Obama, Big Oil, Gas Prices, and Energy Independence

[Foxfyre]

According to various news stories today, Barack Obama is giving a green light to reinstating or retaining off shore oil leases in Alaska and the Gulf and removing restrictions on a few other areas. While the GOP is applauding this, most say it doesn't go far enough. It is speculated that the Democrats in Congress will oppose it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...?icid=main|htmlws-main-w|dl1|sec1_lnk3|213266

What do you think we should be shooting for given the high price of fuel, strong inflationary trends on food and other necessities, and growing independence on foreign oil?

Just off the top of my head:
1) Remove all unnecessary federal regulations on refinery construction.
2) Remove all federal restrictions on oil and gas production.
3) Push for a uniform gasoline formulation nationwide so that refineries don't have to close down to retool for a different formula for different markets.
4) Remove all requirements for use of ethanol and other bio additives in fuels.
5) Remove all subsidies and reduce taxes for all commerce and industry and allow the free market to work.
6) Put iron clad strongly punative fines and penalities in place for unacceptable environmental damage and turn energy producing industries loose.

 

[Foxfyre]

NOTE TO MODS: In the second poll option, could you please change 'requires' to 'requirements'? Thanks.

 

[rdean]

Just because oil comes from here doesn't mean it's "sold" here? Right? You know that if the price falls, oil companies will hold back production to raise prices? Right?

Republicans suffer from "Sacred Oil Company" Syndrome. They will never be on the side of the American consumer. You know that, right?

What is it you don't get?

 

[Foxfyre]

Did you just come in to parrot the leftwingnut talking points, or do you intend to join in the discussion about what we should be doing to bring down fuel and other costs and obtain energy independence Rdean? I notice you didn't participate in the poll. Or maybe you did, but if did your response doesn't make sense given your remarks.

 

[Too Tall]

Just because oil comes from here doesn't mean it's "sold" here? Right? You know that if the price falls, oil companies will hold back production to raise prices? Right?

Republicans suffer from "Sacred Oil Company" Syndrome. They will never be on the side of the American consumer. You know that, right?

What is it you don't get?

What I do get is if the World's oil supply increases, the price goes down. I also understand that holding back production to raise prices is merely speculation on your part.

I also understand that we are presently at the mercy of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other oil producing countries that do not like us. We can deal with Exxon/Mobil but it becomes more difficult when it is a foreign country ripping us off.

What is it you don't get?

 

[Too Tall]

Did you just come in to parrot the leftwingnut talking points, or do you intend to join in the discussion about what we should be doing to bring down fuel and other costs and obtain energy independence Rdean? I notice you didn't participate in the poll. Or maybe you did, but if did your response doesn't make sense given your remarks.

I should have ignored this left wing loser, but I didn't.

I meant to check off promote Nuclear, which is one of the very few policy items where I agree with the community organizer.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did you just come in to parrot the leftwingnut talking points, or do you intend to join in the discussion about what we should be doing to bring down fuel and other costs and obtain energy independence Rdean? I notice you didn't participate in the poll. Or maybe you did, but if did your response doesn't make sense given your remarks.

I should have ignored this left wing loser, but I didn't.

I meant to check off promote Nuclear, which is one of the very few policy items where I agree with the community organizer.

I think nuclear has to be approached with a great deal of care given the severe consequences of a nuclear accident. To build a reactor on top of the San Andreas fault or on the Mississippi flood plain would be just plain stupid. But put them in seismically stable areas not subject to severe flooding, etc. and they make a whole lot of sense.

But we still need to run our ships and trains and planes and trucks and automobiles and for now that means we need a lot of oil. And there is a lot of oil remaining--more than enough to last us until technology comes up with something better that is just as affordable and user friendly--if we just go after it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm wondering. Who out there believes the USA is capable of becoming energy independent. Do we have that capability?

In forming your answer please consider all the energy needs that exist from household lighting, heating, cooling to all forms of transportion to all our industrial and recreational needs.

 

[Samson]

I'm wondering. Who out there believes the USA is capable of becoming energy independent. Do we have that capability?

In forming your answer please consider all the energy needs that exist from household lighting, heating, cooling to all forms of transportion to all our industrial and recreational needs.

