Obama, Big Oil, Gas Prices, and Energy Independence

[Foxfyre]

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.

Not only would you be labeled a socialist, but you would be a socialist in thinking everybody is entitled to whatever energy they need and the federal government should control the means of production and provide them with it. So let's break that theory down into manageable bites.

Energy is no different from air as being a necessity of life? Really?

Our first settlers in America had no sources of energy other than their own backs, a few beasts of burden, and fire to provide light, warmth, and heat for cooking their food. Millions of people even now live their entire life without any other energy than fire to keep them warm and cook their food and whatever use they can make of their own labor and livestock.

So given that energy is not an unalienable right, but is a component of prosperity, liberty, and the pursuit of happeness, I can't agree that the government be given or allowed power to allot whatever energy it determines each person should have any more than the government should allocate the food, housing, transportation, or access to communications, etc. that each person or group should be allowed to have.

I further believe that the free market will provide more energy for everybody than the government ever would on its best day or in its best week, let alone year or decade.

So you had a good argument, but unfortunately, in my opinion, it is deeply flawed and won't fly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Samson makes a very good point that we should utilize nuclear for most of our electrical needs NOW and divert all other energy sources to other purposes and thereby expect our oil, natural gas, coal etc. reserves to last much longer. Also it would require less wind and massive solar operations that gobble up enormous amounts of real estate including land suitable for food crops or meat producers etc.

And Jroc seems to have done some interesting research that the USA indeed has the resources to be energy independent if we are turned loose to develop and use them.

 

[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.

Not only would you be labeled a socialist, but you would be a socialist in thinking everybody is entitled to whatever energy they need and the federal government should control the means of production and provide them with it. So let's break that theory down into manageable bites.

Energy is no different from air as being a necessity of life? Really?

Our first settlers in America had no sources of energy other than their own backs, a few beasts of burden, and fire to provide light, warmth, and heat for cooking their food. Millions of people even now live their entire life without any other energy than fire to keep them warm and cook their food and whatever use they can make of their own labor and livestock.

So given that energy is not an unalienable right, but is a component of prosperity, liberty, and the pursuit of happeness, I can't agree that the government be given or allowed power to allot whatever energy it determines each person should have any more than the government should allocate the food, housing, transportation, or access to communications, etc. that each person or group should be allowed to have.

I further believe that the free market will provide more energy for everybody than the government ever would on its best day or in its best week, let alone year or decade.

So you had a good argument, but unfortunately, in my opinion, it is deeply flawed and won't fly.

The first settlers could not survive they way they did when they first got here unless they became Amish. Could you imagine trying to keep horses and livestock in an urban area. Imagine everyone owning their own cows and chickens, and riding their horses everywhere. The need for electricity is what keeps society civil, without electricity anarchy is not far behind, so perhaps energy should be an unalienable right. As for the free market, it isn't doing so well right now, because the free market with it's flaws of politics, regulation and greed is making energy unafordable.

 

[spectrumc01]

Plus there isn't enough trees for everyone to heat their home or apartment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well Spectrum, I think you hugely missed the point I was making, and I'll let it go at that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much does Big Government make from the sale of oil?

 

[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..

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?

Massive debt is a far more pressing concern than energy efficiency in my opinion. Cut all subsidies, cut all foreign aid. Cut spending.

We are borrowing money (and paying interest!) from other nations so we can give it away to Pakistan and other nations. Let's stop being the middleman and let the countries we are borrowing from give their own money away. We can't afford it.

 

[Toro]

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.

You're a socialist.

And that would be a disaster.

 

[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?

Massive debt is a far more pressing concern than energy efficiency in my opinion. Cut all subsidies, cut all foreign aid. Cut spending.

We are borrowing money (and paying interest!) from other nations so we can give it away to Pakistan and other nations. Let's stop being the middleman and let the countries we are borrowing from give their own money away. We can't afford it.

I agree, however the thread topic relates to energy independence and not the debt.

The two, however are not totally separate issues as, in my opinion, our lack of energy independence is hugely contributing to the national debt.

Ceasing subsidies for all would net some good things I think, and I would like to explore the pros and cons of that.

No more subsidies or tax breaks for solar, wind, and other forms of 'clean' energy?
No more subsides or tax breaks for big oil.
No subsidies for nuclear or clean coal?
No subsidies for natural gas conversions or hydro power?

Pros and cons you think?

 

[waltky]

Obama gonna fix it...

Obama announces steps to speed oil production
5/14/2011 WASHINGTON — President is trying to address ongoing frustration at rising gas prices

Amid growing public unhappiness over gas prices, President Barack Obama is directing his administration to ramp up U.S. oil production by extending existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast and holding more frequent lease sales in a federal petroleum reserve in Alaska. But the moves won't calm spiraling prices at the pump any time soon. Obama said Saturday that the measures "make good sense" and will help reduce U.S. consumption of imported oil in the long term. But he acknowledged anew that they won't help to immediately bring down gasoline prices topping $4 a gallon ($1 a liter) in many parts of the country, and an oil industry analyst agreed.

"There is practically nothing that Washington can do that would materially change the price of fuel in this country," said Raymond James analyst Pavel Molchanov, noting that the United States produces about 5 percent of the world's petroleum while consuming about 20 percent. "Given that imbalance, there is simply no policy shift that could plausibly come from the federal government that can significantly change that dynamic." An oil industry group praised Obama's move as a first step with a "couple of positive nuggets" but contended that more was needed to boost oil production. Erik Milito, upstream director for the American Petroleum Institute, called in a statement for more access to key shale reserves and construction of a pipeline that would import crude from Canadian oil sands.

Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who is opposed to drilling off the Atlantic coast, expressed concern about possible dangers to the environment. "I think it is disappointing he would pursue a strategy that comes with considerable risk while offering no hope of driving down gas prices," Menendez said in a statement. Obama's announcement followed passage in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives of three bills — including two this week — that would expand and speed offshore oil and gas drilling. Republicans say the bills are aimed at easing gasoline costs, but they too acknowledge that benefits won't come fast.

The White House had announced its opposition to all three bills, which are unlikely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, saying the measures would undercut safety reviews and open environmentally sensitive areas to new drilling. But Obama is adopting some of the bills' provisions.

More Obama announces steps to speed oil production - Politics - White House - msnbc.com

 

[xsited1]

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.

Socialism is a great idea, but it doesn't work with humans. Your ideas always give rise to fascism or communism. Fortunately, there are some great posts here to cancel out yours. I'm still waiting for fusion power. Until then, I'd prefer to use what we have available (if Obama and his cronies will let us).

 

[Jroc]

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?

Massive debt is a far more pressing concern than energy efficiency in my opinion. Cut all subsidies, cut all foreign aid. Cut spending.

We are borrowing money (and paying interest!) from other nations so we can give it away to Pakistan and other nations. Let's stop being the middleman and let the countries we are borrowing from give their own money away. We can't afford it.

As i said by producing more energy here it leads to 10s of millions of jobs and 100s of billins in revenue IN THIS COUNTRY! for the government ....I guess you missed that point. WE CAN'T SOLVE THE DEBT PROBLEM IF WE ARE SENDING BILLIONS OVERSEAS!!

 

[hortysir]

How much does Big Government make from the sale of oil?

Good question!

FactCheck.org: Does the government really make more in taxes from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do?

Q:
Does the government really make more in taxes from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do?
A:
Possibly. Both taxes and profits account for a large share, but which is larger depends on too many unknown factors to allow for a clear answer.

 

[Mr. H.]

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?

Do you realize just how expensive it is to coax oil out of the ground? It doesn't flow freely. The vast majority of wells in this country employ artificial lift methods which require a good deal of energy to operate.

It would be ruinous to a company to cease production because of low prices. There are fixed costs such as labor, insurance, maintainance, and overhead that would eat up cash reserves.

This reminds me of a phone call I got a couple of years ago. The state senator from my distict told me about a constituent that noticed some pumpjacks along a highway that weren't moving. He insisted that it was a conspiracy by oil companies to restrict production and raise prices. I just burst out laughing.

Forward several weeks- I called him back to say I noticed some wind turbines in upstate Illinois that weren't spinning. I insisted it was a conspiracy by wind farms to raise the price of electricity.

People's fucking stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Samson]

I agree, however the thread topic relates to energy independence and not the debt.

The two, however are not totally separate issues as, in my opinion, our lack of energy independence is hugely contributing to the national debt.

By "national debt" I think you mean "trade deficit."

And while oil imports contribute to the trade deficit (50% in 2010)

Since 2008 oil imports have often accounted for LESS than 50% of the trade deficit.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree, however the thread topic relates to energy independence and not the debt.

The two, however are not totally separate issues as, in my opinion, our lack of energy independence is hugely contributing to the national debt.

By "national debt" I think you mean "trade deficit."

And while oil imports contribute to the trade deficit (50% in 2010)

Since 2008 oil imports have often accounted for LESS than 50% of the trade deficit.

No, it isn't a dollar for dollar thing, but in basic economics, certain kinds of trade deficits can and do affect the national debt, but I'm too tired to deal with that tonight. Perhaps I will revisit it tomorrow. But I had other issues in mind re our lack of energy independence.

 

[elvis]

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

done.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

done.

Thank you kindly sir. The awkward syntax was really bugging me.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

The risks aside, building a nuclear power plant is one of the most energy-intensive and expensive projects on the face of the earth. Refining and transporting Uranium is also extremely dangerous, expensive, and Uranium itself is also finite. There's also no long term exit strategy for storage of nuclear waste.

Current fission technology is not the way. Wind and hydro are far more palatable options. Ultimately, imo, we have to look at fusion.

 

[Flopper]

Barack Obama says U.S. oil production last year was highest since 2003. He is directing his administration to ramp up U.S. oil production by extending existing leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast and holding more frequent lease sales in a federal petroleum reserve in Alaska. But the moves won't calm spiraling prices at the pump any time soon.

Even if production increase, it will take a minimum of 18 mos to 2 years for increased production to have any effect on gas prices. Since oil is sold and pricef internationally, increased production may be bought up by China and other oil hunger nations.

Read more: Obama to speed oil production - Times Union

PolitiFact | Sorting out the truth in politics