Obama's energy policies..

[Shakes]

FTR: I'm an Obama supporter and I plan to vote for him this election cycle.

That said, I'm really not liking his energy policies. I just don't understand what the hell he is thinking.

I know there is very little he can do to control gas prices. That's not my problem. My problem is with his strangle hold on the coal industry. And his apparent mentality of: "Let's let it all ride on green enrgy."

Sure we should continue research on green energy. But not to the point where the american people have to suffer. And let's face it, green energy isn't going to save us anytime soon.

Until that day comes, we need a short term fix.

[ITR champion]

The basic fact is this. The human race as a whole is cooking the planet by burning so much fossil fuel. There have already been painful consequences to this for many people, and there will be worse consequences for more people unless something is done to stop the trend. Electricity generation is the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions. Something needs to be done.

We've tried holding international conferences to hammer out a worldwide agreement on reducing emissions. That didn't succeed. We've tried negotiating with industry and the Republican Party to reach a national agreement on reducing emissions. That didn't succeed either. So Obama is doing what he can to reduce emissions with the tools he has available.

Saying that the American people should not have to suffer is useless. We need to emit less carbon dioxide. If cutbacks in coal-burning power plants constitute suffering then so be it. It's still better then cooking the entire planet.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

I, for one, would like a cite that he has a strangle hold on the coal industry. I have been hearing lots of right wing chatter that he is responsible for gas prices because he has stifled drilling when the fact is US oil and gas production is at all time highs and he has granted more permits than President Bush did in his first term.

[Shodan]

Obama was/is pushing "green" energy because he thought it would

1. create lots of clean, affordable energy
2. create lots of well-paying jobs
3. fix AGW
4. as long as we threw a lot of money at it

Unfortunately

• That's not how it works

It is not the case that you can always solve a problem, especially a technical problem, by throwing money at it.

Bush's idea, earlier in his administration, was that we could switch to a hydrogen economy, and that we could get the hydrogen by splitting water, and we could get the energy to split the water from nuclear energy. Whenever someone mentions nuclear energy, the looney Left immediately divides into two groups, one of which begins screaming hysterically and the other repeats '"windandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolar" like a mantra. And Obama, who has no experience with business or technology, fell for it.

The problem, as ever, is that it calls for hard decisions, not easy, popular ones. Obama apparently was able to convince himself that unproven (and therefore popular) technologies like solar energy were better than proven technologies that cause the Birkenstock-wearers in his own party to lose bladder control.

Maybe, if he gets re-elected, he might wise up and actually do something about AGW and energy policy, but I doubt it.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

The basic fact is this. The human race as a whole is cooking the planet by burning so much fossil fuel. There have already been painful consequences to this for many people, and there will be worse consequences for more people unless something is done to stop the trend. Electricity generation is the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions. Something needs to be done.

We've tried holding international conferences to hammer out a worldwide agreement on reducing emissions. That didn't succeed. We've tried negotiating with industry and the Republican Party to reach a national agreement on reducing emissions. That didn't succeed either. So Obama is doing what he can to reduce emissions with the tools he has available.

Saying that the American people should not have to suffer is useless. We need to emit less carbon dioxide. If cutbacks in coal-burning power plants constitute suffering then so be it. It's still better then cooking the entire planet.

Horseshit. It's ridiculous to say that the US needs to suffer and that by our suffering alone it will some how avert the planet being cooked. Not only is that wrong bit it's a stupid plan that will not fix a gods damned thing. China is already emitting more CO2 than the US, and that will continue to rise unless their economy goes completely tits up. India isn't far behind. The absolute worst thing we could do at this point is to hobble our industry and innovation just to inflict some pain on the American people because a few loons think we deserve some pain, oh and the US needs to be put in it's place...or whatever the rational is for this kind of thinking.

-XT

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

I have been hearing lots of right wing chatter that he is responsible for gas prices because he has stifled drilling when the fact is US oil and gas production is at all time highs and he has granted more permits than President Bush did in his first term.

I do not agree that Obama is responsible for high gas prices. Gas prices will rise / have risen as the global economy improves. Having said that, you are guilty of the same type of simplistic thinking as the other side here. Leaving aside the fact that production is no where near all time highs (perhaps you mean recent highs), you are ignoring the difference between production on Federal lands and production on private lands. Production on private lands is increasing. Production on Federal lands (most notably the Gulf of Mexico) is declining. There are numerous reasons for this. One of the contributing reasons would be the moratorium put in place by Obama.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Until that day comes, we need a short term fix.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that in the history of mankind there's been quite a few such "short term fixes", and they've all gone terrible because once they were enacted the problems were considered solved for the time being, all money and brain-power was focused on the next issue, and the long term fix was never really brought up again.
Until the quick fix blows up in everyone's faces because it really never was meant to last that long.

