Monday, January 02, 2012

George Will on America's Energy Abundance and Why Progressives Crave Energy Scarcities

George Will on America's new age of energy abundance, and why progressives prefer energy scarcities:

"In 2011, for the first time in 62 years, America was a net exporter of petroleum products. For the indefinite future, a specter is haunting progressivism, the specter of abundance. Because progressivism exists to justify a few people bossing around most people and because progressives believe that only government’s energy should flow unimpeded, they crave energy scarcities as an excuse for rationing — by them — that produces ever-more-minute government supervision of Americans’ behavior.

Imagine what a horror 2011 was for progressives as Americans began to comprehend their stunning abundance of fossil fuels — beyond their two centuries’ supply of coal. Progressives responded with attempts to impede development of the vast, proven reserves of natural gas and oil here and in Canada. They bent the willowy Obama to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canadian tar sands; they raised environmental objections to new techniques for extracting gas and “tight” oil from shale formations."

80 Comments:

At 1/02/2012 10:22 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Well, maybe...sometimes the facts are different from what pundits (paid-off mouthpieces for pols?) say.

"Deep Gulf drilling thrives 18 months after BP's oil spill

Published: Friday, December 30, 2011, 9:29 AM
By The Associated Press

ALAMINOS CANYON BLOCK 857, GULF OF MEXICO — Two hundred miles off the coast of Texas, ribbons of pipe are reaching for oil and natural gas deeper below the ocean's surface than ever before.
These pipes, which run nearly two miles deep, are connected to a floating platform that is so remote Shell named it Perdido, which means "lost" in Spanish. What attracted Shell to this location is a geologic formation found throughout the Gulf of Mexico that may contain enough oil to satisfy U.S. demand for two years.
While Perdido is isolated, it isn't alone. Across the Gulf, energy companies are probing dozens of new deepwater fields thanks to high oil prices and technological advances that finally make it possible to tap them.
The newfound oil will not do much to lower global oil prices. But together with increased production from onshore U.S. fields and slowing domestic demand for gasoline, it could help reduce U.S. oil imports by more than half over the next decade.
Eighteen months ago, such a flurry of activity in the Gulf seemed unlikely. The Obama administration halted drilling and stopped issuing new permits after the explosion of a BP well killed 11 workers and caused the largest oil spill in U.S. history.
But the drilling moratorium was eventually lifted and the Obama administration issued the first new drilling permit in March. Now the Gulf is humming again and oil executives describe it as the world's best place to drill.
"In the short term and the medium term, it's clearly the Gulf of Mexico," says Matthais Bichsel, a Royal Dutch Shell PLC board member who is in charge of all of the company's new projects and technology.
By early 2012 there will be more rigs in the Gulf designed to drill in its "deep water" — defined as 2,000 feet or deeper — than before the spill.'

Okay, so we are drilling again in the Gulf, it is drill, baby, drill. And that's good. I like it.

And there there is this from the Bush jr. archives:

"Bush prevents oil, gas drilling off Florida coast
Government to buy back leasing rights

Associated Press
President Bush and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush meet in the Oval Office on Wednesday.

WASHINGTON -- With his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, looking on, President Bush sealed a deal Wednesday to prevent further oil and gas drilling off the white sand beaches of the Florida Gulf Coast and in the cypress swamps near the Everglades.

The unexpected announcement would require the federal government to repurchase $235 million worth of oil and gas leasing rights in the Destin Dome area, about 25 miles south of Pensacola, and in three wildlife areas including Big Cypress National Preserve.

Jeb Bush acknowledged that the Oval Office announcement would boost his re-election campaign in Florida, the swing state in the 2000 presidential election and a tourism mecca where polls show 75 percent oppose offshore drilling."


So the Bushes banned oil drilling off of Florida (where there is still no drilling) and oil drilling is going great guns under Obama in the Gulf.

Funny, how reality is never quite the same as the black hats and white hats you get in GOP set pieces.

Add on: It was the Bushies who pushed through ethanol, both by federal mandate and subsidy.

Imagine if Obama came up with the "urban liquid fuel program" in which urban areas produced an additive for gasoline, that you were forced to use by mandate, and that was subsidized.

Can you imagine the right-wing echo chamber screaming?

I just described our ethanol program--except it is rural subsidy.

 
At 1/02/2012 11:09 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Horse manure. Progressives do not crave energy shortages.

 
At 1/02/2012 11:19 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Lord have mercy, how misleading can you get.

U.S. Crude Oil Production was up 144,000 bbl/day in 2011.

Our Consumption was Down 820,000 bbl/day.

Net Imports- Oil and Products (Imports - Exports) was:

2010: 9,748,000 bbl/day
2011: 8,784,000 bbl/day

All that is happening is that the poor, and lower middle class can no longer afford to drive as much as evidenced by The Continuing Plunge in Vehicle Miles Traveled.

 
At 1/02/2012 11:35 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Domestic Production: 5,642,000 bbl/day.

Up 2.6%

EIA Data

 
At 1/02/2012 11:47 PM, Blogger mike k said...

