victim, by getting drunk out of her mind, and out of consciousness. That doesn’t take away from the criminal action by her assailants, not in the slightest, but it still turned her into a victim.

This is one of those cases, along with the Steubenville rape case, which ought to be publicized at every college campus, at every freshman orientation meeting, at every fraternity and sorority rush, and at every athletic team orientation, telling college students what they just can’t do, telling them what ought to be just plain obvious, that alcohol and stupidity can get out of hand and become criminal.

Well, perhaps Messrs Vandenberg and Batey can find jobs after they get out of prison, touring the country and telling students just what they did and how ruined their lives have become. That might be all that’s left for them.

It’s about time!

From the Conservative Tribune:

BREAKING: Free Ride Comes to a Screeching Halt for 6,000 Welfare Leeches
Sunday, January 25th, 2015

The State of Maine has given notice to around 6,000 welfare recipients. The gravy train is over.

Gov. Paul LePage is reinstating a law that says any single, able bodied person, between 18 and 50 must either work, volunteer, or enroll in an employment training program for 20 hours per week in order to continue to receive benefits.

“We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work,” said the Republican governor. “We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”

The law had been suspended in 2008 due to Maine’s high unemployment rate and the poor job market due to the recession. (H/T madworld.com)

The change isn’t sitting well with some recipients, who can’t understand why they have to do something to receive “free” government benefits.

More at the link. National Review‘s Jillian Kay Melchior noted last November that, despite the wholly-expected objections from the Obama Administration, Governor LePage and Department of Health and Human Services commissioner Mary Mayhew have pursued several welfare reforms designed to cut down on welfare fraud:

Maine has already, among other efforts, doubled the number of fraud investigators; required drug tests for beneficiaries with drug-related felonies; tracked and blocked the use of cash benefits at casinos, liquor stores, and casinos; reinstated the work-requirement for long-term food-stamp collection; and put a five-year cap on cash benefits for able-bodied, non-elderly recipients.

To cut back on fraud and deter the trafficking of food-stamp and cash-assistance cards, Maine also launched a program in June to put photo IDs on all electric-benefits transfer (EBT) cards.

You wouldn’t think that any of that would be controversial in the slightest, but if you thought that, you’d be wrong:

The federal government didn’t like that idea from the beginning. Even though New York and Massachusetts already require photo IDs on EBT cards, the Obama administration required Maine to submit extensive paperwork before doing the same. In April, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) asked Maine to delay its program, warning that the state was “at risk” of losing funds and facing litigation.

Maine pushed forward anyway, and today, more than 21,000 EBT holders have volunteered to participate in the photo-ID pilot program. So last week the federal government attacked again, sending a second strongly worded letter to the LePage administration.

According to the Obama administration’s latest screed, requiring photo IDs could have a “chilling effect” on enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and constitutes a possible civil-rights violation. The letter reiterated that the Obama administration may withdraw some federal funding for Maine, though it did not specify an amount.

Now, since the state is issuing the EBT cards in the first place, and since welfare recipients have to come into social services offices to apply for benefits, those recipients will get their new EBT cards, issued by the state, at state expense. They have to have the cards in their possession to use them, which means there can be no excuse why a photographic identification on the cards would be objectionable . . . unless the objection is that it would be more difficult to use them fraudulently.

The Conservative Tribune called this “breaking news,” but it really isn’t: The Portland Press Herald reported on this last September, and the paper stated that Democrats:

question(ed) why the administration is deciding to implement the new policies so close to the November election.

“The timing of all of these things lends one to think that all of this is politically motivated because it’s an election year,” said Rep. Drew Gattine, a Westbrook Democrat.

Well, so, what if it was? It was still the right thing to do, and the bigger problem is that it took the LePage Administration so long to get it done. Governor LePage won re-election with 48.2% of the vote in a three-way race, despite Maine being a mostly Democratic state.