This is of course even more self-evident an issue when the people devising the fixes only stay in power in the short term.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Until that day comes, we need a short term fix.

The short term fix is to fast track nuclear, natural gas and modern coal power plants (with co2 scrubbers). Add to that a modernization of the power grid for more efficient transfer of electricity so we can take advantage of solar (heat) power plants out in the desert.

For cars the best thing to do is to fast track bio diesel fuels for the short term gains in fuel efficiency and roll back diesel regulations to 1996 levels. This puts real cars on the road without having to reinvent the wheel. When batteries catch up we'll have the electrical grid to feed them.

This is all easy to accomplish and doable without anybody suffering.

[GreasyJack]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Until that day comes, we need a short term fix.

Um, a short term fix for what exactly? Heating and electricity prices have been steady or declining over the last few years. If you're excluding transportation fuel prices, it seems like energy policy is pretty much a non-issue right now.

[Jas09]

GreasyJack is thinking along the same lines I am - what energy policy? Abundant natural gas has driven down electricity. Cap and trade was stillborn, and will likely remain so until it's too late to do anything. The EPA has made some noise, but beyond that I'm a bit of a loss as to how Obama has hamstrung coal - as I understand it natural gas prices are what is hurting coal miners. Hell, new nuclear reactors were approved this year for the first time in 30 years.

Throwing a bit of money at solar and wind doesn't seem like a particularly bad investment, all things considered.

[Wesley Clark]

Natural gas production has grown so much that we are running out of places to store it.

Nuclear power plants take 10+ years to set up and get running. Plus they are extremely expensive.

Is there a shortage of grid energy?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Obama was/is pushing "green" energy because he thought it would

1. create lots of clean, affordable energy
2. create lots of well-paying jobs
3. fix AGW
4. as long as we threw a lot of money at it

Unfortunately

• That's not how it works

It is not the case that you can always solve a problem, especially a technical problem, by throwing money at it.

Bush's idea, earlier in his administration, was that we could switch to a hydrogen economy, and that we could get the hydrogen by splitting water, and we could get the energy to split the water from nuclear energy. Whenever someone mentions nuclear energy, the looney Left immediately divides into two groups, one of which begins screaming hysterically and the other repeats '"windandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolar" like a mantra. And Obama, who has no experience with business or technology, fell for it.

The problem, as ever, is that it calls for hard decisions, not easy, popular ones. Obama apparently was able to convince himself that unproven (and therefore popular) technologies like solar energy were better than proven technologies that cause the Birkenstock-wearers in his own party to lose bladder control.

Maybe, if he gets re-elected, he might wise up and actually do something about AGW and energy policy, but I doubt it.

Regards,
Shodan

What? I thought President Obama was pro (or at least not anti) nuclear power. I remember in the time after Fukishima when Germany was giving up nuclear power, he said that it would remain a piece of our energy future and he saw no reason to take Germany's route (to the chagrin of many on the left).

This thread is big on rhetoric, but short on facts. My take is that Obama has not done anything to curb oil or coal and so far no one in this thread has been able to point to any policy of Obama's that has done so. I am not trying to be difficult here, from my independent center left view point, Obama is relatively energy industry friendly. Can you or ITR or Longhorn Dave or one of the other Obama haters on the is board point out actual policy decisions of Obama's that have hamstrung coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear power?

The only two that I can think of are the XL, which probably would have been approved if it didn't become the political football of the day. Hell, reroute it around Nebraska and he would probably approve it today if you can believe what he said. And the temporary moratorium on new wells in the gulf which was lifted last year. Neither of these to me is the sign of a super anti-establishment energy policy.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

What? I thought President Obama was pro (or at least not anti) nuclear power. I remember in the time after Fukishima when Germany was giving up nuclear power, he said that it would remain a piece of our energy future and he saw no reason to take Germany's route (to the chagrin of many on the left).

This thread is big on rhetoric, but short on facts. My take is that Obama has not done anything to curb oil or coal and so far no one in this thread has been able to point to any policy of Obama's that has done so. I am not trying to be difficult here, from my independent center left view point, Obama is relatively energy industry friendly. Can you or ITR or Longhorn Dave or one of the other Obama haters on the is board point out actual policy decisions of Obama's that have hamstrung coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear power?

The only two that I can think of are the XL, which probably would have been approved if it didn't become the political football of the day. Hell, reroute it around Nebraska and he would probably approve it today if you can believe what he said. And the temporary moratorium on new wells in the gulf which was lifted last year. Neither of these to me is the sign of a super anti-establishment energy policy.