"Progressives responded with attempts to impede development of the vast, proven reserves of natural gas and oil here and in Canada."

Attempts is the key word. Just because production increased doesn't mean progressives tried to limit that production.

I could be wrong. Maybe the republicans were trying to block the keystone pipeline or calling for restrictions on offshore drilling, but I haven't been able to find any instances of that.

 
At 1/03/2012 12:27 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I wonder; if progressives crave shortfalls, why did they lead the IEA Raid on the Strategic Reserves to the tune of 60,000,000 Barrels?

 
At 1/03/2012 2:12 AM, Blogger Ervin said...

There is no power in abundance.
Shortfalls lead to price spikes, which leads to calls for more regulation, end to speculation. windfall profits tax and ultimately political control of production. Climate change policies are a shallow effort to make a non-scarce good, air, scarce.

 
At 1/03/2012 9:47 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Why Progressives Crave Energy Scarcities"...

Well then the progressives won't be able to whine about some 'mega-corp' price gouging and how women, children, and minorities are hardest hit...

 
At 1/03/2012 11:13 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"So the Bushes banned oil drilling off of Florida (where there is still no drilling) and oil drilling is going great guns under Obama in the Gulf."

What a load of crap. Obama banned driling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Altantic coasts for at least 7 years. And did you notice the part in the article where it says "75% oppose offshore drilling" in Florida? Think that had something to do with it? Compare this to Alaska, where drilling in ANWR is strongly supported, yet the liberals including Obama fight it hammer and tong, including President Clinton vetoing a bill sent to him by the GOP led House and Senate.

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 8, 2011 - After imposing a nearly three-year moratorium on new offshore drilling by discarding the 2010-2015 lease plan that allowed for new development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), the Obama Administration announced a draft plan today that closes the majority of the OCS to new energy production through 2017. The Administration’s draft five-year plan prohibits new offshore drilling and only allows lease sales to occur in areas that are already open. The draft plan includes lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic – leaving portions of Alaska and the entire Atlantic and Pacific Coasts off-limits to new energy production and job creation.
“In 2008, a bipartisan agreement was reached to lift the decades-long ban on new offshore drilling and open new areas off the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coasts. Since President Obama took office, he has systematically taken steps to re-impose an offshore drilling moratorium and today he is one step closer to making that a reality for the next five years,” said House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings. “The Obama Administration’s draft plan places some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits and indefinitely abandons the scheduled lease sale off the coast of Virginia that was supposed to take place last year.

 
At 1/03/2012 11:24 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Dec 01, 2010
Obama bans offshore oil drilling near Florida
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY


....Environmental groups generally welcomed the news. "This decision is a wise and sensible step to protect Florida, the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast from an inevitable disaster from expanded drilling," Andrew Sharpless, chief executive office of Oceana, said in a statement.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who has opposed drilling in the eastern Gulf, said "it's good the president is listening to the people of Florida."

Yet the announcement drew criticism, even from environmental activists. The administration "did not go far enough," said Peter Lehner, executive director of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Leaving the door open to exploratory drilling....in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas puts precious Arctic waters and habitats at risk."

The oil industry, business groups and congressional Republicans said the decision could hurt the U.S. economy just as it recovers from the worst recession since the Great Depression.

"The Administration is sending a message to America's oil and gas industry: take your capital, technology, and jobs somewhere else," said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy, in a statement...."

 
At 1/03/2012 11:32 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

Paul-

Like I say, the real picture is muddied by reality.

Try drilling for oil off the coast from wealthy seaside mansion owners in Palm Beach. Try putting up a sky rise condo on the beach in Newport Beach, CA. Try hiring a farmworker in Arizona or Alabama.

Suddenly, who is pro-business and who is not?

Ethanol exploded under President Bush jr.---a mandated market for enfeebled, subsidized rural lardpot "businesses."

You want to say the GOP (Grifters on Parade) is better than the Dems.

I am not convinced.

 
At 1/03/2012 11:42 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Benji,

"Like I say, the real picture is muddied by reality."

No it isn't. You're just blinded by your man crush. If you haven't been convinced of his hostility to "big oil" by now, you are an even bigger ignoramus than I thought.


"Try drilling for oil off the coast from wealthy seaside mansion owners in Palm Beach. Try putting up a sky rise condo on the beach in Newport Beach, CA."

All of those examples, including the Bush Florida drilling ban, are cases of competing interests, not the outright hostility to oil drilling Obama and the Democrats exhibit openly daily.

 
At 1/03/2012 12:13 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Well, maybe...sometimes the facts are different from what pundits (paid-off mouthpieces for pols?) say." -- "Benji"


... the US government is telling us to simply "park" our vessels for at least six months. Never in the history of the United States has the government decided to shut down an entire industry for six months. ...

If the moratorium on deep water drilling is not lifted, the 33 semi-submersible rigs and/or drill ships affected will simply go to other countries where they will be well received, such as Brazil, the countries of West Africa, and Southeast Asia. They will not return to the US Gulf of Mexico for years, if ever. The damage to our industry will be irreversible. -- Weekly Standard


Ten oil rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico since the Obama Administration imposed a moratorium on deepwater oil and gas drilling in May 2010 and others could follow soon…. The rigs have left the Gulf for locations in Egypt, Congo, French Guiana, Liberia, Nigeria and Brazil.

