Online Now 909

6th Street

The place for off topic discussion on Hookem

On this Board 14
Record: 352 (1/28/2013)

Online now 747
Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)

Boards ▾

Horns247 Board

The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns

6th Street

The place for off topic discussion on Hookem

Reply

It Worked!

  • HookemTx53 said...

    You know I don't know how many jobs this "Oil boom" eagle ford shale has produced but it has not made a dent for the local economies. The oil companies already have their own crews and bring them in from big cities, have them stay on site and they leave on their days off. They give almost nothing back to the local city. What they do leave behind, is the city trying to accommodate the increased traffic on the roads (lack of infrastructure) and provide public safety which costs the local taxpayer extra money. I'm not saying that they can't produce jobs, I'm saying it comes at a cost. Jobs are just part of the equation to a very complex economic formula, but yes 5 million jobs sounds like a great start but it's only a matter of time before that work ends and you have this scenario again. Making it cyclical (btw that means circle as in goes around. Actually it means something that happens periodically but you should get the picture.)

    But it still creates jobs which is necessary. Sounds like the local government would need to figure out a way to work with the company to resolve the problems you cited. Particularly if the $$ are leaving the area which makes sense given many oilfield workers are transitory by nature.

    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • HooksLeft said...

    The oil and gas aren't going anywhere. I think we need to do our due diligence environmentally and proceed from there. The proposed pipeline crosses a number of very environmentally sensitive areas like the Sandhills in Nebraska as well as one of the largest underground fresh water reservoirs, the Ogallala aquifer.......Besides, I'd rather be the last guy with oil in the ground,not the first to pump it out

    Have to agree with you on this. They need to work through the environmental issues is necessary but so is the end product. It can be done if everyone would stop digging their feet into the proverbial sand.

    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • austinr said...

    I repeat.....................kiss my ................moon

    BTW learn how to post. We don't know if the continued double posts are because you are stupid or because you are trying to drive home a point.

    When I double post I will let you know. Until then you might look closer at what I responded to before thinking its a double. But if it were, so what. But nice personal attack.

    On another note, I will pass on the kissing your ass part but I get the feeling a couple other posters on this thread that agree with you might be on board. Good luck with that though.

    In the meantime you can always leave the thread and not participate. Again, not that hard to understand. Or is it?

    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • JeezGuy said...

    But it still creates jobs which is necessary. Sounds like the local government would need to figure out a way to work with the company to resolve the problems you cited. Particularly if the $$ are leaving the area which makes sense given many oilfield workers are transitory by nature.

    Yes, it is but it's hard to figure what perfect scenario would generate economic growth. Personally I think it involves reducing government deficit. Unfortunately sometimes that means taxes but I feel like I already pay more than my fair share (like most do) so I don't know if I'm willing to pay more. If there was a perfect formula we could all do it but I have always felt a good economist is just a smarter meteorologist, lots of guess work based on historic trends.

    BTW I appreciate your calm posts on a touchy subject.

    HookemTx53

  • HookemTx53 said...

    Yes, it is but it's hard to figure what perfect scenario would generate economic growth. Personally I think it involves reducing government deficit. Unfortunately sometimes that means taxes but I feel like I already pay more than my fair share (like most do) so I don't know if I'm willing to pay more. If there was a perfect formula we could all do it but I have always felt a good economist is just a smarter meteorologist, lots of guess work based on historic trends.

    BTW I appreciate your calm posts on a touchy subject.

    No doubt there isn't a perfect formula per se because it would depend on what is happening within the economy. You need to adjust how you handle things.

    I would agree reducing deficits/debt load goes a long way to fixing problems. Balanced budgets to me are not always realistic in the real world U.S. and lets face it some excessive spending beyond revenues is not unreasonable at times. Its like most anything in life, excessive spending or excessive taxes become prohibitive to creating a growing economy as does uncertainty.

    Personally, as someone who has direct ties to sales and income, I always work it to a certain limit then stop because the incremental dollar earned versus taxes paid is not worth it for me. At that point it becomes more about maintaining relationships and pushing a sale to the next year.

    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • Thought this topic was gonna be about Lost.

    Thepop

  • HookemTx53 said...

    I don't think anybody's policy would help the US economy. When the government realizes that the economy is cyclical, they will be better off. I don't believe there is anything they can do to turn the economy. Yes they can create jobs but it's still costs taxpayers. This is just something we are going to have to ride out.

    Deregulation would... Too much uncertainty.

    signature image

    Diggsy

  • Diggsy said...

    Deregulation would... Too much uncertainty.

    The uncertainty is hurting. I know several business owners that are holding steady while trying to figure out what is going to happen with policy. Deregulation is good but you should have some oversight. But again, too much of anything is not good.

    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • Thepop said...

    Thought this topic was gonna be about Lost.

    slow death

    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • I am a business owner. 63 employees. Obamacare hangs over us like a plague. 900 billion original cost now up to 2.7 trillion. When did anything cost what the government said it would? My wife is a FNP/ANP. The lies that have been told folks. Big funnel and we're all going down it.

    signature image

    Diggsy

  • This post has been edited 4 times, most recently by austinr on 7/27/2012 at 4:58 PM

    You edited that 4 times ?