Dude, just go to youtube and type in "Obama coal policy" and you can hear it straight from the man's mouth himself. He plans to charge coal companies such large 'fines' as to make it unprofitable for coal companies.

He then plans to use those billions of dollars and throw it at green energy. As if that is somehow going to make Green Energy suddenly viable.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Is there a shortage of grid energy?

Well, there was when Enron was at the helm, but I believe that's sorted out now

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Shakes

Dude, just go to youtube and type in "Obama coal policy" and you can hear it straight from the man's mouth himself. He plans to charge coal companies such large 'fines' as to make it unprofitable for coal companies.

He then plans to use those billions of dollars and throw it at green energy. As if that is somehow going to make Green Energy suddenly viable.

So let me understand what you're saying... he plans to shut down Big Coal by issuing punitive fines they won't be able to pay (having shut down out of unprofitability concerns), and he counts on those fines as a long term fund raiser ?
Does any part of this purported strategy strike you as paradoxical ?

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

I, for one, would like a cite that he has a strangle hold on the coal industry.

Coal is facing a "perfect storm" (grey-eyed Athena, how I hate that term) of several environmental regulations, a sagging economy, and cheap shale gas from fracking. And to a lesser extent, in some markets milder winters and summers.

But how much of it is Obama's fault? Sure, Obama could have halted several environmental regulations, especially the Big 4 which are slamming coal: Coal Combustion Residues, Air Toxics, CSAPR, and 316(b). But all of these were in development since before he decided to run for President. Yes, even the evil, hated Bush Administration was moving some of these along (some under different titles), just not exceedingly quickly.

But all of those factors combined, according to the 2011 NERC report, would not have been responsible for 1/2 the coal plant closings we have had in the last year. Cheap gas has devastated coal, and combined with the impacts of the aforementioned environmental legislation, we may be facing a permanent 10-20% shift (absolute value) from coal to gas, and the possibility that within 5 years coal will be well behind gas in terms of electricity production.

A lot of my clients are closing their small coal plants ("small" meaning under 250MW, which actually is somewhat large) because they would have to add an FGD scrubber, SCR, ACI+FF, or worse onto their plants to keep them running, and when you find the net present value of those costs and compare it to switching to gas...there's no competition.

Of course, when gas returns to $8 or higher an MBTU, people are going to see electric bills skyrocket. And gas bills too, duh.

What is Obama's fault is the banning of all new coal plants via his ruling of no more than 1,000 lbm CO2 per MW*hr of electricity generation. The only coal plants which could meet this - in theory, mind you - are CCS equipped plants, which except for some tiny test-bed plants, don't exist. He doesn't even give any credit for biomass unless it's nearly a complete coal-biomass conversion.

I don't have a lot to criticize with Obama's energy policy because...well, there really doesn't seem to be one. Aside from his new coal plant ban and the usual EPA legislation focused on coal which continues to evolve over time, from all appearances he seems to be mostly stepping back and letting the free market work.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Natural gas production has grown so much that we are running out of places to store it.

Yep, we have an ace in the hole.

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Nuclear power plants take 10+ years to set up and get running. Plus they are extremely expensive.

right now, they represent the cleanest energy we can produce. The cost is very prohibitive when you don't build many of them and then screw up the ones attempted. We had one go so over budget because of shoddy construction that they abandon it and built a coal plant instead. We need to stop dicking around and certify a good design and then build a bunch of them. It really is a matter of national security that we secure our energy needs.

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark

Is there a shortage of grid energy?

There's about to be. A lot of aging coal plants are about to be shut down. In my area they tear them down when they're deactivated so the interim solution will be probably be to build a bunch of peak use gas generators and pretend they're power plants like they did in California.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

What is Obama's fault is the banning of all new coal plants via his ruling of no more than 1,000 lbm CO2 per MW*hr of electricity generation. The only coal plants which could meet this - in theory, mind you - are CCS equipped plants, which except for some tiny test-bed plants, don't exist. He doesn't even give any credit for biomass unless it's nearly a complete coal-biomass conversion.

either CCS is viable or it's not. Do you have any cites that give the cost of doing this and is there a critical facility size necessary to make it work?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Thanks Una, for your contribution. This about matches the little tracking I do of the energy industry; he has been mostly hands off with it. He certainly has not been a model of environmental leadership regardless of all the hype around green energy and his mostly failed stimulus in this area.

Shakes, ITR, LD, Shodan, etc... Do you guys have a view that contradicts Una's take? I know that now in an election year it is all the rage to lay the ills of the world and the President's feet, but I remain unconvinced that he has done damage here... in fact, I support modest investment in renewable energy, if only to remain competive in thus field, and I appreciated him going against the populist sentiments around nuclear after Fukishima... I think foreign policy and energy policy are some of Obama's strengths. Why am I wrong?

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Magiver

either CCS is viable or it's not. Do you have any cites that give the cost of doing this and is there a critical facility size necessary to make it work?

CCS is probably a pipe dream at the current time, it is too expensive. I think Una commented on this before with some good numbers, but searching on my phone is difficult. Regardless, it is probably moot with the cost of gas these days and I think it fair to try to pay for some of the coal negative externalities though I know most Republicans don't agree. There needs to be a rational attempt to address the tragedy of the commons in a modern market economy, and this is one good way. I am sure as the cost of energy rises, as it must being mostly from finite resources, coal will make a comeback someday.

Anyway, CCS was talked about during Bush's term and would probably be implemented soon no matter who was president. YMMV.

I do agree with everything you say about nuclear, we should really up our game with this technology and now would be a good time to get started. Wait a decade or so for people to evaluate the continuing costs of climate change and I bet you will see some movement here.

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

Shakes, ITR, LD, Shodan, etc... Do you guys have a view that contradicts Una's take? I know that now in an election year it is all the rage to lay the ills of the world and the President's feet, but I remain unconvinced that he has done damage here... in fact, I support modest investment in renewable energy, if only to remain competive in thus field, and I appreciated him going against the populist sentiments around nuclear after Fukishima... I think foreign policy and energy policy are some of Obama's strengths. Why am I wrong?

No I do not. Una pretty much put me in my place.

I'm glad she did too. Like I said, I intend to vote for Obama. I just felt badly about his energy policies. I feel a little better now that Una chimed in.

[BrainGlutton]

Look, does anyone here really want practically all the accessible coal/oil/gas left in the Earth's crust to be eventually dug/pumped/fracked out and burned as fuel (except for what goes into artificial fertilizers, plastics, etc.)? Does anybody seriously not think that is a very bad idea?

[GreasyJack]

One (generally) right-wing criticism of his policy is that in a lot of the areas that have seen big upticks in drilling in the last few years, there are federally-owned lands that have been lagging behind private land in terms of production. (I think this is what LonghornDave was referring to). The argument would go that we could lower gas prices if the federal government was doing more to streamline the permitting process and incentivize drilling on public lands.

I think there's a modicum of truth to this in that the oil and gas lease permitting process is indeed quite slow and antiquated, especially in some of the new fields, although the administration is supposedly working on streamlining this. More importantly though, it's not a realistic picture of the situation on the ground in places like North Dakota where the biggest gains are being made-- in reality the drilling infrastructure that's there now is struggling to keep up with private leases, and so a policy that actively encourages drilling on federal land might make a difference in the final size of the boom, but it won't make production go up any faster. I think like the coal issue, it's something that Republicans like to grandstand about, but in reality there's not much more they could do beyond the hands off policy the Obama administration has taken so far.

[Aro]

Here's an interesting lecture on how the switch to sustainable sources of power can be achieved with the inclusion of profit-driven innovation and industry. Well worth a watch sometime (not the more carismatic of speakers, but some good points regardless):

Amory Lovins: A 40-year plan for energy

[Shakes]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

One (generally) right-wing criticism of his policy is that in a lot of the areas that have seen big upticks in drilling in the last few years, there are federally-owned lands that have been lagging behind private land in terms of production. (I think this is what LonghornDave was referring to). The argument would go that we could lower gas prices if the federal government was doing more to streamline the permitting process and incentivize drilling on public lands.

I think there's a modicum of truth to this in that the oil and gas lease permitting process is indeed quite slow and antiquated, especially in some of the new fields, although the administration is supposedly working on streamlining this. More importantly though, it's not a realistic picture of the situation on the ground in places like North Dakota where the biggest gains are being made-- in reality the drilling infrastructure that's there now is struggling to keep up with private leases, and so a policy that actively encourages drilling on federal land might make a difference in the final size of the boom, but it won't make production go up any faster. I think like the coal issue, it's something that Republicans like to grandstand about, but in reality there's not much more they could do beyond the hands off policy the Obama administration has taken so far.

I don't get this reasoning. As long as we are connected to the global market, how would any amount of drilling bring prices down? I mean, if you're Big Oil^tm, and you have a choice of selling your product to Americans for $75 a barrel or some European country for $100 a barrel; who are you going to sell it to?

I also read an article on Time magazine.com (Science section, sorry, can't find a cite) that stated Big Oil companies have 77 oil fields ready to go. The red tape has been cut, papers have been signed, all they have to do is go out there and drill.