Target 2050 to have 100% nuclear fueled electricity generation.

 

[xsited1]

According to various news stories today, Barack Obama is giving a green light to reinstating or retaining off shore oil leases in Alaska and the Gulf and removing restrictions on a few other areas. While the GOP is applauding this, most say it doesn't go far enough. It is speculated that the Democrats in Congress will oppose it.
U.S. Oil Production To Speed Up, Obama Announces

What do you think we should be shooting for given the high price of fuel, strong inflationary trends on food and other necessities, and growing independence on foreign oil?

Just off the top of my head:
1) Remove all unnecessary federal regulations on refinery construction.
2) Remove all federal restrictions on oil and gas production.
3) Push for a uniform gasoline formulation nationwide so that refineries don't have to close down to retool for a different formula for different markets.
4) Remove all requirements for use of ethanol and other bio additives in fuels.
5) Remove all subsidies and reduce taxes for all commerce and industry and allow the free market to work.
6) Put iron clad strongly punative fines and penalities in place for unacceptable environmental damage and turn energy producing industries loose.

Obama is worried about the 2012 election.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm wondering. Who out there believes the USA is capable of becoming energy independent. Do we have that capability?

In forming your answer please consider all the energy needs that exist from household lighting, heating, cooling to all forms of transportion to all our industrial and recreational needs.

Target 2050 to have 100% nuclear fueled electricity generation.

But will we be running our Ford Focus, the motorcycle, and the lawnmower on nuclear energy?

 

[Zander]

Gov't needs to get out of the way. End all energy subsidies- even for the president's pet projects - wind, solar, fart power, etc..

 

[Samson]

I'm wondering. Who out there believes the USA is capable of becoming energy independent. Do we have that capability?

In forming your answer please consider all the energy needs that exist from household lighting, heating, cooling to all forms of transportion to all our industrial and recreational needs.

Target 2050 to have 100% nuclear fueled electricity generation.

But will we be running our Ford Focus, the motorcycle, and the lawnmower on nuclear energy?

No, there will be plenty of fossil fuel (compressed natural gas) to run all that stuff if we switch our electric generators from consuming fossil fuels to nuclear fuel:

 

[hortysir]

Just because oil comes from here doesn't mean it's "sold" here? Right? You know that if the price falls, oil companies will hold back production to raise prices? Right?

Republicans suffer from "Sacred Oil Company" Syndrome. They will never be on the side of the American consumer. You know that, right?

What is it you don't get?

I know that this has been a tactic of OPEC, in the past. But is there evidence of us doing it to ourselves?

What are the odds of a good drop in pump prices from this announcement, alone?






I vote nuclear

 

[Foxfyre]

Target 2050 to have 100% nuclear fueled electricity generation.

But will we be running our Ford Focus, the motorcycle, and the lawnmower on nuclear energy?

No, there will be plenty of fossil fuel (compressed natural gas) to run all that stuff if we switch our electric generators from consuming fossil fuels to nuclear fuel:

You don't see a futue in coal? Cheap, efficient, and an inexhaustible supply for generations, but unfortunately often 'dirty'. How about a new innovative scrubber to make it usable as clean energy--possible?

 

[Foxfyre]

Gov't needs to get out of the way. End all energy subsidies- even for the president's pet projects - wind, solar, fart power, etc..

Okay, at first blush I agree with you. But how do you see that as part of a solution to make us more energy efficient?

 

[spectrumc01]

I would like to see several things done to our energy policies. The first is the understanding that energy is for everyone in the US not just those who can afford it. With that being said we need to look to our government to keep the energy playing field equal for all, while ensuring that everyone can afford it.

*Secondly, I think that we need to nationalize our energy sector.
*After that we start constructing solar fields, and wind farms in all available areas.
*In the mean time we will have to open up the national oil reserves to stabalize prices.
*We must open up drilling until the alternative energy sources start producing and then we can scale back the oil drilling.
*I believe we must remove energy from the stock markets completely. Our lives depend on energy and the access to it. We wouldn't consider buying and selling air, so nor should we consider buying and selling energy.
*Power plants should be moved off the oil standard or at least limited in the ammount they use per year. Thus making them have to use alternative forms of energy.
*Oil is used in the making of plastics and other items. I would propose a mandatory recycling policy on all oil based products.
*We also need to adjust our foreign policy to reflect our new energy policy. The price and supply of oil should be included in every treaty we sign. There should be a provision for oil exporting countries that they supply us with oil at a reduced rate or free depending on what they want, ie. military aid.