It gets worse.

Several of the remaining rigs could be relocating soon, according to the report. These include the Paul Romano, the Ocean Monarch and the Saratoga. Moreover, eight other rigs that were planned for the Gulf have been detoured away, Don Briggs, President of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association (LOGA), points out. ...

What you are seeing in Louisiana is only a small piece of larger mosaic being put together by the Obama Administration to make affordable energy as inaccessible as possible,” he said. “From the administration’s war on coal to the serious consideration it is giving to imposing a nationwide regulation of hydraulic fracturing, to its shut down of deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, to its `endangerment finding” from the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], the administration is practicing its own form of selected industrial sabotage. -- MasterSource


Obama's Energy Sec. lies to Congress‏


A federal court ordered the Obama administration Thursday to act on five deep water drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico within 30 days, calling the delays in issuing new decisions "unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustified." -- CNN

 
At 1/03/2012 12:14 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Climate change policies are a shallow effort to make a non-scarce good, air, scarce.

=================================

Air is not scarce. Clean air is scarce in some locations.

Climate change policies have little to do with air and much to do with what we put in it.

However, even if we conclude that climate change has nothing to do with human activity, and/or there is little we can do about climate change by controlling emissions, then there will STILL be a lot of climate change policy to be made in order to anticipate and minimize the damages which will occur.

 
At 1/03/2012 12:21 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Climate change policies are a shallow effort to make a non-scarce good, air, scarce.

=================================

Air is not scarce. Clean air is scarce in some locations.

Climate change policies have little to do with air and much to do with what we put in it.

However, even if we conclude that climate change has nothing to do with human activity, and/or there is little we can do about climate change by controlling emissions, then there will STILL be a lot of climate change policy to be made in order to anticipate and minimize the damages which will occur.

 
At 1/03/2012 12:21 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

Liberals love shortages that "only government can fix." First they create and extend an oil shortage. Then they dip into the government strategic oil reserve -- fixing the problem they created by having government "increase the supply" -- and thus proving that we need MORE energy central planning.

Progressive petroleum management policy is a (fossil) shell game.

 
At 1/03/2012 12:22 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Horse manure. Progressives do not crave energy shortages." -- Hydra


While U.S. energy companies began fracking for gas in the late 1990s, there was a dramatic increase in 2005 after the administration of President George W. Bush exempted fracking from regulations under the U.S. Clean Water Act. According to Washington's energy Information Agency, shale gas production has grown 48 percent annually. ...

... during the UN climate change conference in Durban last week, Dominic Frongillo, a town councillor from Caroline, New York, which is atop the Marcellus Shale seam, estimated to contain 489 trillion cubic feet of extractable natural gas noted that "Before I left for Durban, Professor Howarth told me that "preventing unconventional gas extraction could be the number one thing we could do in the short term to control growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions -- Rig Zone


Here’s the story: the EPA says tests it conducted in Pavillion, Wyoming “indicate that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing.” However, it turns out that the EPA drilled two monitoring wells to some 900 feet – much deeper than water wells which are usually at about 300 feet – and indeed found hydrocarbons. In short, they drilled into the natural gas reservoir that has long attracted industry producers. It may the single most productive moment in EPA history. -- Fiscal Times


In January, state regulators in places like North Dakota and Pennsylvania must write new rules for hydraulic fracturing and the fluids used in the process. These rules are to be based on an EPA guidance document that is under review by the Office of Management and Budget. The document will tell states how to comply with and issue permits in compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Keep in mind that even EPA director Lisa Jackson could provide no evidence of groundwater contamination due to fracking. She recently recently told a House Oversight Committee hearing that, despite anecdotal evidence, "I'm not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water."

Every single well in the Bakken and other formations is fracture-treated. Lynn Helms, North Dakota's director of the Department of Mineral Resources, sees this as a ruse to stop "fracking" altogether. He says it will take at least until January 2013 to write the rules which must be reviewed and approved. While this is under way, Helms believes the EPA will impose a moratorium on drilling using hydraulic fracturing in the name of protecting the environment. "I believe it will be stopped cold for 12 to 24 months. The best case is 15 months and that's only if we red-lighted everything else and got nothing else done," Helms told the Bismarck Tribune. The economic consequences of this are enormous. -- IBD

 
At 1/03/2012 12:22 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

A controversial method of natural gas drilling — known as "fracking" — has begun to tap the energy-rich Marcellus Shale, a huge geological formation that underlies much of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. In New York, fracking has been stalled by opposition from environmental groups, legislators and people such as the Diehls.