But they don't, because they are quite happy with the inventory right where it is,.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

CCS is probably a pipe dream at the current time, it is too expensive.

The Mountaineer CCS trial, the largest of its sort in the Continent, was cancelled this year, which pretty much shows how the future of CCS will run in the US, IMO. http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/p...untaineer.html Cheap gas plants compete so strongly against CCS it's not even funny right now.

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

The Mountaineer CCS trial, the largest of its sort in the Continent, was cancelled this year, which pretty much shows how the future of CCS will run in the US, IMO. http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/p...untaineer.html Cheap gas plants compete so strongly against CCS it's not even funny right now.

What do they model the value of the CO2 that is sequestered on a per mcf basis?

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

This thread is big on rhetoric, but short on facts.

One of the President's most powerful tools is the bully pulpit. Therefore, a big portion of the facts on Obama's energy policy is just stating the rhetoric that he uses. He is negative in his comments about the oil and gas industry.

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

My take is that Obama has not done anything to curb oil or coal and so far no one in this thread has been able to point to any policy of Obama's that has done so.

He has called for increasing taxes on oil and gas production. He has also called for raising taxes specifically on certain large oil and gas companies. He has used the strategic petroleum reserve to try to manipulate prices. He turned what should have been a routine approval of the Keystone XL pipeline into a political issue. He handled the moratorium on oil and gas offshore drilling incredibly poorly. He promoted an incredibly poorly thought out cap and trade bill. Having said all of that, I don't think he has done anything to severly hamstring oil and gas production or anything. I think he doesn't really understand the industry and that he lies about it to make political points, but I think every politician is like that.

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

I am not trying to be difficult here, from my independent center left view point, Obama is relatively energy industry friendly.

I think it's crazy to call him industry friendly. He hasn't done anything too bad. He hasn't done anything too good. He's basically a non-event from where I stand. The best thing that can happen to the oil and gas industry is for the global economy to improve. I don't expect any major policy decisions to come from any president that will do much harm or good. Like all politicians, he is big on talk and short on action: which is just fine with me since any action they take usually ends up causing more problems than they solve.

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

Can you or ITR or Longhorn Dave or one of the other Obama haters on the is board point out actual policy decisions of Obama's that have hamstrung coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear power?

I don't really like being called an Obama hater since it implies that I like the alternative. Do I think he is incompetent and inept? Yes, but I think he's doing a slightly overall better job than McCain would have done. I think Romney would be a very slight improvement, but I think Romney is also a buffoon when it comes to energy knowledge. I am independent and have never voted for either a Republican or Democrat for President, and I have voted in the past four elections. I have voted for both Democrats and Republicans in state and local elections.

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

The only two that I can think of are the XL, which probably would have been approved if it didn't become the political football of the day.

He's the one who made it a poltical football. Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are being idiotic in the rationale supprting the pipeline. However, it should have been a routine approval. He made it an issue because he wanted to push the approval past the election. Then he tried to take some sort of bullshit credit for streamlining the southern leg of it, when that made absolutely zero difference and was unnecessary. At least he got a photo-op in front of some pipe in Oklahoma though.

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

Hell, reroute it around Nebraska and he would probably approve it today if you can believe what he said.

This is not an option. The line needs to go through Cushing, Oklahoma. It needs to go through North Dakota. Going around the entire state of Nebraska would be absurd. Beyond that though, why would this even be considered? It would add a huge expense for no actual gain.

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

And the temporary moratorium on new wells in the gulf which was lifted last year.

The problem was that they lied in order to put the moratorium in place. Then, after it was officially lifted, they just refused to issue permits making it a de facto moratorium. I just think it could have been handled much better.

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

I think foreign policy and energy policy are some of Obama's strengths. Why am I wrong?

He has no energy policy of any note. I don't see how it could then be a strength. He has some talking points. He wishes we had cheap, clean and abundant renewable energy that would create millions of good domestic jobs. He talks bad about oil, gas, and coal, but he then doesn't really do anything noteworthy. I don't see how the sum of that is a strength.

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

One (generally) right-wing criticism of his policy is that in a lot of the areas that have seen big upticks in drilling in the last few years, there are federally-owned lands that have been lagging behind private land in terms of production. (I think this is what LonghornDave was referring to). The argument would go that we could lower gas prices if the federal government was doing more to streamline the permitting process and incentivize drilling on public lands.

I'm not saying it in a critiquing of Obama's policy kind of way. I'm just stating it as a fact. Obama has not increased oil production. Private companies have increased oil production on private land. When he tries to take credit for it or someone tries to give him credit for it, I will criticize that.

[Una Persson]

Originally Posted by LonghornDave

What do they model the value of the CO2 that is sequestered on a per mcf basis?

Do you mean its value as a commodity, or its net cost of capture+sequestration? I'm not certain of either, to tell the truth - I do not think the real numbers were made public, but I will check and see if I can find an update.

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by Shakes

I don't get this reasoning. As long as we are connected to the global market, how would any amount of drilling bring prices down?

Well, think about it this way, after the Japanese earthquake, Japan has increased oil demand about 500,000 barrels a day as they shut down their nuclear power generators and are replacing with imported oil. Coincidently, the U.S. has increased oil production about 500,000 barrels a day from March 2011 to March 2012, resulting in us not importing as much. Do you think prices would be higher or lower if we had to import 500,000 barrels a day more than we do now?

Originally Posted by Shakes

I mean, if you're Big Oil^tm, and you have a choice of selling your product to Americans for $75 a barrel or some European country for $100 a barrel; who are you going to sell it to?

First, who exactly is Big Oil? Second, is Big Oil producing the oil in the U.S. or are they producing it abroad? Third, although you don't really know it, you've presented a funny hypothetical here. Care to guess what the price of West Texas Intermediate (benchmark U.S. crude price) sold on October 4, 2011 was? How about Brent (European benchmark)? It just so happens that it was $75.40 for WTI and $101.84 for Brent. Brent (and other global crude prices) has consistently sold for a large premium to WTI with the significant increase in U.S. production causing a negative differential to the global price of crude since early last year.

Originally Posted by Shakes

I also read an article on Time magazine.com (Science section, sorry, can't find a cite) that stated Big Oil companies have 77 oil fields ready to go. The red tape has been cut, papers have been signed, all they have to do is go out there and drill.

But they don't, because they are quite happy with the inventory right where it is,.

Well, I can tell you that this certainly isn't true. There are not 77 oil fields just ready to go. Oil companies are frantically searching for new reserves. Everybody wants to grow their production. The only companies that manipulate their production are OPEC member state oil companies. Even they don't limit themselves to what they agree to do. The only notable company (including the OPEC NOCs) on the planet with any real excess capacity is Aramco. This would be why every president is buddy/buddy with King Abdullah as soon as they get in office.

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by Una Persson

Do you mean its value as a commodity, or its net cost of capture+sequestration? I'm not certain of either, to tell the truth - I do not think the real numbers were made public, but I will check and see if I can find an update.

I mean its value as a sellable commodity. I mean, do they model it as just a cost for the coal fired power plant or as also a revenue generator? If they do model the revenue, what would they model that out at? Seems like it's worth at least $2.00/mcf if located in the right locations.

[ITR champion]

Originally Posted by XT

Horseshit. It's ridiculous to say that the US needs to suffer and that by our suffering alone it will some how avert the planet being cooked. Not only is that wrong bit it's a stupid plan that will not fix a gods damned thing.

Very well, if I meet anyone who says that the US needs to suffer and that by our suffering alone it will somehow avert the planet being cooked, I'll pass along your opinion.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by L. G. Butts, Ph.D.

I thought President Obama was pro (or at least not anti) nuclear power.

Well, he wasted half a billion on Solyndra, and he shut down Yucca Mountain. Maybe that's being pro-nuclear to you, but it strikes me as more of an example of not having a clear energy policy. If he wants to use nuclear energy, we have to have a place to stash the waste. Shutting down the most viable place indicates more than does a lot of talk.

To be fair, Fukushima certainly made it hard to be pro-nuclear for a while, but if AGW is real and a threat, I don't see how even publicity as bad as that should deter us from using the only proven technology we have to address AGW.

Regards,
Shodan

[Chronos]

Quoth Shodan:



Bush's idea, earlier in his administration, was that we could switch to a hydrogen economy, and that we could get the hydrogen by splitting water, and we could get the energy to split the water from nuclear energy. Whenever someone mentions nuclear energy, the looney Left immediately divides into two groups, one of which begins screaming hysterically and the other repeats '"windandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolarwindandsolar" like a mantra. And Obama, who has no experience with business or technology, fell for it.

At least three groups. There is a segment of the left that embraces nuclear power. Admittedly, we're a relatively small segment, but pretty well-represented on this board, I think. The mantra I chant is "usage reduction and hydro and wind and nuclear and a touch of natural gas and maybe eventually but not yet solar and hopefully someday fusion". Nuclear isn't the complete solution, but it's an essential component of any realistic plan.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Shodan

... and he shut down Yucca Mountain.

No, he didn't. Yucca was stillborn and no serious energy analyst thought it would come online since probably before 2000.

