With the towering tsunami for Democrat office holders rapidly approaching, the Obama Administration ended the Gulf of Mexico ban on deep water drilling. This is window dressing, a classical socialist Potemkin village, to divert the American voter's attention away from a jobs-killing and over-seas oil price boosting policy of the Obama administration.
The Gulf of Mexico produces about 30% of American oil production. The Obama administration has been very effectively reducing new American oil production since it took over by refusing permits to drill and by refusing leases on federally controlled onshore and offshore areas. The huge tracts of Western federal land have seen a large reduction in oil and gas drilling due to Obama policy. The shallow water (less than 500 foot depth) drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has been brought to a standstill since few platforms have been able to get their drilling permits approved by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for a long time, despite no moratorium in place to prevent such shallow water drilling. A study by Southern Methodist University shows that the low 10 to 15 permits a month approved prior to the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion, has slowed to about a dozen total since then. This is only about 2 per month and has left many shallow water platforms idle. The Obama administration has halted the exploration for oil off the Alaskan coast as well. In 2009, the federal government issued fewer leases for oil and gas than in any year under Clinton or Bush. Leasing in 2010 appears to be occurring at a similarly abysmally low rate.
A report in the Wall Street Journal of 13 October 2010 says that the government estimates that the new deep water drilling regulations will cost oil and gas drillers an additional $183 million per year. One always has to wonder what multiplier well above 1.00 should be used to estimate a more realistic cost. The Interior Department is issuing a raft of new drilling requirements and plan to keep issuing more requirements. The drilling companies have understand the new requirements and plan on how to comply. They have to submit the compliance plans to the "over-worked" Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and wait for a yea or nay. Then as each additional requirement comes along, they have to stop drilling and resubmit a new plan for a permit. It is expected that many drillers will not be able to afford this and will leave the Gulf, as some have already.
Democrats are as interesting as their symbolic asses in their odd behavior. They increasingly talk about wanting to cut back on our use of fossil fuels so we will not have to import so much oil. They propose carbon taxes on this basis as well as in the name of the failed catastrophic man-made CO2 emissions global warming hypothesis. As more and more people are becoming aware that man-made global warming is a myth, the socialists (Progressives) are using the false idea of energy independence or self-sufficiency as the justification for energy taxes and restrictive mandates. Yet, at every turn, they oppose any effective attempt to generate more energy in America itself. They oppose oil drilling and coal mining. They oppose the development of shale oil deposits out West and they oppose the use of the new rock fracturing process to extract gas from large areas of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. They even oppose the ineffective, but highly touted, wind and solar power generator plants on environmental grounds in a great many instances. Of course, they also oppose nuclear power plants as well. It is of little concern to them that this energy policy is highly self-contradictory. Such is the way demagogues think, except that this is really a refusal to think.
Showing posts with label energy independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label energy independence. Show all posts
14 October 2010
09 August 2009
Obama's Energy Shenanigans
Obama has often spoken of energy independence as a goal. That goal is neither practical, nor desirable. But it is good to have many alternative sources of energy, in which I mean mostly alternative sources of oil and gas, since we have plenty of coal and can readily have as much nuclear power as we want. What we want in energy is many well-priced options. If we have that, then no one can hold us over a barrel or do very much to damage our economy.
Obama has also sought to decrease our use of fossil fuels, which the Waxman-Markey carbon cap and trade bill is designed to do. Supposedly, this bill is being put forward to save the earth from some imagined catastrophic effect of man-made CO2 emissions. These emissions are supposed to overheat the earth, cause great rises in sea level, create huge storms, cause devastating human diseases, and all manner of horrible travails for man and all other animals. It is all nonsense, but Obama is already having a major impact on our energy use, including fossil fuels by virtue of his fueling the recession and making it deeper and making it last longer than it should have.
The American Petroleum Institute reports that the total petroleum products delivered to the domestic market in June 2009 is only 94.56% of that delivered in June of 2008. In the first half of 2009, total petroleum deliveries in the U.S. were down nearly 6%. The resulting petroleum deliveries were the lowest for a first half in more than a decade. Jet fuel deliveries fell by nearly 13% from a year ago and distillate fuel oil deliveries fell by 8.6% due to lowered freight transportation demand. Gasoline deliveries fell less than 1% to reach their lowest level since 2003. Creating or extending a recession is a great way to decrease the use of fossil fuels!
On the energy independence front, we have seen little contribution from alternative fuels, but this has been a constant for decades. We have seen a decrease in the importation of crude oil and product imports, however. They dropped by 7.6% in the first half due to reduced demand and an increase in U.S. production! In the first half, U.S. production was up 3.8% from a year ago, bringing it to the highest level in four years. The U.S. oil producers are doing their part to help bring us out of this recession. They have increased production in offshore Gulf of Mexico, North Dakota, and elsewhere onshore to more than compensate for a drop in oil from Alaska due to maintenance work on the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. Our oil refineries are chugging along at an 84.5% utilization rate in June, compared to the 64.7% rate for all manufacturing industries. Total imports in June were 60.8% of all petroleum deliveries, down from 67.8% a year ago.
This is the critical U.S. industry that Obama wishes to cripple. Ken Salazar, the Interior secretary, has stalled the bidding process for oil and natural gas exploration both on Federal lands and on the outer continental shelf. The threat of Waxman-Markey energy taxes and restrictions are also causing a decrease in domestic exploration and oil field development. The average number of active rotary drilling rigs in the U.S. as of 10 July 2009 was only 916, despite that number averaging 1,879 in 2008. The record low had occurred near the end of the oil unfriendly Clinton regime at 488 rigs. The all-time high occurred early in the Reagan administration at 4,530. The increased oil production we have had recently in the U.S. is due to the increased drilling activity of the much-maligned Bush presidency. We all know how many environmental disasters occurred as a result of that increased drilling, right?
So, Obama is shooting the nation in the leg ( Or is it in the gut?) in the name of decreasing CO2 emissions? Well, no. It must be for some other reason. First it is becoming clear that natural forces, not puny man-made CO2 emissions, control our climate. The socialist left has been screaming that these results are too late and that a consensus exists that CO2 emissions must be stopped at all costs to prevent the death of the earth. This is now clearly hogwash. The science is contrary to their assertions. Second, even if their assertions were correct, the underdeveloped world is not buying them and they are massively increasing their use of fossil fuels. Lisa Jackson, Obama's administrator for the EPA and former head of the New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, told Congress that the U.S. action under Waxman-Markey would not impact world CO2 concentrations. It is an exercise in futility.
Unless, as is commonly the case with these socialists, the real reason for Waxman-Markey is something very different. It is. It has several purposes for our committed socialists of the Democrat Party:
Meanwhile, Waxman-Markey has been scored by the probably intimidated Congressional Budget Office as raising $846 billion of taxes over the next 10 years. During the prior Congressional session, the CBO estimated that a less aggressive bill would raise $1.2 trillion in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that 1,000,000 jobs a year will be lost due to Waxman-Markey as some of the initial credits for large companies expire. All this, so socialists, the supposed champions of the working guy, can have the power they so lust for. But, then, anyone who has bothered to study history in the least, knows that socialism is all about posing as the little guy's champion, but making him poor, miserable, and subservient in reality.
Obama has also sought to decrease our use of fossil fuels, which the Waxman-Markey carbon cap and trade bill is designed to do. Supposedly, this bill is being put forward to save the earth from some imagined catastrophic effect of man-made CO2 emissions. These emissions are supposed to overheat the earth, cause great rises in sea level, create huge storms, cause devastating human diseases, and all manner of horrible travails for man and all other animals. It is all nonsense, but Obama is already having a major impact on our energy use, including fossil fuels by virtue of his fueling the recession and making it deeper and making it last longer than it should have.
The American Petroleum Institute reports that the total petroleum products delivered to the domestic market in June 2009 is only 94.56% of that delivered in June of 2008. In the first half of 2009, total petroleum deliveries in the U.S. were down nearly 6%. The resulting petroleum deliveries were the lowest for a first half in more than a decade. Jet fuel deliveries fell by nearly 13% from a year ago and distillate fuel oil deliveries fell by 8.6% due to lowered freight transportation demand. Gasoline deliveries fell less than 1% to reach their lowest level since 2003. Creating or extending a recession is a great way to decrease the use of fossil fuels!
On the energy independence front, we have seen little contribution from alternative fuels, but this has been a constant for decades. We have seen a decrease in the importation of crude oil and product imports, however. They dropped by 7.6% in the first half due to reduced demand and an increase in U.S. production! In the first half, U.S. production was up 3.8% from a year ago, bringing it to the highest level in four years. The U.S. oil producers are doing their part to help bring us out of this recession. They have increased production in offshore Gulf of Mexico, North Dakota, and elsewhere onshore to more than compensate for a drop in oil from Alaska due to maintenance work on the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. Our oil refineries are chugging along at an 84.5% utilization rate in June, compared to the 64.7% rate for all manufacturing industries. Total imports in June were 60.8% of all petroleum deliveries, down from 67.8% a year ago.