A moratorium on drilling until May 2011 passed the state Senate this month and awaits action in the Assembly, whose powerful speaker, Democrat Sheldon Silver, favors passage of the ban. The moratorium would be in force while the state Department of Environmental Conservation rewrites drilling rules to make them tougher. -- USA Today


Anti-Fracking Enviros Attempt to Silence NY State's Top Staff Geologist‏

Environmental Defense Fund admits propaganda effort against natural gas exploration is bunk‏

Video: "Gasland" director confronted on methane in drinking water before "fracking"

 
At 1/03/2012 12:23 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Horse manure. Progressives do not crave energy shortages." -- Hydra


Call it the "Pelosi premium" we're all now paying. It's a problem driven by domestic supply restrictions imposed by the Democratic Congress in the face of growing worldwide demand. The Democrats preach energy independence while they do everything in their power to prevent it. If the American people truly want change, this would be it. ...

The U.S. Congress has voted consistently to keep 85% of America's offshore oil and gas off-limits, while China and Cuba drill 60 miles from Key West, Fla. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that the restricted areas contain 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. --- IBD


Normally, what are called "economic zones" extend 200 miles off a country's coastline. In some cases, there are conflicts based on resources and geography. In 1977, President Carter signed a treaty with communist Cuba that essentially split the difference and created for Cuba an "exclusive economic zone" extending from the western tip of Cuba northward virtually to Key West. Cuba then divided its side of the Florida Strait into 59 parcels and put them up for lease.

The U.S. Geological Survey recently estimated the North Cuban Basin contains as much as 9 billion barrels of oil and 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Other estimates range from 5 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude. Pools of oil and natural gas tend not to obey lines drawn on a map. It's certain that at least some of Cuba's wells will be tapping oil pools that straddle the boundary separating our zone from Cuba's, meaning Havana will be getting oil that should be ours. ... IBD


Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

“This is a perfect example of the EPA implementing rules and regulations without considering the devastating impact they may have on local economies and jobs,” Capito said. ...

The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas. -- The Hill

 
At 1/03/2012 12:28 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"... if we conclude that climate change has nothing to do with human activity, and/or there is little we can do about climate change by controlling emissions, then there will STILL be a lot of climate change policy to be made in order to anticipate and minimize the damages which will occur." -- Hydra

Huh? Regulation for regulations sake? The mind of a leftist is truly something to behold.

 
At 1/03/2012 2:02 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Horse manure. Progressives do not crave energy shortages." -- Hydra


S.22 is a smorgasbord of 160 bills totaling more than 1,300 pages and, no, we're not sure how many who voted for it actually read it. A stimulus bill it is not, for it locks up an additional 2 million acres to the 107 million acres of federally owned wilderness areas. That total is more than the area of Montana and Wyoming combined. Speaking of Wyoming, ...This bill ... takes about 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 300 million barrels of oil out of production in that state, according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ... The energy resources walled off by this bill would nearly match the annual production levels of our two natural gas production states — Texas and Alaska ... Earlier this year, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 Utah oil and gas leases that had gone through seven years of studies, negotiations and land-use planning. They were rejected because temporary drilling operations might be "visible" from several national parks more than a mile away. We are not making this up. -- IBD

 
At 1/03/2012 2:32 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Democratic senators are skeptical about new efforts by Republicans and the Bush administration to increase offshore drilling, despite a government report by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management showing that there are 139 billion barrels of oil in the United States (onshore and offshore combined).

The estimated oil deposits, which amount to more than the known oil reserves in Iran, Iraq, Russia, Nigeria, or Venezuela, should be largely ignored, according to some Democrats, who instead favor focusing domestic drilling efforts on lands already leased to oil companies. -- CNS News

 
At 1/03/2012 2:55 PM, Blogger ChicagoMark said...

With so much excess oil and gas prices should be coming down. Oops...looks like they are going up. Americans paid more for oil and gas in 2011 than any year ever (avg price for the whole year).

 
At 1/03/2012 2:55 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Still too muddy to see clearly, Benji? Let me guess....

 
At 1/03/2012 3:26 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Rufus: "Lord have mercy, how misleading can you get."

U.S. Crude Oil Production - up:

Consumption - down:

Net Imports - down:

In what some would see as a positive trend, Rufus finds something to complain about:

"All that is happening is that the poor, and lower middle class can no longer afford to drive as much as evidenced by The Continuing Plunge in Vehicle Miles Traveled."

A previous whine by Rufus about increased oil production in ND:

"That's all great, but we still import 9.5 Million bbls/day.

At 77 bbl/day it would take, what, 123,000 more wells to close that gap?
"

Is there NOTHING that would make you happy?

You do realize that lower demand and higher supply = lower prices, right?

 
At 1/03/2012 3:31 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Horse manure. Progressives do not crave energy shortages."

In typical collectivist fashion, Hydra pretends to speak for all progressives.

 
At 1/03/2012 3:49 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I wonder; if progressives crave shortfalls, why did they lead the IEA Raid on the Strategic Reserves to the tune of 60,000,000 Barrels?"

A lame attempt to bolster the sagging fortunes of BHO by flooding the market with oil, thus lowering prices, based on the strange notion that his popularity is inversely proportional to the price of oil.

Sometimes selfish, personal, short term goals interrupt the long term progressive agenda.

 
At 1/03/2012 4:03 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

...Hydra pretends to speak for all progressives.

==============================

Nope, just pointing out a fallacious generalization.