Moreover, permitting on-site storage (which is what the administration did), makes nuclear cheaper, not more expensive.

[XT]

Originally Posted by ITR champion

Very well, if I meet anyone who says that the US needs to suffer and that by our suffering alone it will somehow avert the planet being cooked, I'll pass along your opinion.

Well good then. Glad we got that cleared up.

-XY

[stw004]

The only thing with a strangle hold on coal right now is $2.50 gas. Personally I have no problem coal but I think if we removed the massive amount of subsidies and made the industry responsible for it's currently externalized costs you would see the energy mix change in very short order.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

No, he didn't.

Yes, he did.

But last year, the Obama administration kept its campaign promise and shut down Yucca Mountain.

Yucca was stillborn...

No, it wasn't.

Four previous presidents funded safety reviews of the project.

Regards,
Shodan

[ralph124c]

Obama's energy policy..if you can call it that, is a curious mixture of limiting supply, and increasing demand-there is no sense in it. It has (of course) resulted in higher prices for consumers, and shortages in supply (no surprise to anyone who has taken Economics 101).
Take the statements of Energy Secretary Chu: "we need to get gasoline up to $10.00/gallon"
I'll grant you, the USA needs to reduce its scandalous waste of fossil fuels, but Obama has done nothing but increase the price (and add immeasurable increases to the profits of crude oil producers).
In short, NO energy, no sense, no preparation.
The only real option (if you want to reduce CO2 production) is nuclear power-but I've seen no evidence that he has any program for promoting this.

[Richard Parker]

Even if Yucca had been put into effect, it would barely hold the waste we've already accumulated. And it would do it at much greater cost than the current system of on-site storage, for somewhat little gain. All Obama did is recognize that reality.

The nuclear power people generally supported the move. To paint it as proving that Obama is anti-nuclear does not accord with reality.

[GreasyJack]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

Obama's energy policy..if you can call it that, is a curious mixture of limiting supply, and increasing demand-there is no sense in it. It has (of course) resulted in higher prices for consumers, and shortages in supply (no surprise to anyone who has taken Economics 101).
Take the statements of Energy Secretary Chu: "we need to get gasoline up to $10.00/gallon"
I'll grant you, the USA needs to reduce its scandalous waste of fossil fuels, but Obama has done nothing but increase the price (and add immeasurable increases to the profits of crude oil producers).

What on earth are you talking about? Are there any ACTUAL policies you'd like to point to? Or is just one out-of-context quote from 2008 doing the job by itself?

[ralph124c]

Originally Posted by GreasyJack

What on earth are you talking about? Are there any ACTUAL policies you'd like to point to? Or is just one out-of-context quote from 2008 doing the job by itself?

How about the vetoing of the oil pipeline from Canada?
That is called "reducing supply"-look it up in your economics 101 text.
Reducing supply while demand stays the same results in "increasing the price"-I'm sure you will understand it.

[GreasyJack]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

How about the vetoing of the oil pipeline from Canada?
That is called "reducing supply"-look it up in your economics 101 text.
Reducing supply while demand stays the same results in "increasing the price"-I'm sure you will understand it.

So delaying a pipeline that will reduce FUTURE bottlenecks for sending Canadian oil overseas is somehow affecting prices now? Also, the theory that rejecting the pipleine is some sort of concerted effort to reduce supply kind of breaks down when you consider that the pipeline is almost certain to be approved with the proposed minor re-route. Perhaps Obama only wants to keep gas prices high until the election, so as to prevent SUV-driving conservative voters from driving to the polls?

[Try2B Comprehensive]

This recent article makes the case that political efforts to limit carbon, and therefore coal, flopped miserably with the failure of Cap and Trade in 2010 and that there hasn't been much in the way of Beltway interference with it since (until the EPA emissions standards, which isn't exactly Obama's doing).

But new coal plants are being blocked all over the country and there is pressure to shut down a lot of the older ones. Why? Grassroots efforts, and support from people like New York mayor Bloomberg of all people:

Flanked by Hitt and Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, Bloomberg announced that his personal foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, would contribute $50 million to the campaign's new push to close existing coal plants. Bloomberg, who has long been passionate about public health (recall his 2006 restaurant trans-fat ban), cited EPA data to explain his decision: "Every year, coal-burning power plants like this one cause more than 200,000 asthma attacks nationwide, many of them affecting children," he said. "Coal pollution also kills 13,000 people every year and costs us $100 billion in medical expenses.

"Thirteen thousand people," he repeated, "from something that's planned. And it's going to happen again next year and the year after, unless we do something about it."

