Obama and energy, four more years?

[cdunn]

Do we really want 4 more years of failed green energy companies, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars each time,

Yes. Absolutely, without any hesitation, YES.

The renewal cycle of coal, oil, and "natural gas" span a time frame so immense that our entire species' existance is but an eyeblink in comparison to it. Despite the denial of the fact from some, they are finite resources, yet we have come, in the space of two centuries, to rely overwhelmingly upon them. The most convient of them, oil, is deposited beneath, largely, peoples that do not have the best interests of western societies in mind.

Regardless of their effects on the ecologies that our species relies upon to survive, the first two reasons alone ensure that to not actively seek to move beyond fossil fuels as an energy source is societal suicide. It can be argued that it is the single most important issue that will face our society for generations to come. Energy generation and storage deserve the Edisonian approach - Every failure is a lesson learned, a cobblestone in the path to the successes that will hold us until fusion becomes a viable techonolgy.

 

[elder999]

Double post-sorry!

 

[elder999]

And if obama hadn't said the things he has said about coal and gas prices and taken various actions against oil, I might believe the delays are due to caution. They aren't.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/30/obama’s-words-don’t-match-with-action-on-oil-and-gas/



And from today...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...lling_could_make_a_big_difference_113263.html

Well, no, billi-they actually are.

Let's look at some of the other things from your propaganda page, though:

Keystone permit rejection. The Keystone XL pipeline would deliver oil from our Canadian ally, relieve some of the pain of high prices at the gas pump, and create jobs in America. Nevertheless, and despite aState Department environmental review concluding that the project poses no significant environmental risk, the President chose to reject TransCanada’s permit application to build the pipeline.

Relative hazards of the pipeline might just have been minimal- I don't think that's really the argument. One does have to wonder, though, why the pipeline would cross the entirety of the U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico, when there are refineries available in the Dakotas and Montana that would be perfectly capable of being the terminal for this product. The likely fact is that the oil was destined for shippinglike China, where demand for oil has increased, as opposed to the U.S., where demand has actually decreased. This National Geographic article says as much:

"This is all about taking the oil that's coming into the Midwest and moving it down to the Gulf Coast, where they have access to China and other markets," the National Wildlife Federation's Jeremy Symons told Congress this summer.

Spurred by the provocative analysis of a prominent energy economist, Philip Verleger, the argument joins the already contentious debate over the Keystone XL pipeline. The 1,700-mile, $7 billion project has stalled awaiting approval of the U.S. State Department, which must approve any pipeline built across the U.S. border.

So,even if we leave the environment out of arguments against it-quite frankly, it's likely that the Keystone pipeline would have done little for the energy security of the U.S. And those "thousands of jobs?" It was mostly temporary construction jobs, and included such ancillary jobs as hotel and restaurant staff in areas the pipeline would have transited-so it would have done little for U.S. employment as well.

Fracking regulation. Hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking&#8221 is a proven oil and gas extraction process that should not be subject to overly burdensome regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering federal regulation of the fracking process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The problem is that the agency is following a procedure that even the Department of Energy criticized for its“selective focus” on “negative outcomes.

Yes, it's a proven technology that's been proven to contaminate groundwater.


Of course, that could probably be controlled in some way, but that opens the drilling and production companies to a liability that they wouldn't want. In Chicago or Peoria, where you have abundant water, that might not matter so much, but here in New Mexico-where we're dependent upon very limited water resources for drinking and agriculture, with a large amount of it coming from groundwater, and where we've already seen water contamination due to less than well conducted drilling operations, it's very important.The same probably holds true for Pennsylvania and Western New York, which have also seen contaminated wells from drilling activities.

[Targeted tax hikes. The President continues to threaten the oil industry with targeted tax hikes. Under the rhetoric of eliminating subsidies for the industry, the President’s proposal would eliminate certain tax treatments for oil that are available to many industries, effectively singling out the oil industry for a tax hike.