It might have been more clear to say that not all progressives crave energy shortages, in which case the generalizsation by Will is still fallacious.

Most pople would have picked up on that and taken it at face value: a warning that there may be other fallacies in Will's article.

Only you would somehow misunderstand that to indicate some kind of collectivist fetish on my part.

One might equally well say that in typical capitalist fashion George Will pretends to know what all Progressives think.

In either case, the leading phrase "in typical.... fashion" does nothing to elucidate but is rather inserted so as to prejudice the issue.

I would suggest that the thesis that ANYONE craves energy shortages is preposterous on its face.

 
At 1/03/2012 4:03 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"However, even if we conclude that climate change has nothing to do with human activity, and/or there is little we can do about climate change by controlling emissions, then there will STILL be a lot of climate change policy to be made in order to anticipate and minimize the damages which will occur."

First of all, you assume something not in evidence.

Then - "...if we conclude that climate change has nothing to do with human activity, and/or there is little we can do about climate change...

Exactly what policies would you suggest?

 
At 1/03/2012 4:06 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You do realize that lower demand and higher supply = lower prices, right?

================================

Not necessarily.

Depends on how much it costs to win the extra supply. Vange points out that the energy cost of fracking may approach the value of the energy extracted, for example.

 
At 1/03/2012 4:13 PM, Blogger Paul said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 1/03/2012 4:14 PM, Blogger Paul said...

One might equally well say that in typical capitalist fashion George Will pretends to know what all Progressives think.

Can you name a "progressive" who is pro-drilling?

"I would suggest that the thesis that ANYONE craves energy shortages is preposterous on its face."

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
~Barack Obama

 
At 1/03/2012 4:20 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"In either case, the leading phrase "in typical.... fashion" does nothing to elucidate but is rather inserted so as to prejudice the issue.

I would suggest that the thesis that ANYONE craves energy shortages is preposterous on its face.
"

You are correct. My comment was intended as snark. So, rather than discussing my snarkiness at length, why didn't you address the excellent points made by Che? Too tough for you? Why select the easy one?

 
At 1/03/2012 4:24 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Depends on how much it costs to win the extra supply. Vange points out that the energy cost of fracking may approach the value of the energy extracted, for example."

And he is correct. That would determine who can stay in business and who can't, but price is determined by supply and demand, not cost of production.

 
At 1/03/2012 4:29 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Hydra: "I would suggest that the thesis that ANYONE craves energy shortages is preposterous on its face.""

Paul: "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
~Barack Obama
"

OOOPS!

Did you forget about that one?

I'm looking forward to your response to Paul.

 
At 1/03/2012 4:47 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Vange points out that the energy cost of fracking may approach the value of the energy extracted, for example." -- Hydra


Vange, like you, is prone to making unsupported assertions. When he is called out, he simply repeats himself in the apparent belief that if he repeats himself enough that his assertions will become true.

The facts, however, are not on his side:

"... a lot of the new gas being brought on line now is what’s called associated gas — that is it is produced from wells alongside oil or natural gas liquids like propane and butane. With petroleum selling for $90 a barrel, drillers in places like the Eagle Ford shale or the Bakken can give away their natural gas for nothing and still make 100% annual returns on their drilling dollars." -- Forbes

 
At 1/03/2012 5:12 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Ahhh hydra, trying to cherry pick history never quite works out...

Listen to this progressive moron: Shut those coal plants!

 
At 1/03/2012 6:22 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Here's one that might just make Hydra's and Benji's heads explode. Keep in mind Salazar is the fool Obama chose to be Secretary of the Inteorior.

 
At 1/03/2012 7:42 PM, Blogger juandos said...

You're right paul but pseudo benny and hydra want to continue to cherry pick the facts that seem to bolster their points of view...

Has Interior Secretarty Salazar learned anything? Of course not...

From the Houston Chronicle dated Jun. 9 '11: Interior secretary defends drilling ban

The money line: The drilling industry is still deciphering safety rules the government unveiled Tuesday and is awaiting environmental requirements the Interior Department is expected to detail next week. But shallow-water drillers warned that rigs and workers could be idled while they comply with the new mandates and wait for regulators to sign off on their progress...

More from the moron: Obama doesn't believe in offshore drilling

Then again maybe its the math: It’s the Math, Stupid!: Seven Devastating Facts About 2012

 
At 1/03/2012 10:32 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Che, nice quotes.

What does any of that have to do with the (spurious) claim that progressives crave energy shortages?

 
At 1/03/2012 11:08 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Cherry pick what facts? I have not said anything except that it is silly to claim progressives crave energy shortages. That is ridiculous, on its face.

It is equally stupid as the claim that fighting shale gas drilling is the most important thing we can do to fight global warming.

Both ridiculous.

 
At 1/03/2012 11:17 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Looked to me like Mitch made a fool out of himself. After a couple or three tries, one would think he would realize he was getting nowhere, and try a different approach. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result.

 
At 1/03/2012 11:19 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Vange, I see Chesapeake made a pretty nice sale today. What say you?

