Just One Important Issue

[Gaspar]

This has been mentioned over and over and over and over again.  The primary way to boost or sink the economy is energy costs.

This amazingly simple principal makes it easy for even the most intellectually challenged leader to make choices that help or hinder a country.

A very simple rule of thumb is $.01 change is fuel prices in the US is equivalent to $1.4 Billion dollars added or subtracted from US energy consumption.  (http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-impact-on-the-economy-2011-2)

The singular issue that holds the power of Change, is energy.  It is the singular issue that this president has been at odds with.

January 2009           $1.65
January 2010           $2.57
January 2011           $3.04
January 2012           $3.29

According to CBS $5.00 gas is estimated as early as Memorial Day.  That represents a $239 Billion dollar hemorrhage since January.  

As a family, we spent $4,667 for gas last year, and we don't drive much.  This impact on families and business is so deep and powerful that all other economic issues are shadowed in comparison.

This is the only thing that President Obama needs to fix in order to create jobs, reduce burdens on the people, and spur long term economic growth.  I don't think anyone cares how he does it.  The easiest way would be to reduce regulation, increase domestic drilling on public land, and change the landscape of the speculative market by increasing domestic processing capacity.  But he could also just reduce gasoline taxes, or open reserves, or a dozen other things.  Don't care.

If we continue to see energy costs increase, all of the things that Liberals are worshipful of President Obama for will wilt and die.

[jacobi]

This has been mentioned over and over and over and over again.  The primary way to boost or sink the economy is energy costs.

This amazingly simple principal makes it easy for even the most intellectually challenged leader to make choices that help or hinder a country.

A very simple rule of thumb is $.01 change is fuel prices in the US is equivalent to $1.4 Billion dollars added or subtracted from US energy consumption.  (http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-impact-on-the-economy-2011-2)

The singular issue that holds the power of Change, is energy.  It is the singular issue that this president has been at odds with.

January 2009           $1.65
January 2010           $2.57
January 2011           $3.04
January 2012           $3.29

According to CBS $5.00 gas is estimated as early as Memorial Day.  That represents a $239 Billion dollar hemorrhage since January. 

As a family, we spent $4,667 for gas last year, and we don't drive much.  This impact on families and business is so deep and powerful that all other economic issues are shadowed in comparison.

This is the only thing that President Obama needs to fix in order to create jobs, reduce burdens on the people, and spur long term economic growth.  I don't think anyone cares how he does it.  The easiest way would be to reduce regulation, increase domestic drilling on public land, and change the landscape of the speculative market by increasing domestic processing capacity.  But he could also just reduce gasoline taxes, or open reserves, or a dozen other things.  Don't care.

If we continue to see energy costs increase, all of the things that Liberals are worshipful of President Obama for will wilt and die.

Do you feel that the raise in gas prices is attributable in toto to president Obama's policies? in part? is it not also at least in part a symptom of the end of the easy availablity of petroleum which would be affecting us even if McCain had won?  This is the big issue of this century and I don't think we can claim that it is really the fault of one president nor one president's job to fix.

[Gaspar]

Do you feel that the raise in gas prices is attributable in toto to president Obama's policies? in part? is it not also at least in part a symptom of the end of the easy availablity of petroleum which would be affecting us even if McCain had won?  This is the big issue of this century and I don't think we can claim that it is really the fault of one president nor one president's job to fix.

Not his fault at all.

Just his fault for ignoring.

Someone else set the fire, but that does not mean that he has no responsibility for putting it out.

Blame is not action!

[jacobi]

Not his fault at all.

Just his fault for ignoring.

Someone else set the fire, but that does not mean that he has no responsibility for putting it out.

Blame is not action!

Are you suggesting that we further subsidize the oil industry?  Deregulation? Both?

[Gaspar]

Are you suggesting that we further subsidize the oil industry?  Deregulation? Both?

No subsidy.  If you know me by now, you understand my aversion to that. Deregulation?. . .perhaps.  But mostly a reduction in taxation, and restrictions on drilling on public land, and refining.