    No wonder the kicked you off the Inside Texas board.

    BuckHorn

  • HookemTx53 said...

    You know I don't know how many jobs this "Oil boom" eagle ford shale has produced but it has not made a dent for the local economies. The oil companies already have their own crews and bring them in from big cities, have them stay on site and they leave on their days off. They give almost nothing back to the local city. What they do leave behind, is the city trying to accommodate the increased traffic on the roads (lack of infrastructure) and provide public safety which costs the local taxpayer extra money. I'm not saying that they can't produce jobs, I'm saying it comes at a cost. Jobs are just part of the equation to a very complex economic formula, but yes 5 million jobs sounds like a great start but it's only a matter of time before that work ends and you have this scenario again. Making it cyclical (btw that means circle as in goes around. Actually it means something that happens periodically but you should get the picture.)

    First off I just made 15 1/2 years with Halliburton. So I have a little insight. Oil companies don't have crew. Shell, Chevron, Anadarko and such have maybe two "company men" on location. The drilling i.e. rig companies provide the crews. Patterson, UTI, Nabors etc. These are roughly 10-12 man crews split between days and nights. Then you have service companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes that provide the specialty services. I know Hall. and Schlumberger just spent a huge amount of money to by land in South San Antonio to build facilities, and have been having job fairs to bring in workers. Some workers are needed for a strong back, some workers are required to have engineering degrees to run our labs and R&D. This adds to the local economy. I've been lucky enough to stay away from that area, but a lot of my co workers are there due to the slow down in natural gas drilling in N. Louisiana. To the man they all say you can't find hotel rooms, and seats in for a place to eat, rental property, trailer spots and the like. Plus for the economy again.
    Many of these towns where dying off before the eagle ford started. Actually there was a good article in the Houston Chronicle last month about how these cities don't know what to due with all the extra tax revenue. Save it for bad times or invest in more infrastructure. Also these companies are finding it hard to fill positions with local or out of town workers.

    CajunHorn ●

  • CajunHorn said...

    First off I just made 15 1/2 years with Halliburton. So I have a little insight. Oil companies don't have crew. Shell, Chevron, Anadarko and such have maybe two "company men" on location. The drilling i.e. rig companies provide the crews. Patterson, UTI, Nabors etc. These are roughly 10-12 man crews split between days and nights. Then you have service companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes that provide the specialty services. I know Hall. and Schlumberger just spent a huge amount of money to by land in South San Antonio to build facilities, and have been having job fairs to bring in workers. Some workers are needed for a strong back, some workers are required to have engineering degrees to run our labs and R&D. This adds to the local economy. I've been lucky enough to stay away from that area, but a lot of my co workers are there due to the slow down in natural gas drilling in N. Louisiana. To the man they all say you can't find hotel rooms, and seats in for a place to eat, rental property, trailer spots and the like. Plus for the economy again.
    Many of these towns where dying off before the eagle ford started. Actually there was a good article in the Houston Chronicle last month about how these cities don't know what to due with all the extra tax revenue. Save it for bad times or invest in more infrastructure. Also these companies are finding it hard to fill positions with local or out of town workers.

    And if the infrastructure didn't have to be done by government would the companies not build it themselves???? I say yes they would. Which would create more jobs and more TAX revenue. But if government builds this infrastructure the job will start after the oil is gone with twice as many employees as the job requires paid twice as much by tax dollars. Not to mention said employees prolly won't know sh*t about building a bridge.

    signature image

    Diggsy

  • Diggsy said...

    And if the infrastructure didn't have to be done by government would the companies not build it themselves???? I say yes they would. Which would create more jobs and more TAX revenue. But if government builds this infrastructure the job will start after the oil is gone with twice as many employees as the job requires paid twice as much by tax dollars. Not to mention said employees prolly won't know sh*t about building a bridge.

    AGREED!

    CajunHorn ●

  • HookemTx53 said...

    You know I don't know how many jobs this "Oil boom" eagle ford shale has produced but it has not made a dent for the local economies. The oil companies already have their own crews and bring them in from big cities, have them stay on site and they leave on their days off. They give almost nothing back to the local city. What they do leave behind, is the city trying to accommodate the increased traffic on the roads (lack of infrastructure) and provide public safety which costs the local taxpayer extra money. I'm not saying that they can't produce jobs, I'm saying it comes at a cost. Jobs are just part of the equation to a very complex economic formula, but yes 5 million jobs sounds like a great start but it's only a matter of time before that work ends and you have this scenario again. Making it cyclical (btw that means circle as in goes around. Actually it means something that happens periodically but you should get the picture.)

    South Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country, 4.3% and its purely because of the shale oil play that is happening on private land in the state. Oil and gas employs 270,000 people in Texas. Petroleum industry employment grew by 16% in the past year. We could be in the midst of another energy revolution in this country if we had our energy priorities where they need to be. Thanks to developments in shale production and deep sea drilling; we now have the largest petroleum deposits in the world and could become the largest producer in less than a decade. But instead; we are wasting money on green energy projects like Solyndra and the other bankrupt companies that the DOE wasted tax payer money on.