 
At 1/04/2012 12:22 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"What does any of that have to do with the (spurious) claim that progressives crave energy shortages?" -- Hydra


Two and two. See if you can put them together.

 
At 1/04/2012 12:25 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"I see Chesapeake made a pretty nice sale today." -- Hydra


France’s largest oil company has acquired a $2.32 billion holding in Ohio’s Utica shale from Chesapeake Energy Corp. and EnerVest Ltd.

The deal with Total SA provides energy giant Chesapeake with the needed funds to drill extensively in eastern Ohio for natural gas and liquids.

“We believe that the Utica shale is a world-class asset with world-class returns and now we have a world-class partner to help develop the play more aggressively than we could have with our own resources,” said Aubrey K. McClendon, Chesapeake’s chief executive officer.

Total SA will gain a 25 percent stake in 619,000 acres in 10 Ohio counties, Oklahoma-based Chesapeake announced Tuesday.

-- Ohio.com


Wow. How did Chesapeake get Total SA to pony up $2.3 billion for a measly 25 percent stake in their Utica shale properties? Haven't they been reading the 10ks!!! Don't they know that it's all just a big scam?!?!

 
At 1/04/2012 12:55 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"I have not said anything except that it is silly to claim progressives crave energy shortages. That is ridiculous, on its face"...

Thanks hydra for reminding me that with liberals yesterday never existed...

 
At 1/04/2012 12:57 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"Looked to me like Mitch made a fool out of himself. After a couple or three tries, one would think he would realize he was getting nowhere, and try a different approach"...

Wow! Its truly amazing how you refused to get the point hydra...

 
At 1/04/2012 2:03 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

with liberals yesterday never existed....

+++++++++++++++++++

For conservatives, yesterday is all there is.

 
At 1/04/2012 2:09 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Wow! Its truly amazing how you refused to get the point hydra...

++++++++++++++++++

I did not see any point to such a display of obstinacy, on either side.

Perhaps you can explain it to me.

 
At 1/04/2012 2:19 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Consider the history and economics of mining. We go in and take the easy stuff, then move on. When the price is right we go back and reopen the mine, at great expense.

Is there no scenario in which it makes more sense to finish one job before we move on? Instead of running around like headless chickens?

 
At 1/04/2012 2:28 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

puts precious Arctic waters and habitats at risk.....

++++++++++++++

Notice how this clown presupposes to put a high price on something he does not own.

What we have here is not a drilling problem or an energy problem, it is an ownership problem.

 
At 1/04/2012 2:38 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

What does two and two have to do with the (spurious) claim that progressives crave energy shortages?

It is a stupid claim, no one wants less energy. There are, however competing interests. We should open a market and let them compete.

You want to see drilling off of Virginia? Figure out a way sierra club could profit from it.

 
At 1/04/2012 2:43 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

How did we get to the point that conservatives wish to despoil resources and liberals wish to conserve them, but neither side wishes to pay for the consequences of their actions?

 
At 1/04/2012 9:42 AM, Blogger Paul said...

You want to see drilling off of Virginia? Figure out a way sierra club could profit from it.

You seriously think the Sierra Club is just pissed they aren't get in on the action?

"How did we get to the point that conservatives wish to despoil resources and liberals wish to conserve them.."

Speaking of preposterous, show me some evidence conservatives "wish to despoil resources." What utter nonsense.

 
At 1/04/2012 12:46 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"For conservatives, yesterday is all there is"...

And of course you don't remember why hydra, right?

 
At 1/04/2012 12:48 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Perhaps you can explain it to me"...

Sorry hydra, I don't any simpler words...

 
At 1/04/2012 12:56 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You are right, despoil was a bad choice of words. I would say that it appears from their rhetoric and actions that they are not as open to considering how a resource should be managed. As one contributor here said, so what if we wiped out the passenger pigeon and heath hen, we just grow more chickens. And you are right again, in that it was a bad generalization, just as was the one suggested by George Will.


As for the Sierra Club, I think that incentives count. One reason we have bad regulations is that there is almost no cost associated with saying "no". People, or Organizations think they can get some benefit at little or no cost, so the resources that allow them that benefit are over used. I believe there are market based solutions that could be used to regulate the level of regulations, such that the perceived benefits are balanced by the perceived costs.

I don't think he realized it, but something along that line is suggested in Mitch's video of dueling obstinacy with Salazar: let us set and release certain controls based on certain triggers.

If, for example, you are 100% convinced that there is no relation between urban ozone levels and the incidence of urban asthma, then you ought to have zero objection to triggering some level of controls if both ozone and asthma go up by some agreed amount.

Likewise, there needs to be a plan to reduce, eliminate, or change the controls, if it develops they are not working.

 
At 1/04/2012 2:05 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

What is that, seven devastating facts about the first four days of 2012? What has that got to do with Progressives somehow desiring energy shortages?

But, sisnce you insist on changing the subject and forecasting history, Why is it that conservatives (gross generalization) are so fond of selling that kind of fear, (and conservationists are so fond of selling other kinds of fear)?

Why is it that, in spite of years of (rather pollyanna-ish) financial anecdotes to the contrary, tirelessly presented by MP, some still think we are going to hell in a handbasket?