The Wall Street Journal reported that drug testing of welfare applicants hasn’t turned up that many violators, but the article did not tell readers whether total applications declined, something that would be expected as many prospective applicants who use drugs would simply decide not to apply for benefits if they knew they’d fail the tests. The drug testing program in Maine would be limited to applicants with a past drug-related felony conviction, which might make it easier to get around idiotic federal judges.

The newest rules come months after LePage announced that Maine would cut off all funding for a municipal welfare program to cities and towns that continue to provide benefits to immigrants who can’t prove they’re living in the state legally.

Several cities and immigrants are challenging the policy in court, and the drug-testing policy could also be headed for a legal fight.

Oamshri Amarasingham, public policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, which argues that the policy is unconstitutional, said the organization is waiting to see what actions it will take but is committed to ensuring that it doesn’t go into effect.

“We will absolutely be there at every step to oppose it,” she said.

At some point, you have to ask why the left are so opposed to trying to stop ineligible people from receiving welfare benefits. Why would anyone object to making sure that only eligible people receive state welfare benefits, unless they want the state to give welfare dollars to ineligible recipients? Why would the Obama Administration oppose photographic identification on EBT cards unless it really wants to see other people use the cards fraudulently?

OMG, it’s a Blizzard!

The Official Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania Snow Measuring Station: the top of my backyard barbecue grill!

€urosclerosis: The Greeks have revolted

From The Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal, Monday, 26 January 2015 AD

Syriza Victory in Greek Election Roils European Debate Over Austerity
Leftist Party’s Win Is Likely to Embolden Populist Movements Elsewhere in Eurozone
By Marcus Walker | Jan. 25, 2015 8:33 p.m. ET

BERLIN—For five years, Europe’s common-currency bloc has squabbled over whether the solution to its economic crisis lies in slimming the state and deregulating markets, or in more expansionary fiscal and monetary policies.

The battle lines just got messier, the way out even less clear.

Since the start of the eurozone’s debt crisis, the bloc’s wealthier countries—led by Germany—have largely prevailed in pushing economic overhauls, not stimulus, as the main way to nurse indebted nations to financial health. Now, eurozone voters are in open revolt against such fiscal strictures, while the European Central Bank just overthrew German monetary orthodoxy.

Sunday’s historic victory for the radical left-wing Syriza party in Greece’s elections is likely to embolden populist movements in other eurozone countries, including Spain, France and Italy, which reject German-sponsored austerity.

More at the original.

It was the subtitle, “Leftist Party’s Win Is Likely to Embolden Populist Movements Elsewhere in Eurozone,” which caught my attention: the Journal is suggesting that people in democracies all across Europe may decide, well, Hell, why should we pay our bills? It’s the almost inevitable conclusion of the silly Occupy movement, where people who have been living better than their production supported decided that they didn’t want to have to actually pay for past profligacy.

Well, no, the debt is not owed to taxpayers; the debt is owed by taxpayers, who would not have accumulated that debt had they paid enough in taxes to support the spending of the governments they elected. But, had they paid enough in taxes to keep their budgets balanced, then they’d have had less money themselves, and not lived as well. It was the financiers who provided than money for them to live better. That €40 billion gift would be the gift of the taxpayers not having to pay what they owe, but it would be a €40 billion theft from the people who had loaned their hard-earned money to the Greeks.

Of course, for the Occupods, owing money to people who actually earned money, well they’re the evil 1%ers, so it’s just Social Justice not to pay them back!

The sad part is that the austerity program was working for Greece, but the Greeks were apparently not nearly as interested in getting their government and their country on a sounder financial footing than they were in having more money in their wallets. That’s understandable enough, I suppose, but the real result will be that their government will go broke, and they’ll still have to live no better than their own production will support. Anyone who lends the Greeks money after yesterday’s elections is Just Plain Stupid, and deserves any losses he takes.

________________________
Related Stories from The Wall Street Journal: