Obama's Energy policy

[Hometown]

As we move into hard to recover oil and new technologies to extract it, small and independent oil companies are expected to benefit the most.  Even though most of the big guys have left town, Tulsa still has a critical mass of small and independent energy companies.  

Even though Tulsa has done nothing to retain or grow its energy business, market forces may take care of that for us.  That's what I call dumb luck.

One of Tulsa's greatest but least appreciated assets is the "good will" we enjoy in the energy business.  That's worth serious money.

It's in our best interest to avoid penalizing oil.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

As we move into hard to recover oil and new technologies to extract it, small and independent oil companies are expected to benefit the most.  Even though most of the big guys have left town, Tulsa still has a critical mass of small and independent energy companies.  

Even though Tulsa has done nothing to retain or grow its energy business, market forces may take care of that for us.  That's what I call dumb luck.

One of Tulsa's greatest but least appreciated assets is the "good will" we enjoy in the energy business.  That's worth serious money.

It's in our best interest to avoid penalizing oil.

I think it's also in our best interest to continue to invest in our local energy companies.  After all, they are our friends and neighbors, and they have remained here in spite of some pretty poor times.

[Red Arrow]

"Excess" profits only exist where there is no consumer choice. Consumers vote with their wallet when given the chance.  If excess profits taxes are to be applied, they should be across the board. They should include the news media, the pharmaceutical companies etc.  What would be the standard acceptable profit? At what tax level would these excess profiteers leave the country? I don't have the answers here, only a few questions.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

"Excess" profits only exist where there is no consumer choice. Consumers vote with their wallet when given the chance.  If excess profits taxes are to be applied, they should be across the board. They should include the news media, the pharmaceutical companies etc.  What would be the standard acceptable profit? At what tax level would these excess profiteers leave the country? I don't have the answers here, only a few questions.

Blasphemy!  How dare you ask those questions.  Dems don't want to hear the questions!

Your mention of "across the board regulation" will get them salivating.  Don't ring that bell again!

Why don't we just send all of our income to the government and then they can decide what to send back?  Would make things simpler!  Someone should suggest that to Obama.  

I bet if he proposed it, people would faint with joy!  After all, we are just government educated idiots.




Guess who he's voting for?
Yep!

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill



I bet if he proposed it, people would faint with joy!  After all, we are just government educated idiots.

But at least he's not so delusional as to call the federal deficit "imaginary." []

[Conan71]

Therin lies the problem with "alternative" energy.  There is a yin and yang to every single one of them.

Wind power- affects migrating bird species and wind farms screw with weather radar and, apparently, navigation radar for aircraft.

Solar- requires massive battery banks which means more lead, takes a lot of surface area to generate mass amounts as Gaspar pointed out (though on a house-by-house basis it's totally feasible, just expensive to install)

Bio-fuels- "takes food out of the starving mouths of babies" [)].  Takes a fair amount of fossil fuel to make ethanol.  Bio-diesel plants can fire their boilers on bio-D.  There's not been a successful ethanol boiler burner to date.  Boilers are required for both processes.  As well, bio-d generates massive amounts of glycerin for which there are not enough uses for it at this time, so it creates a stock-pile of waste.  And no, there is no good solution for disposal of it at this point, farmers aren't that avid to spray it on their fields and it's not being used wide-spread for hog feed.

Hydro-electric- very efficient and clean, but disrupts fish and wildlife habitats.

Nuke- dollar-for-dollar one of the best alternatives.  Negatives?  I don't think I need to expand.

Bio-mass reactors- best part is, they can run on waste byproducts of other processes.  Possible pollution issues, high cost going in.

Each and every one of these has something for the environmentalists to hate.  Granted, we can't ride roughshod over the entire eco-system, but at some point you have to weigh the impact with the benefits of a given energy.

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

And if we'd have started drilling in 1995, we would have been pumping oil from there for a few years already.  Just because it might be 6 to 8 years for production to hit full-stride, it's no excuse not to get started on it.

The only strategic end-game I can see to holding off on drilling our own reserves (congrats, the Chinese and Cubans will now be drilling off Florida, since we ruled that possibility out) is if we are the last country left with vast reserves which means we would control the market 30 years from now.  Unfortunately, that does nothing to help now.

The Gov't needs to back up, allow more drilling domestically, allow some refinery expansion, thereby putting extra profits to work by oil companies as they should be.

I agree that there's plenty of blame to go around for this crisis.  Keeping ANWR off the table has been, IMO, a mistake, but then so has been an energy plan that doesn't rescind tax breaks for the oil giants, doesn't touch CAFE standards, and doesn't make a serious effort to fund and develop alternatives (nuclear, wind, hydro, solar, etc).  

Problem is, placing blame for the past doesn't fix the current predicament.  It's dragging our economy into the s***ter now, not in ten years.  I'm not enthused about the "ride it out, take yer medicine" theory, especially if this recession measures up to predictions (worst since the Great Depression is what I've heard).  If that's even near true, the dislocations and uproar that need addressing now will be pretty significant.

The market is a great thing, but it doesn't care about people.  It will fix itself in its own sweet time, but that doesn't address the problems it leaves in its wake.

PS. I'm not arguing for the windfall tax, BTW.  Like I said, I don't think it's fair policy, or particularly effective.

Interesting point of view in Salon on drilling.  Who is the real conservative on this issue?

Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:55 PDT
Gas prices and offshore drilling

Let us suppose, for the moment, that President George Bush, Sen. John McCain, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist are correct: Offshore drilling will ease pain at the pump for American consumers. I mean it, let's not hold back. Let's give Republicans the full benefit of the doubt. Let's even throw in ANWR, and accept at face value the White House's estimates that there are 18 billion barrels of oil ready to be exploited on the outer continental shelf, and another 11 or 12 billion in Alaska.

Don't even worry about the little problem that it will be years before oil starts flowing from these new oil fields. Let's be really generous. Let's even suppose that merely lifting the federal moratorium on offshore drilling would send such a strong message to energy markets that all those traders currently speculating in oil futures would get spooked and rush to unload their positions. If a fire on one North Sea oil rig can send prices spiking up, what would a huge American commitment to drill anywhere and everywhere do?

The price of oil would drop like a rock! Gas prices might start plummeting before the presidential election! A recession could be averted! Best of all, maybe GM and Ford could renege on their plans to close down their SUV manufacturing plants, because with lower gas prices, Americans would stop buying small hybrid cars and go back to their true gas-guzzling loves.

It could happen. It's certainly not impossible. The reason Republicans -- including the likes of Crist, a one-time opponent of offshore drilling who has performed a truly dazzling flip-flop pirouette on this issue -- are jumping on the politics of offshore drilling is that there is a clear kernel of truth in their stance. There is more oil to be drilled in this world, and more supply will undoubtedly have some effect on prices. Even just the prospect of more supply will likely make a difference. So Bush and McCain's hurtful accusation that Democrats are responsible for high gas prices is not entirely wrong.

So what's the worst that could happen?

If we're going to give Republicans the full benefit of the doubt, then it is only fair to offer the same treatment to Democrats. So let's take their arguments at face value also. There will be oil spills off the coasts of Florida and California, fouling beaches, killing wildlife, and harming tourism. Unrestrained burning of fossil fuels will continue to raise global temperatures and contribute to rising sea levels and devastating extreme weather events. A plunge in the price of oil will derail the current pressing economic incentives to improve energy efficiency and channel investment into research and development of alternative energy technologies.

And ultimately, these new oil fields will be exhausted, and the whole cycle of rising prices and economic pain will begin all over again. Only this time around, our children, or our children's children, will be in much worse shape than we are now. Environmental stresses will be higher, climate change will be further advanced, and there will be even less oil to go around. (Because, of course, while the U.S. is pumping to its heart's content on its outer continental shelf, existing oil fields around the globe will continue to peter out.) Prices will rocket even higher than our current worst nightmares. We will have sacrificed precious decades in which we could have gotten a leg up in figuring out how to maintain properity in a carbon-constrained future. And those madmen and fools who counseled a quick-fix response to humanity's biggest challenge will be excoriated as some of the stupidest, most criminal leaders in human history.

That's all.

Making the political case that high prices and recession now might be necessary to avoid even higher prices, a global depression, and ecological catastrophe later is no easy task -- especially in an election year. Arguing that the smart way to compensate for higher gas prices would be to redistribute wealth so as to bolster the economic position of low- and moderate-income working-class Americans offers Republicans yet another political opportunity to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of class warfare. And as each week goes by and gas prices continue to mount, the resolution to think about the long term weakens. This is eminently understandable.

But maybe the most fascinating aspect to the debate about offshore drilling -- to this profound choice between two worldviews, two ways of being on the planet -- is the harsh light it sheds on the value systems at the heart of how political identity is traditionally seen in the United States.

Republicans have made hay for decades by portraying Democrats as spendthrift, reckless liberals. Their side is supposedly "conservative" -- sober-minded, prudent, levelheaded -- while their opponents are "radical" -- dangerous, risky, foolish.

But what is the truly "conservative" position on offshore drilling, or energy policy in general? Recklessly exhausting all available resources now, and letting the future take care of itself -- or conserving those resources, investing carefully for the future, and thinking about the long term? Where does prudence reside -- in attempting to shave a few pennies off of gas prices now, or on planning on how to cope with high gas prices for the foreseeable future?

If you're looking for a metaphor, try the competing fortunes of Toyota and General Motors on for size. George Bush and John McCain are like the fin-de-siecle executives of GM, living only in the present, catering to their customer's worst impulses in pursuit of maximizing profit in the short term. But Democrats are like Toyota, making a bet on what makes economic sense for the future.

Presumably, Toyota's shareholders are a lot happier than GM's, right now. As shareholders in this planet, what do we want? A good quarter now, at the risk of financial disaster next year? Or a long-term ecologically healthy path to sustained prosperity?

That's what the debate over offshore drilling is really about.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

That's what the debate over offshore drilling is really about.

Using your logic (paragraphs while giving Democrats the benefit), one could make a case to have OPEC start shutting down the flow right now.  That would really speed up the search for alternative fuels.  We could make even more innovative mistakes like using food stocks for fuel.  Politically forcing the rate for technology to advance usually has unintended consequences.  

I believe there is a balance closer to the middle.  Do something to keep energy at the merely outrageous price level but don't allow it to rise so much as to cripple the world economy.

[akupetsky]

quote:
I believe there is a balance closer to the middle.  Do something to keep energy at the merely outrageous price level but don't allow it to rise so much as to cripple the world economy.

I agree.  Don't want to spend taxdollars, go to war or use up geopolitical leverage on artificially reducing the price of oil, but instead have a reasonable energy policy that addresses the medium-to-long term to increase confidence that energy resources will exist in the future, without exacerbating environmental destruction that will increase costs for other things like food, housing, etc.  Sounds simple.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

"Excess" profits only exist where there is no consumer choice. Consumers vote with their wallet when given the chance.  If excess profits taxes are to be applied, they should be across the board. They should include the news media, the pharmaceutical companies etc.  What would be the standard acceptable profit? At what tax level would these excess profiteers leave the country? I don't have the answers here, only a few questions.

Blasphemy!  How dare you ask those questions.  Dems don't want to hear the questions!

Your mention of "across the board regulation" will get them salivating.  Don't ring that bell again!

Why don't we just send all of our income to the government and then they can decide what to send back?  Would make things simpler!  Someone should suggest that to Obama.  

I bet if he proposed it, people would faint with joy!  After all, we are just government educated idiots.




Guess who he's voting for?
Yep!

Actually, I am counting on the news media to cry foul when they have to take their own medicine.  This would put an abrupt stop to "excess profits" taxes.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:
I believe there is a balance closer to the middle.  Do something to keep energy at the merely outrageous price level but don't allow it to rise so much as to cripple the world economy.

I agree.  Don't want to spend taxdollars, go to war or use up geopolitical leverage on artificially reducing the price of oil, but instead have a reasonable energy policy that addresses the medium-to-long term to increase confidence that energy resources will exist in the future, without exacerbating environmental destruction that will increase costs for other things like food, housing, etc.  Sounds simple.

The problem as it stands now is you have the Executive Branch blaming the Legislative Branch for lack of cohesive policy and vice versa.  Then you got the GOP's and Dems in Congress blaming each other for failed policy or lack thereof.  I don't know if no one wants to do anything about it or doesn't know where to start.  The government seems to have ideas on how to adjust the economy, but can't seem to figure out how to help out the consumer when it comes to fuel?