Why is it that for one side financial hell is the earthshaker, never mind how we get the money, and for the other side environmental hell is the big fear, never mind the financial consequences. Both sides are all wet, it seems to me.

And while we are talking about history that never happened, you do realize that from 1897 until 1929 (guess what happened then) we enjoyed the leadership of six Republican Presidents and one Democrat.

After that collosal failure of an experiment, we followed up with four Democrats and one Republican golfer.

And then following that run, we had the outstanding example of Richard Nixon and two Republican presidents that were not re-electable. Plus RailRoad Reagan, who was no slouch on deficits and taxes himself.

Even Wiliam Buckley conceded that we were in for a long run of liberal ascendancy, and unfortunately, he was probably right, and the fact that Bush had to invent the concept of compassionate conservatives, probably suggests why that is.

"I don't have to give a crap about anyone or anything, why I don't even have to govern, because The Market will Take Care of Everything (except for your sex life and all those foreigners)", just stikes me as a dumb ass way to get elected.

 
At 1/04/2012 2:39 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"What is that, seven devastating facts about the first four days of 2012? What has that got to do with Progressives somehow desiring energy shortages"...

ROFLMAO!

Thank you hydra for yet another chuckle...

 
At 1/04/2012 3:17 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Consider the history and economics of mining. We go in and take the easy stuff, then move on. When the price is right we go back and reopen the mine, at great expense.

Is there no scenario in which it makes more sense to finish one job before we move on? Instead of running around like headless chickens?
"

Who is we? Are you involved in mining?

 
At 1/04/2012 3:32 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"How did we get to the point that conservatives wish to despoil resources and liberals wish to conserve them.."

LOL - You are funny.

Thanks for the handy test for conservative/liberal. From now on I can just ask people what they prefer regarding resources, and their response will tell me what their ideology is. It all seems so simple.

Me: "Sir, do you wish to preserve resources, or despoil them?"

Man on Street: "I wish to despoil
them."

Me: "Ahah! Then I know you are a conservative."

 
At 1/04/2012 3:36 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Why is it that conservatives (gross generalization) are so fond of selling that kind of fear.."

Again:
"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

~Barack Obama"

 
At 1/04/2012 3:54 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I don't think he realized it, but something along that line is suggested in Mitch's video of dueling obstinacy with Salazar: let us set and release certain controls based on certain triggers."

Oh, he realized it, all right, that was the whole point, to relax controls based on gas price.

He showed Salazar to be absurd by increasing his suggested trigger point to $10/gallon. In other words, Salazar didn't believe controls should be relaxed at any price.

 
At 1/04/2012 3:59 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"If, for example, you are 100% convinced that there is no relation between urban ozone levels and the incidence of urban asthma, then you ought to have zero objection to triggering some level of controls if both ozone and asthma go up by some agreed amount. "

You have this backward. If I don't believe there's any harm from urban ozone, why would I agree to controls on it that will cost me money?

More regulation for it's own sake?

 
At 1/04/2012 4:14 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Consider the history and economics of mining. We go in and take the easy stuff, then move on. When the price is right we go back and reopen the mine, at great expense.

Is there no scenario in which it makes more sense to finish one job before we move on? Instead of running around like headless chickens?
"

Only someone who believes in central planning could ask that question.

Do you understand that private companies engage in an activity when they can make a profit at it?

When the price of whatever they mine drops below their cost to mine it, they will cease, as would any rational actor. There's no reason to continue mining at a loss, just to say you have gotten it all, which incidentally, you can seldom say of a mine.

When the price rises to a level at which it is again profitable to mine, the operator - or some other operator, will do so. The cost of reopening the mine is part of the equation.

I suspect this would be very clear to you if you applied it to your own circumstances.

If you are growing a crop to sell, and the price drops too low for profit, you will quit growing it.

When the price again rises to a level that allows you a profit, even considering the cost of restarting the operation, you will do so.

Why is that so hard?

 
At 1/04/2012 5:11 PM, Blogger Paul said...

I missed this from Hydra:

I did not see any point to such a display of obstinacy, on either side.

Perhaps you can explain it to me"



You gotta be kidding me.

 
At 1/04/2012 6:00 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"And while we are talking about history that never happened, you do realize that from 1897 until 1929 (guess what happened then) we enjoyed the leadership of six Republican Presidents and one Democrat."

Yeah, and one of the Republicans was a serious progressive, and the democrat, another serious progressive, caused more harm than all the rest put together.

We can thank that fascist for the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the FTC, and US involvement in WW1, among other disasters.

 
At 1/04/2012 6:03 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You gotta be kidding me.

================================

No, really. What did anyone gain by that exchange?

If either one of those guys was a salesman working for me, I would fire them.

 
At 1/04/2012 6:12 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

We can thank that fascist for the income tax, the Federal Reserve, the FTC, and US involvement in WW1, among other disasters.

=================================

You give way too much credit or blame to presidents. he did not do any of that stuff by himself.

 
At 1/04/2012 7:09 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"You give way too much credit or blame to presidents. he did not do any of that stuff by himself."