I already know I will be labled a socialist for these views, but looking at where we are right now, I believe this to be the only solution to our problem. We need to take a holistic approach to our energy policies. Half assing it and letting big businesses and politics set energy policy is not working. If it was to be nationalized then the discussion would be over with and we could move forward to something that works.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just because oil comes from here doesn't mean it's "sold" here? Right? You know that if the price falls, oil companies will hold back production to raise prices? Right?

Republicans suffer from "Sacred Oil Company" Syndrome. They will never be on the side of the American consumer. You know that, right?

What is it you don't get?

EnviroMarxist keep insisting that oil is the one and only commodity impervious to the basic laws of supply and demand

 

[Jroc]

We've got plenty of energy here all we have to do is go get it which would lower the price, create 10s millions of jobs, that would bring in 100s of billions of dollars in revenue to state, local and the federal government it's all win no lose I've posted this a few times but in case anybody messed it...


In case anyone missed it, let me repeat something that is of a magnitude of 10 on the scale of news-quakes for Joe Public USA: America’s combined energy resources are, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CSR), the largest on earth. They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined – and that’s without including America’s shale oil deposits and, in the future, the potentially astronomic impact of methane hydrates.


The energy facts in the CRS report should be making front page news all over America. Mostly it isn’t. Given the devastating news from Japan and New Zealand, it may be right to postpone dancing in the streets. But something else is going on. Even though they are going to dominate global energy supply for decades to come the insidious war on vital fossil fuels continues apace.

While the US is often depicted as having only a tiny minority of the world’s oil reserves at around 28 billion barrels (based on the somewhat misleading figure of ‘proven reserves’) according to the CRS in reality it has around 163 billion barrels. As Inhofe’s EPW press release comments, “That’s enough oil to maintain America’s current rates of production and replace imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years”. Next up, there’s coal. The CRS report reveals America’s reserves of coal are unsurpassed, accounting for over 28 percent of the world’s coal. Much of it is high quality too. The CRS estimates US recoverable coal reserves at around 262 billion tons (not including further massive, difficult to access, Alaskan reserves). Given the US consumes around 1.2 billion tons a year, that’s a couple of centuries of coal use, at least.

In 2009 the CRS upped its 2006 estimate of America’s enormous natural gas deposits by 25 percent to around 2,047 trillion cubic feet, a conservative figure given the expanding shale gas revolution. At current rates of use that’s enough for around 100 years. Then there is still the, as yet largely publicly untold, story of methane hydrates to consider, a resource which the CRS reports alludes to as “immense...possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels.” According to the Inhofe’s EPW, “For perspective, if just 3 percent of this resource can be commercialized ... at current rates of consumption, that level of supply would be enough to provide America’s natural gas for more than 400 years.”


See what I mean about an Aladdin’s Cave of untapped energy? Could America wish for more, not least to help make serious inroads into its runaway debt?


http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/6933/US-Has-Earths-Largest-Energy-Resources

 

[Samson]

But will we be running our Ford Focus, the motorcycle, and the lawnmower on nuclear energy?

No, there will be plenty of fossil fuel (compressed natural gas) to run all that stuff if we switch our electric generators from consuming fossil fuels to nuclear fuel:

You don't see a futue in coal? Cheap, efficient, and an inexhaustible supply for generations, but unfortunately often 'dirty'. How about a new innovative scrubber to make it usable as clean energy--possible?

The USA already generates the most electricty in the world from nuclear energy, but hasn't build a new nuclear generator since 1978: We import most of our nuclear fuel, yet we have lots of "yellow-cake" here (NM sits on the second largest reserve in the USA).

IMHO, coal can be converted to fuel for smaller (localized) energy needs OTHER THAN than electrical generation, and used thusly would last a VERY long time. We seem to be using energy resources Ass-Backwards: Why not use more nuclear power NOW rather than Later, when there won't be a choice?