This is the critical U.S. industry that Obama wishes to cripple. Ken Salazar, the Interior secretary, has stalled the bidding process for oil and natural gas exploration both on Federal lands and on the outer continental shelf. The threat of Waxman-Markey energy taxes and restrictions are also causing a decrease in domestic exploration and oil field development. The average number of active rotary drilling rigs in the U.S. as of 10 July 2009 was only 916, despite that number averaging 1,879 in 2008. The record low had occurred near the end of the oil unfriendly Clinton regime at 488 rigs. The all-time high occurred early in the Reagan administration at 4,530. The increased oil production we have had recently in the U.S. is due to the increased drilling activity of the much-maligned Bush presidency. We all know how many environmental disasters occurred as a result of that increased drilling, right?
So, Obama is shooting the nation in the leg ( Or is it in the gut?) in the name of decreasing CO2 emissions? Well, no. It must be for some other reason. First it is becoming clear that natural forces, not puny man-made CO2 emissions, control our climate. The socialist left has been screaming that these results are too late and that a consensus exists that CO2 emissions must be stopped at all costs to prevent the death of the earth. This is now clearly hogwash. The science is contrary to their assertions. Second, even if their assertions were correct, the underdeveloped world is not buying them and they are massively increasing their use of fossil fuels. Lisa Jackson, Obama's administrator for the EPA and former head of the New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, told Congress that the U.S. action under Waxman-Markey would not impact world CO2 concentrations. It is an exercise in futility.
Unless, as is commonly the case with these socialists, the real reason for Waxman-Markey is something very different. It is. It has several purposes for our committed socialists of the Democrat Party:
- The collection of huge new tax revenues
- Great latitude to pick winners and losers in the private sector
- Increased campaign contributions from companies scared to death by the threat of harmful government agency regulations under the broad umbrella of Waxman-Markey
- The need to "make it effective" by coordinating actions with the countries of the rest of the world, leading to one-world government and the subversion of the hated U.S. Constitution
Meanwhile, Waxman-Markey has been scored by the probably intimidated Congressional Budget Office as raising $846 billion of taxes over the next 10 years. During the prior Congressional session, the CBO estimated that a less aggressive bill would raise $1.2 trillion in taxes. The Tax Foundation estimates that 1,000,000 jobs a year will be lost due to Waxman-Markey as some of the initial credits for large companies expire. All this, so socialists, the supposed champions of the working guy, can have the power they so lust for. But, then, anyone who has bothered to study history in the least, knows that socialism is all about posing as the little guy's champion, but making him poor, miserable, and subservient in reality.
08 July 2008
What Americans think about energy
The Civil Society Institute working with the Citizens Lead for Energy Action Now conducted several polls to establish what Americans think about energy. I will summarize the results here, based on an editorial in the 7 July 2008 Washington Times, and then in a later post I will discuss what I think about these opinions. The results of the polls were:
- 76% of Americans are very angry or somewhat angry about the price of gasoline and expect to pay $5/gal. by Labor Day.
- 89% of the Americans angry about gas prices believe there is a great deal or some price gouging.
- 62% said rising gasoline and other fuel prices were their chief economic concern.
- 90% say the federal government is not doing enough to bring down energy prices and to decrease American dependence upon Middle East energy sources.
- 90% believe an energy policy that promoted clean power would encourage innovation, create new jobs, and make the economy stronger. The U.S. would also be able to reduce interactions with unstable and hostile countries while reducing greenhouse gases.
- 90% said that energy-related issues such as gasoline prices, home heating oil prices, global warming, and energy independence will be important when they vote.
- 90% say we should phase out use of fossil fuels and replace them with clean, renewable energy, such as wind and solar electricity and use hybrid and clean diesel technologies for cars.
- Three out of four Americans would support a 5-year moratorium on building new coal-fired energy plants if there were increased investment in clean, safe renewable energy such as wind and solar and improved home energy-efficiency standards.
- 82% believe the U.S. should lead on the issue of global warming.
- Only 15% believed that steps to reduce global warming would hurt the U.S. economy. 56% thought it would create new jobs and investments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