As head of the Democratic Party, he asked for all those things and got them, and signed them into law.

If they had been enacted over his veto I might feel differently.

 
At 1/04/2012 9:45 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I meant Teddy the fascist, not Obama.

 
At 1/04/2012 11:19 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

If they had been enacted over his veto I might feel differently.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, what you are saying, is that if the Republicans had done this against his will, everything would have been OK?



I will say this again:

After paying insurance premiums for decades, my inurance company was able to drop me when I needed insurance the most.

When I could no longer obtain insurance, at any price, i bought a policy for my wife, which was retracted retroactively after 18 months on fraudulent claims that she had not disclosed something onher application.

When she was rear ended by an uninsured motorist, it took me eight years to collect on her own uninsured motorist insurance, in order to pay for her surgeries.

And when I suffered a legitimate home owners loss of $30k my insurance company refused to pay more than $9k. As my attorney put it, exactly the difference that would make a suit uneconomical.



Nothing you can say will overcome my experience enough to make me believe that most of what Obama accomplished was not necessary. Mandatory health insurance (mandates on both sides) was necessary. The consumer protection agency is necessary ( to make sure it does not cost $300 to fix an aut headlamp, and to enforce insurance contracts).

Maybe obamacare is flawed. It would have been vastly improved by making it a single payer paln instead of a massive giveaway to the same companies that cheated me. (legally maybe, but it is STILL a cheat.)

Flawed as it may be, Republicans offered little or nothing that would actually improve it. Sales across state lines would have made insurance subject to interstate commerce, exactly what republicans do not want. AND it would have resulted in the Delaware of health insurance as companies fled to the LCD.

Tort reform might have meant I never collected on my wife's insurance. Republicans could have done something meaningful, but what they attempted was a joke, a bad joke.

Larry is right: they had plenty of time to come up with a better plan, and they came up with nothing.

 
At 1/04/2012 11:20 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

The Republicans currrent best bet at defeating Obama is the author of Romneycare.

I do business with 100 companies a month. If 10% of them are out to cheat me, I am outnumbered. I cannot afford to take them on, one at a time. I cannot always know in advance which will screw up. I cannot win that war by myself. But, if they are cheating hundreds or thousands the same way, whetehr by design or negligence, then I ought to be able to share the costs of redress.

When (and if) organizations cheat, it takes organizations to fight back. Whether that means labor unions or consumer unions.

And despite what you believe, I am a conservative. I think the left is nutty as a pecan grove. It is only the intellectual dishonesty of the right that has driven me away. That, and the fact that it is (local) environmental Republicans that have cost me even more than the fraudulent insurors.


All of the above is a true fact. And despite the fact that by geogoraphy, income, and history, I OUGHT to be a prime conservative supporter and contributor, the lunatics running the asylum have managed to drive me away.

How did thay manage to do this? Only because they are more effective at presenting a united front. If the lunatics on the left could get their differences together enough to pick one or two causes to go after, with the singleminded stupidity that the Republicans have managed, I would be back in conservative planning in a heartbeat.

Conservatives have entirely overestimated the cooperative spirit of the collectivists. This is an inevitable result of their propensity for conspiracy theories and doom and gloom: they have no idea what they are talking about, because they are too busy shouting down and demonizing their supposed enemies.

These are the same enemies that they supposedly want to have as customers.

For myself, I want the most liberal and the most conservative customers doing business with me. I do not want them thinking I am spending my free time at the political club drumming up ways to preferentially separate themn from their money or their preferred sex partner.

I am not blind to Obamas failures. But I think he had lots of help from the other party.

OK, so Obamacare is a problem. Given where I came from, personal experience you cannot plausibly deny (though some of you have tried in the past), this appears to be a demonstrably better value than I had before, which was zero.

It should not be too hard to improve on zero, but so far, the Republicans have managed it.

 
At 1/04/2012 11:28 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

The next thing that will happen here is a torrent of abuse directed at me.

I am truly sorry that deafness due to the drumbeat of your dogma prevents you from discerning the soundings of my despair for the dismissiveness our party displays so proudly.

 
At 1/05/2012 4:05 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I meant Teddy the fascist, not Obama."

You are confused. The reference was to Wilson the fascist.

It's so good to hear your insurance stories once again!

 
At 1/05/2012 7:12 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"And despite what you believe, I am a conservative. I think the left is nutty as a pecan grove"...

Anyone buying this nonsense from hydra?

 
At 1/05/2012 10:12 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"No, really. What did anyone gain by that exchange?"

Amazing.

Dennis Prager likes to say he prefers clarity over agreement. Salazar certainly provided that.

 
At 1/05/2012 10:15 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Juandos,

Not really, no.

 
At 1/05/2012 10:18 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"Tort reform might have meant I never collected on my wife's insurance. "

Highly doubtful, but it might have meant you would have had to collect less.

 
At 1/07/2012 1:56 AM, Blogger Mkelley said...

Well those happy progressives at the EPA sure seem to crave an electricity shortage:
http://news.yahoo.com/epa-rule-force-shutdown-power-plants-165300911.html

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home