Yeah, maybe he does "keep threatening." In the meantime, though, it wouldn't happen without Congress, and hasn't happened yet, has it?

nazisareleftwingorwell]
Slowdown of production on federal lands. While American oil production has been increasing, the vast majority of that production is taking place on private lands. Production on federal lands is actually 40 percent lower than it was 10 years ago. The House Natural Resources Committee also reports that under the Obama Administration, 2010 had the lowest number of onshore leases issued since 1984.

And this one cuts to the truth behind all of this, regardless of the permitting process: oil is a finite resource. Drill, baby, drill all you like-it's going to run out,and we need to be preparing to replace it. More to the point, it's been drilled for longer in the U.S. than anywhere else on the planet-we're going to run out, and we're already dependent upon places that just don't really have our best interests at heart-in fact, they'd like to see us gone.

In any case, less oil=less drilling, all other reasons aside.

 

[granfire]

and dagnabbit, oil is going to be too precious to put in a tank before long. There is a lot more done wit it than burning it.

 

[cdunn]

Of course, that could probably be controlled in some way, but that opens the drilling and production companies to a liability that they wouldn't want. In Chicago or Peoria, where you have abundant water, that might not matter so much, but here in New Mexico-where we're dependent upon very limited water resources for drinking and agriculture, with a large amount of it coming from groundwater, and where we've already seen water contamination due to less than well conducted drilling operations, it's very important.The same probably holds true for Pennsylvania and Western New York, which have also seen contaminated wells from drilling activities.

The upside is free heating in the winter. All we have to do is gather the family around the spigot, turn it on, and set the water on fire!

 

[billc]

Just found this over at pajamas media...on the drop in fossil fuel extraction on federal lands...

http://www.instituteforenergyresear...el-production-on-federal-lands-at-9-year-low/

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) just released its report, Sales of Fossil Fuels Produced on Federal and Indian Lands, FY 2003 Through FY 2011. This report shows that total fossil fuel production on federal lands is falling, natural gas production on federal lands is falling, and oil production on federal land fell in 2011 ending two years of increase. Specifically the new EIA report shows:

• Fossil fuel (coal, oil, and natural gas) production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years EIA reports data and is 6 percent less than in fiscal year 2010.
• Crude oil and lease condensate production on Federal and Indian lands is 13 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.
• Natural gas production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years that EIA reports data and is 10 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.
• Natural gas plant liquids production on Federal and Indian lands is 3 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.
• Coal production on Federal and Indian lands is the lowest in the 9 years of data that EIA reported and is 2 percent lower than in fiscal year 2010.

See also–The Myth that the U.S. Only Has 2% of the World’s Oil

What did Obama just say about how much we are drilling...get some water, I think someone's pants are on fire...

Sooo...if he is re-elected, do you actually think he is going to improve fossil fuel production...?

 

[billc]

There is this article detailing obama's anti-energy policy from Charles Krauthammer...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...3/15/gIQA7x77ES_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions

Obama boasts that, on his watch, production is up and imports down. True, but truly deceptive. These increases have occurred in spite of his restrictive policies. They are the result of Clinton- and Bush-era permitting. This has been accompanied by a gold rush of natural gas production resulting from new fracking technology that has nothing at all to do with Obama.
“The American people aren’t stupid,” Obama said (Feb. 23), mocking “Drill, baby, drill.” The “only solution,” he averred in yet another major energy speech last week, is that “we start using less — that lowers the demand, prices come down.” Yet five paragraphs later he claimed that regardless of “how much oil we produce at home . . . that’s not going to set the price of gas worldwide.”
So: Decreasing U.S. demand will lower oil prices, but increasing U.S. supply will not? This is ridiculous. Either both do or neither does. Does Obama read his own speeches?
Obama says of drilling: “That’s not a plan.” Of course it’s a plan. We import nearly half of our oil, thereby exporting enormous amounts of U.S. wealth. Almost 60 percent of our trade deficit — $332 billion out of $560 billion — is shipped overseas to buy crude.
Drill here and you stanch the hemorrhage. You keep those dollarswithin the U.S. economy, repatriating not just wealth but jobs and denying them to foreign unfriendlies. Drilling is the single most important thing we can do to spur growth at home while strengthening our hand abroad.
Instead, Obama offers what he fancies to be the fuels of the future. You would think that he’d be a tad more modest today about his powers of divination after the Solyndra bankruptcy, the collapse of government-subsidized Ener1 (past makers of the batteries of the future) and GM’s suspension of production — for lack of demand — of another federally dictated confection, the flammable Chevy Volt.

 

[seasoned]

and dagnabbit, oil is going to be too precious to put in a tank before long. There is a lot more done wit it than burning it.

3-4 gas stations were robbed after hours in upstate NY. What do you think was took?
Their underground tanks were drained dry of gas, plus kerosene. Cops think around 7,000 dollars worth.


Things will get worse..............

 

[Sukerkin]

I've said before on these pages that the absolutely most stupid thing you can do with oil is burn it to make electricity or make cars move. It has so many much more important uses that, at present, we have no alternatives for. So alternative energy sources, cooky as they may seem in some cases, are a necessity.

I'd like to see more emphasis on thorium reactor designs at a commercial scale to fill in the domestic generation gap until we get practical fusion. A note of caution is that 'promise' of a cornucopia of energy at low risk is not the same as a reality. Fast Breeders looked like the answer to our energy prayers in the initial investigative stages but didn't turn out that way in the end, sadly.

Maybe Elder has some 'insider' news on thorium reactors?

 

[Sukerkin]

For the interested, a few links to elaborate on thorium based nuclear power:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...gest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...-Many-Applications-Technology-save-world.html

For balance, some eco-nut ramblings :angel:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/ne...n_thorium_being_a_greener_nuclear_option.html

 

[billc]

Here is an article detailing the continuing assault on fossil fuels...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ples-down-on-none-of-the-above-energy-policy/

Anti-energy crusaders are in a celebratory mood this week as the EPA effectively banned the construction of coal-fired power plants, and thus completed the federal government’s trifecta beat-down on affordable energy.
First, new obstacles to energy production resulted in oil production on federal lands dropping 11% in Fiscal Year 2011 vs. 2010. Second, President Obama announced earlier this year that his administration was blocking construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that would deliver large quantities of valuable oil from neighboring Canada. Third, the EPA announced this week its severe global warming restrictions on power plants.
For all the talk of an “all of the above” federal energy policy, this administration is imposing “none of the above,” unless we choose to celebrate our imminent burning of dung for fuel, like they do in the utopian economic powerhouse of Bangladesh.
Coal is our nation’s leading source of electricity for a reason; it is less expensive than all other sources except large-scale hydropower, which environmental activists had already taken off the table. By definition you cannot ban the least expensive power sources without creating a jump in electricity prices. If you have been a fan of our rapidly rising gasoline prices, you are going to love what is about to happen to our electricity prices, too.
There is at least one theoretical scenario whereby banning the construction of coal-fired power plants will only cause a modest rise in electricity prices. That scenario would occur if natural gas filled most of the void for future power plant construction and government refrained from punishing natural gas production. However, the same environmental extremists who successfully pushed for the end of new coal-fired power plants are just as adamant about shutting down natural gas production.
The EPA is already targeting natural gas production from lucrative shale formations, and is likely to soon impose unprecedented restrictions that will raise costs and throttle natural gas production. Tripling down on “none of the above” appears poised to become quadrupling down on “none of the above.”

 

[billc]

More delaying tactics by Obama...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ration-along-atlantic-coast-but-not-drilling/

The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Obama delayed and then cancelled a planned 2011 drilling lease sale for areas off the Virginia coast following the BP oil spill in the Gulf.
There are also no guarantees the administration will approve drilling permits at the end of the environmental review.
“The president’s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee.
The announcement “continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,” he said.
“If President Obama truly wanted to support energy production in the Atlantic, he would immediately reinstate the lease sale that he canceled.”