    This is one thing that all Texans should be able to agree on. Oil made Texas and U.T. what they are today. Lets make sure that we remain the energy capital of the world.

    gordosan

  • JeezGuy said...

    This is the thread.

    That's cool then, just change the thread title to "The Official Hookem247 Politics Thread" and you guys will be good to go. (and I will know which thread to avoid)

    ee2b

  • This post is for members of Horns247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now
    signature image signature image signature image

    DaytrippingHorn

  • ee2b said...

    That's cool then, just change the thread title to "The Official Hookem247 Politics Thread" and you guys will be good to go. (and I will know which thread to avoid)

    Just avoid this one.

    Personally I didn't go on the my puppy is cuter than your puppy thread because it didn't interest me and frankly I thought it was inappropriate to have an off topic thread on the off topic board. In fact, we need to ban all puppy threads out of fear and loathing. They offend me and always lead to someone bringing up Vick or pitbulls are good pitbulls are bad.

    Said another way. If you don't like the topic don't join in but if you do join in play nice. But stop trying to dictate what should or should not be on the forum. I am sure some didn't appreciate the half naked pics on the hot check thread but they aren't calling for a ban. Just move along.

    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • This post is for members of Horns247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now
    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • gordosan said...

    South Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country, 4.3% and its purely because of the shale oil play that is happening on private land in the state. Oil and gas employs 270,000 people in Texas. Petroleum industry employment grew by 16% in the past year. We could be in the midst of another energy revolution in this country if we had our energy priorities where they need to be. Thanks to developments in shale production and deep sea drilling; we now have the largest petroleum deposits in the world and could become the largest producer in less than a decade. But instead; we are wasting money on green energy projects like Solyndra and the other bankrupt companies that the DOE wasted tax payer money on.

    This is one thing that all Texans should be able to agree on. Oil made Texas and U.T. what they are today. Lets make sure that we remain the energy capital of the world.

    Agree on most but would suggest there is a need for different energy sources. Now where the funding for those comes from is an entirely different story.

    signature image signature image signature image

    A. Morgan. USWNT

    JeezGuy ●

  • This post is for members of Horns247 only. Join now! Subscribe Now
    signature image signature image signature image

    DaytrippingHorn

  • This isn't political, but what is confusing me is the disconnect between the stock market and the economy. Regardless of your political perspective, I think everyone agrees that the economy is very weak and may be slipping back into a double dip recession. Second quarter GDP growth was only 1.5%, and probably will be revised down by a couple of tenths over the next couple of months. That's down from over 3% in 2010 and falling quarter by quarter. Despite these miserable numbers, the stock market is up 400 point over the past two days. Just doesn't make sense.

    gordosan

  • JeezGuy said...

    Agree on most but would suggest there is a need for different energy sources. Now where the funding for those comes from is an entirely different story.

    The problem is that the other energy sources cost at least twice as much as petroleum based energy does; and the renewables other than nuclear are unreliable on a day to day basis. I'll all in on conservation where it works. Hybrid technology is great. Smart meters. Increased CAFE regs within reason. Conversion of diesel 18 wheelers to CNG. The problem is that solar and wind energy just aren't efficient on an economic basis and from a technological perspective; we don't have effective energy storage technology that will allow them to be economically feasible without government subsidies for the foreseeable future. I don't think anyone seriously wants more nuclear fission until we have the nuclear waste storage problem solved. That basically leaves petroleum; unless you want to also include coal, which actually still makes more sense that wind and solar from an economically perspective.

    gordosan

  • ooops

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by BuckHorn on 7/27/2012 at 10:37 PM

    BuckHorn

  • CajunHorn said...

    First off I just made 15 1/2 years with Halliburton. So I have a little insight. Oil companies don't have crew. Shell, Chevron, Anadarko and such have maybe two "company men" on location. The drilling i.e. rig companies provide the crews. Patterson, UTI, Nabors etc. These are roughly 10-12 man crews split between days and nights. Then you have service companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes that provide the specialty services. I know Hall. and Schlumberger just spent a huge amount of money to by land in South San Antonio to build facilities, and have been having job fairs to bring in workers. Some workers are needed for a strong back, some workers are required to have engineering degrees to run our labs and R&D. This adds to the local economy. I've been lucky enough to stay away from that area, but a lot of my co workers are there due to the slow down in natural gas drilling in N. Louisiana. To the man they all say you can't find hotel rooms, and seats in for a place to eat, rental property, trailer spots and the like. Plus for the economy again. Many of these towns where dying off before the eagle ford started. Actually there was a good article in the Houston Chronicle last month about how these cities don't know what to due with all the extra tax revenue. Save it for bad times or invest in more infrastructure. Also these companies are finding it hard to fill positions with local or out of town workers.

    I was going to pile on, ty for doing it for me. As the President of an oil service company, I can assure you that it makes a dent in the local economies. Employment rates in areas where they are developing shale reservoirs are extremely low. President (pander to green energy) Obama would rather see 13% unemployment then have the country be energy self sufficient.

    76-37-5

    ut755

Texas
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports