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.
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?
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.
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):
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[sup]tm[/sup], 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,.
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. Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies @ MIT 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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, 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
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.
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.
Well good then. Glad we got that cleared up. 
-XY
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.