Any of this is at odds with the administrations ideology, and that is unfortunate.  President obama appointed Steven Chu as energy secretary.

Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.

Before his appointment, he had this to say about his energy philosophy: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe," Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

[Gaspar]

You have to understand that energy costs is a deadly weapon against our economy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This has been mentioned over and over and over and over again.  The primary way to boost or sink the economy is energy costs.

This amazingly simple principal makes it easy for even the most intellectually challenged leader to make choices that help or hinder a country.

As a family, we spent $4,667 for gas last year, and we don't drive much.  This impact on families and business is so deep and powerful that all other economic issues are shadowed in comparison.

This is the only thing that President Obama needs to fix in order to create jobs, reduce burdens on the people, and spur long term economic growth.  I don't think anyone cares how he does it.  The easiest way would be to reduce regulation, increase domestic drilling on public land, and change the landscape of the speculative market by increasing domestic processing capacity.  But he could also just reduce gasoline taxes, or open reserves, or a dozen other things.  Don't care.

If we continue to see energy costs increase, all of the things that Liberals are worshipful of President Obama for will wilt and die.

Yes, we have heard it over and over.

Your cost (with average $3 per gallon and 20 mpg) puts you at 31,000 miles per year combined.  Two of you?  More?  15,000 each is quite a bit.  According to my State Farm guy, 12,000 should be the "average" I aspire to.  You could get a Volkswagen diesel or a Toyota Prius and cut that cost in half.  

Started out good... but then the discussion goes off in the weeds...

There are already proven reserves, licensed, permitted areas to drill and produce to the tune of 400% of what the oils currently are exploiting (the 25% we are exploiting).  Why aren't the oils utilizing that before we open up new areas?  More importantly, why aren't they being held accountable for 'sandbagging' us on that deferred production?  If it is as important as you say, then it rises close to the level of a national security issue.  And yet, even though the oils and their Disciples of The Script throw that phrase around like it actually means something - we still don't see (until recently with natural gas) any real effort to increase production to enhance our energy security, let alone bring lower costs.  

You have been in business long enough to know how that works - the old charge what the market will bear theme - so how can you appear to be so blind to it on this one point?

[we vs us]

No subsidy.  If you know me by now, you understand my aversion to that. Deregulation?. . .perhaps.  But mostly a reduction in taxation, and restrictions on drilling on public land, and refining.

Any of this is at odds with the administrations ideology, and that is unfortunate.  President obama appointed Steven Chu as energy secretary.

Per Obama's SOTU last month: 

"Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years."

As quoted on Treehugger.com, who is not particularly happy with his decision to court the oil and gas industries.

PS:

"We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade."

--  BO, SOTU

You've got to start going to sources that aren't going to mislead you. Like primary source stuff.  Or, if you think the President does nothing but lie and prevaricate and that anything out of his mouth is untrue -- including this most public of speeches -- you should devise a standard post -- maybe just a smiley with it's tongue hanging out, or with a Hitler mustache or something -- so that we know not to waste time trying to talk you back from the edge.   

[Conan71]

We've made no substantive changes to energy policy since the 1970's.  At every turn we hear: "Well it will take 5-10 years to permit and build a mega refinery".  "It will take seven years before the impact is felt from drilling in a new domestic area".

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 10 years ago, we would have a broader supply of oil within our own shores.  I'm not sure I buy into the idea that oil is getting more scarce near as much as I think the traders are as much to blame as a lackadaisical approach to energy the last 30 years.  Solar and wind don't make a practical difference for large-scale transportation purposes (well unless you own a sail boat and you commute to work on it).

So far this administration and Congress have missed an opportunity to overhaul commodity trading regulations which are hurting the average consumer.  With gas at $5.00 a gallon, the consumer economy will rapidly deteriorate.  If I were President Obama and really concerned about re-election, I'd be scrambling right now to figure out how to avert this looming crisis, otherwise he will look like Carter come November.  You simply can't have unemployment hovering around 8% and a major energy crisis (gas going up another $1.70 in a few months is a major crisis for the middle class) and hope to be re-elected.

Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns until recently while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

Edit: Wevus, opening up more reserves is only part of the supply equation, and I do applaud the president for this if he and his administration have actually acted on it.  However, we've got to have more refining and pipeline capacity to eliminate bottlenecks in production and transportation which are creating supply issues.

[Gaspar]

Per Obama's SOTU last month: 

As quoted on Treehugger.com, who is not particularly happy with his decision to court the oil and gas industries.

PS:

--  BO, SOTU

You've got to start going to sources that aren't going to mislead you. Like primary source stuff.  Or, if you think the President does nothing but lie and prevaricate and that anything out of his mouth is untrue -- including this most public of speeches -- you should devise a standard post -- maybe just a smiley with it's tongue hanging out, or with a Hitler mustache or something -- so that we know not to waste time trying to talk you back from the edge.   

That's all fine and dandy, and he has made similar comments in the two previous SOTU speeches, but no action has been taken.  We have seen no decrease in energy prices as a result of any policy of President Obama.  I've learned to "get over" what he "intends to do" and look for actions.

The patient is bleeding, and there is much talk about applying pressure.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We've made no substantive changes to energy policy since the 1970's.  At every turn we hear: "Well it will take 5-10 years to permit and build a mega refinery".  "It will take seven years before the impact is felt from drilling in a new domestic area".

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 10 years ago, we would have a broader supply of oil within our own shores.  I'm not sure I buy into the idea that oil is getting more scarce near as much as I think the traders are as much to blame as a lackadaisical approach to energy the last 30 years.  Solar and wind don't make a practical difference for large-scale transportation purposes (well unless you own a sail boat and you commute to work on it).

So far this administration and Congress have missed an opportunity to overhaul commodity trading regulations which are hurting the average consumer.  With gas at $5.00 a gallon, the consumer economy will rapidly deteriorate.  If I were President Obama and really concerned about re-election, I'd be scrambling right now to figure out how to avert this looming crisis, otherwise he will look like Carter come November.  You simply can't have unemployment hovering around 8% and a major energy crisis (gas going up another $1.70 in a few months is a major crisis for the middle class) and hope to be re-elected.

Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 32 years ago, we would have a much broader supply of solar and wind energy within our own shores.  We would be gaining the benefit from the activity of developing and deploying those technologies.  The sandbagging of the Reagan and Bush years put us behind to the point where we have pretty much completely missed that market window.  And missed the chance to relieve the oil resources by diversifying our energy basket.  Solar and wind can be used today - in spite of formal resistance - to charge electric vehicles.  With range capacities that would satisfy well over 50% of the transportation needs of the country.

You mean the regulations that allowed oil and gas to be treated as complete commodities?  The ones that completely turned loose the traders to make Enron, Devon, and Williams Bros?  The same regulations that were eliminated under Reagan and Bush?  I can just hear the uproar from the Disciples...if the regulations were put back in place to regulate commodities trading!


Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

By impractical, we can only surmise that means solar and wind - the same energy concerns that have been developed and deployed in the rest of the world, proving beyond any doubt the actual practicality of the two.  While oil (and coal) have worked behind and in front of the scenes to sandbag production and hinder the implementation of solar/wind - buying Congress (as bragged about by Jim Inhofe!) to keep us from benefiting from that economic activity.  And that doesn't even touch on biofuels...  

We will likely never outgrow the need for oil and coal - the energy density is just way too high to ignore or eliminate.  It is the "low hanging fruit" of energy.

We can certainly - easily and cost effectively - diversify and spread the risk of the limited number of energy sources.  As we can now see with the manufacture of wind towers up by Tiger Switch.

[JCnOwasso]

Gas... come on, don't bring this week stuff in here.  You proclaim that gas was a 1.65 in January, but you neglected to mention that just a few months earlier gas had reached as high as 4.00 (national average).  Could it be that the market (oil companies) were trying to influence the election in their own way?  Or was it just simple supply and demand that caused the crash in the gas prices in Aug-Dec 2008?  Even if there was a complete tax holiday on for fuel, it would only be about .48 difference.  