Bloomberg's donation will enable Beyond Coal to double down on its second phase—moving beyond blocking new plants to seeking to close a third of the roughly 580 existing ones by 2020. The money, says Brune, will help expand the campaign's paid staff from 102 to 192, including 84 organizers who will be "working on nothing but figuring out how to shut down these plants and replace them with clean energy."

Good, bad, right or wrong, the pressure on coal doesn't seem to originate from Obama.

[stw004]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

How about the vetoing of the oil pipeline from Canada?
That is called "reducing supply"-look it up in your economics 101 text.
Reducing supply while demand stays the same results in "increasing the price"-I'm sure you will understand it.

Uh, the US is producing more domestic oil right now than it has in years, possibly decades.

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by stw004

Uh, the US is producing more domestic oil right now than it has in years, possibly decades.

Most in a little more than one decade (~1998) and growing. Of course this tells us essentially nothing about what prices should be since we need to consider the global production / consumption balance nor does it tell us anything about Obama's Energy Policy. It also means essentially nothing related to whether or not we should import Canadian crude. Even if we were a net exporter, it still might make sense to import Canadian crude.

I honestly don't understand how people think that impact on U.S. crude prices even should be a consideration with the permitting of this Keystone XL pipeline. Let's say all we do is import the Canadian crude, refine it, and export the gasoline, diesel, and other products. Wouldn't it still be a benefit to the U.S.? We get something built with private money, it creates jobs, and it generates tax revenue. Isn't that worth it regardless of any impact to crude prices? Also, is there a single person who believes it is more beneficial to the environment for Canada to build a pipeline to the west coast, barge the crude to China, and have China refine it?

[stw004]

Originally Posted by LonghornDave

Most in a little more than one decade (~1998) and growing. Of course this tells us essentially nothing about what prices should be since we need to consider the global production / consumption balance nor does it tell us anything about Obama's Energy Policy. It also means essentially nothing related to whether or not we should import Canadian crude. Even if we were a net exporter, it still might make sense to import Canadian crude.

I honestly don't understand how people think that impact on U.S. crude prices even should be a consideration with the permitting of this Keystone XL pipeline. Let's say all we do is import the Canadian crude, refine it, and export the gasoline, diesel, and other products. Wouldn't it still be a benefit to the U.S.? We get something built with private money, it creates jobs, and it generates tax revenue. Isn't that worth it regardless of any impact to crude prices? Also, is there a single person who believes it is more beneficial to the environment for Canada to build a pipeline to the west coast, barge the crude to China, and have China refine it?

The fact of the matter is that Keystone is going to get their Presidential Permit eventually, and any way you cut it having more infrastructure is going to be a net gain economically. If you are worried about green house gases tar sands production is very carbon intensive so you could make the environmental argument against the pipeline from that angle.

I had a chance to sit down for a couple hours with a senior analyst at the American branch of a very large French utility. (Their American offices deal with power marketing and energy trading, on the French side they run a large fleet of nuclear reactors) He said that their models indicated that the world market price for crude oil needed to be at least $95 otherwise tar sands were a losing bet even after Keystone is built.

[LonghornDave]

Originally Posted by stw004

The fact of the matter is that Keystone is going to get their Presidential Permit eventually, and any way you cut it having more infrastructure is going to be a net gain economically. If you are worried about green house gases tar sands production is very carbon intensive so you could make the environmental argument against the pipeline from that angle.

You could make an environmental argument against producing the bitumen. I don't see how there is an argument against the pipeline though. The Keystone XL pipeline is not necessary to produce the bitumen. They can also build a They can build a pipeline to the coast and barge it out. They can also use other more environmentally unfriendly ways of transporting such as rail or truck. Furthermore, the Keystone XL pipeline will also transport Bakken crude from North Dakota. Much of this now is moving by rail or truck. Any way you look at it, this is not an environmentally smart decision. Also, I agree that it will get the permit eventually, unless the Chinese go ahead and offer to underwrite the line going to the coast or if the Canadians get sick of the stupid political games the U.S. is playing.

Originally Posted by stw004

I had a chance to sit down for a couple hours with a senior analyst at the American branch of a very large French utility. (Their American offices deal with power marketing and energy trading, on the French side they run a large fleet of nuclear reactors) He said that their models indicated that the world market price for crude oil needed to be at least $95 otherwise tar sands were a losing bet even after Keystone is built.

I'm guessing you may have spoken with someone at EDF. They are smart traders, which I have dealt with on the power side. Part of what you may not get though is that building the line changes the differentials. The economics are different when WTI trades at a $15 deduct to the global price and Canadian crude trades at a $15 deduct to WTI than if the midstream issues were figured out and everything traded at more like quality differentials. Also, we probably are going to be living in a world with >$95 global crude prices for the foreseeable future.