Fossil Fuels vs Future Fuels
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Obama Administration doesn’t like fossil fuels:
“Our secretary of energy pushes bio-refineries and windmills to oil executives at an energy conference as the administration announces a three-year offshore drilling ban. This is a policy for economic suicide.
They don’t qualify as an official group of victims, but carbon-Americans, as they have been called, did not have much to cheer about last week, when Energy Secretary Steven Chu addressed CERAWeek 2010, a premier industry conference hosted by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
With an economy struggling to regain sound footing, Chu advocated a starvation diet devoid of additional fossil fuels that are to remain under the ground and seabed. Instead, he supports 53% more funding for wind research and a 22% jump for solar research.
Subsidizing alternative energy fits the classic definition of insanity. Despite huge subsidies, it has proved to be neither cost-effective nor a reliable, significant contributor to our national power grid. Yet we keep subsidizing it, expecting a different result.”
The Obama Administration and its Energy Department want to halt domestic offshore drilling even though the Energy Secretary acknowledges oil’s value:
“Oil is an ideal transportation fuel, so it will be with us for decades,” Chu conceded, even as the administration forbids us from getting more of it here, creating energy jobs, lowering energy costs and cutting our trade deficit. Instead we’ll rely increasingly on foreign and often unfriendly suppliers.”
First Obama pledged to bankrupt coal plants and now he wants to end the age of oil. I hope America has as much hot air from its wind and solar farms as we have in Washington.
— DRJ
Destroying the economy, in both the short and long terms, appears to be one of his highest priorities.
JD (454fb4) — 3/13/2010 @ 9:55 pmThe oil, natural gas, and coal companies ought to NOT sell Obama any of their product. They should have done that and froze the bugger in the White House as his gas guzzling limo would be out of gas so he couldn’t get away.
PCD (7bf19f) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:08 pmAs we further restrict the exploration, extraction, and production of petroleum derived energy, we increase the value of those reserves contained within countries that do not have our best interests at heart: Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and others.
AD - RtR/OS! (8e34ef) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:32 pmThis is the route to economic and political disaster!
I don’t know which is the bigger story. This latest job/economy killing measure Obama’s dreamed up. Or the outright lies lies he promulgated to counter the truth about the counterproductivity of promoting “green” jobs in Spain and Denmark. Each “green” job cost over 2 real jobs. That’s what happens when you suck money from the private sector to subsidize jobs.
Actually, there are so many aspects to this lunacy that defy belief, it’s hard to know where to start.
Some jobs are created by Obama’s schemes. In China and India.
Higher energy costs. More unemployent at home. Exporting jobs abroad.
I’d like to hear from the idiots who voted for this loser with the idea he was going to repair what was broken with the US economy.
Oh, he’s going to “fix” it, all right. Not “fix” in the sense of putting it right again.
“Fix” in the sense of doing something to a dog so it’ll never produce.
Steve (d06736) — 3/13/2010 @ 10:36 pmWe could put a serious hurt on the economy of Venezuela and Iran and slow down Russia’s military buildup if we would just drill. It would probably cause some serious infighting in OPEC also.
hazy (e9dae7) — 3/14/2010 @ 12:52 amI hope no one was counting on getting a job in the Obama economy …
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:15 amSo this is the first administration to state that it plans to increase reliance on foreign oil. Wow, they’re a bunch of geniuses.
Newtons.Bit (660dda) — 3/14/2010 @ 8:21 amTo the extent that oil is an international commodity, shouldn’t we be buying it on the international market and saving the oil that is geographically close to us for a time when the international market breaks down?
imdw (d472cb) — 3/14/2010 @ 11:34 amAs long as the oil we’re saving can be readily accessed. But it doesn’t make sense to wait until the international market breaks down before you spend 10 years drilling to get to what you’ve saved for a rainy day.
Some chump (050674) — 3/14/2010 @ 11:46 amTo the extent that oil is an international commodity, shouldn’t we be buying it on the international market and saving the oil that is geographically close to us for a time when the international market breaks down?
This denotes your chronological age to be somewhere around 18 years old, since you apparently have no knowledge of the Arab oil embargo during the Carter years, which lead directly to stagflation. Those of use over 47 years old remember well the endless lines to the gas stations, waiting to fill up our cars with $5.00 worth of gas, then having to rush over to another station in the wan hope of accruing another few gallons.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/14/2010 @ 12:32 pmPeak Oil!!!!!!
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 12:59 pmI have to agree with JD.
Or can they be so moronic they think that the nation’s wealth is something just sitting in a pot at the end of a rainbow eternally replenishing itself?
Patricia (e1047e) — 3/14/2010 @ 1:12 pmTo the extent that oil is an international commodity, shouldn’t we be buying it on the international market and saving the oil that is geographically close to us for a time when the international market breaks down?
If we were buying oil from staunch allies that would make some sense, but not when it could be embargo’ed (as mentioned above) or going directly to support military buildup pointing our way (also as mentioned above).
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/14/2010 @ 1:22 pm“This denotes your chronological age to be somewhere around 18 years old, since you apparently have no knowledge of the Arab oil embargo during the Carter years, which lead directly to stagflation.”
That’s actually a situation that I’m envisioning it would be a good time to save a domestic reserve for.
imdw (603c39) — 3/14/2010 @ 3:10 pmLet us know approx 10 years in advance of that embargo, imdw.
JD (6ef835) — 3/14/2010 @ 3:25 pmOr maybe companies will invest in all of the infrastructure, but not drill. Then, when nostradamus’ hypothetical comes true, we can just turn on the drills.
JD (6ef835) — 3/14/2010 @ 3:28 pm“That’s actually a situation that I’m envisioning it would be a good time to save a domestic reserve for.”
imdw – For when you reach 18? Let us know when you get there, we’ll bake a cake!
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 3:49 pmimadoucheweasel, yep because gas lines are a really eco-freindly, efficient way to deliver energy. I can hardly wait to see the solar/wind energy become scalable, not. Let’s wait for a crisis! Is there no end to your stupidity?
People's Front of Judea (44bf37) — 3/14/2010 @ 3:54 pmimdw,
Oil and gas migrates and doesn’t just sit there waiting to be used unless it has already been extracted and deposited in a storage facility. In addition, how will we use saved oil and gas if we’ve already converted most vehicles and plants to other fuel sources?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/14/2010 @ 4:19 pmHey everybody, I thought imdw had a reasonable idea; some things needed to be clarified, but the idea made some sense.
Actually, I think we already have a situation where some US wells are flowing or capped depending on what the price per barrel is on the world market. Like everything, labor is more expensive in the US and other countries can pump oil for less than we do, so unless the market is high enough, companies earn less (maybe even lose money?) if they pump and refine US oil. (Although Obama thought that the Chinese are so advanced, they get that way using labor practices that would be “frowned upon” here.)
While I understand that concept, it seems that there would be some utility in paying higher gas prices (to some extent) in exchange for a better foreign trade balance and to put economic pressure on places like Venezuela and Iran.
But more than that is above my pay grade.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/14/2010 @ 4:53 pmOil exploration and production is expensive for many reasons, including labor costs, but the bulk of the cost comes from the cost of the drilling equipment and the likelihood of dry holes.
In addition, most Middle East oil is easier to produce.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/14/2010 @ 5:09 pmThe bottom line is that Obama and his cronies think that it is a good idea to deliberately cause economic dislocation, to undermine economic growth, in the pursuit of their goals of the “greater good”.
Think about that the next time you wonder why you don’t have a job.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/14/2010 @ 5:10 pm“some things needed to be clarified”
MD in Philly – Such as the ability to expand or contract production in response to market forces rather than waiting years to be able to react because you don’t have wells uncapped or have not done the exploration or development, just minor stuff.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 5:13 pmI certainly agree with you, SPQR and daleyrocks.
If Obama does something good for the United States (as we know it), I will assume it was by accident or miscalculation.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/14/2010 @ 5:32 pmIf oil is all that goshdurned important, its production and distribution should not be subject to market forces. Or to Arabs’ and international cartels’.
nk (db4a41) — 3/14/2010 @ 5:44 pmA couple of problems with “saving” that oil. The Cubans and Chinese are pumping the Gulf Coast oil right now. Instead of giving us secure oil supplies and good paying jobs we are giving them the jobs and will soon be back to begging them to sell it to us at ruinous prices.
The other problem is that it is very hard to quickly develop either our oil and gas resources that are left or to develop alternative energy sources when our economy has collapsed from high cost or restricted energy supplies. Both of these could be done better and faster with the robust economy that cheap secure energy could fuel.
Have we ever made significant progress on alternative energy or self sufficiency during a depression?
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/14/2010 @ 5:49 pm“If oil is all that goshdurned important, its production and distribution should not be subject to market forces.”
nk – Right, the government should take it over like healthcare I suppose.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/14/2010 @ 5:56 pmThere are about two trillion barrels of oil in our own oil shale deposits of which about 800 billion are worth extracting. This is not suitable for gasoline but can make diesel fuel, jet fuel, heating oil, and fuel power plants. There is ample petroleum for gas. This amount is more than the world consumption of oil in the last 150 years. I think it would certainly provide our needs and give us much leverage against oil dependent countries while we develop nuclear, fusion, geothermal, or other energy sources. Waiting until we are in a crisis and our currency is defaulting before starting expensive and long lead time projects like wells, refineries, power plants, etc is all to common but most unwise. We can easily develop our known resources now and go into the future a true world superpower. Of course some may not want this.
Machinist (9780ec) — 3/14/2010 @ 6:02 pmThat’s actually a situation that I’m envisioning it would be a good time to save a domestic reserve for.
Now I have to guess that you’ve never heard of the Strategic Reserve. Big surprise.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/14/2010 @ 7:02 pm