Conan hit the nail on the head, it needs to be regulated at the trading level.  24 hour media has made every little earthquake, snow storm, heavy rain, celebrity marriage or divorce a reason for speculators to piss on our parades.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Conan hit the nail on the head, it needs to be regulated at the trading level.  24 hour media has made every little earthquake, snow storm, heavy rain, celebrity marriage or divorce a reason for speculators to piss on our parades.

It used to be.  Then we got Enron, Devon, and Williams Bros jerking California around with contrived 'shortages'.

What kind of uproar would ensue trying to put it back the way it was?

[Gaspar]

Guess what?  If we had altered these policies 32 years ago, we would have a much broader supply of solar and wind energy within our own shores.  We would be gaining the benefit from the activity of developing and deploying those technologies.  The sandbagging of the Reagan and Bush years put us behind to the point where we have pretty much completely missed that market window.  And missed the chance to relieve the oil resources by diversifying our energy basket.  Solar and wind can be used today - in spite of formal resistance - to charge electric vehicles.  With range capacities that would satisfy well over 50% of the transportation needs of the country.

You mean the regulations that allowed oil and gas to be treated as complete commodities?  The ones that completely turned loose the traders to make Enron, Devon, and Williams Bros?  The same regulations that were eliminated under Reagan and Bush?  I can just hear the uproar from the Disciples...if the regulations were put back in place to regulate commodities trading!


Where I lay the biggest blame on the administration is a pattern of supporting largely impractical energy concerns while ignoring and, even at times, demonizing big oil.  Hate big oil as much as you like, but the truth is, we need them as there is still no other energy source which is nearly as practical and convenient as petroleum-based fuels.

By impractical, we can only surmise that means solar and wind - the same energy concerns that have been developed and deployed in the rest of the world, proving beyond any doubt the actual practicality of the two.  While oil (and coal) have worked behind and in front of the scenes to sandbag production and hinder the implementation of solar/wind - buying Congress (as bragged about by Jim Inhofe!) to keep us from benefiting from that economic activity.  And that doesn't even touch on biofuels...  

We will likely never outgrow the need for oil and coal - the energy density is just way too high to ignore or eliminate.  It is the "low hanging fruit" of energy.

We can certainly - easily and cost effectively - diversify and spread the risk of the limited number of energy sources.  As we can now see with the manufacture of wind towers up by Tiger Switch.

I do not disagree with you!  Very good points!

Energy is energy, the source is unimportant.  Unfortunately, as you put it, coal and petroleum are the low hanging fruit.  They are also the only sources capable of stopping the economic hemorrhage.  Long term strategies are, have, and will continue to focus on cleaner energy.

Mr. Chu seems to think that we will only accept green initiatives by force.  Force will not produce the results that some liberals believe it will.  Force will capsize the ship long before it can be converted to run on a different energy source.

[we vs us]

Edit: Wevus, opening up more reserves is only part of the supply equation, and I do applaud the president for this if he and his administration have actually acted on it.  However, we've got to have more refining and pipeline capacity to eliminate bottlenecks in production and transportation which are creating supply issues.

Most folks would agree with that at this point -- outside of the Treehugger.com universe of course. Any energy package has to be comprehensive, to include new drilling but also sustainable options as well (solar, wind, etc).  This also happens to be the way to get everyone to buy in.  Give the fossil fuel folks something to support and the greenies something to support.  I also think you're right, that trading needs to be curtailed, but that's such a huge issue, and one that dovetails strongly with financial reform.  And no one on Wall St. can abide even the relatively weak Dodd-Franks legislation.  I imagine limiting oil and gas traders would also be unpalatable.  Sadly, there is no magic bullet and there is no quick fix, as Gaspar seems to want.  Nothing is going to immediately affect prices.  This shouldn't be a reason for inaction, but it should be a reason to act like adults and take reasonable views of what is possible in the short, medium, and long term.