Saturday, January 21, 2012

Why Does Obama Want the U.S. To Be Energy Poor?

From Thomas J. Pyle, President and CEO of the American Energy Alliance:

"One of the reasons the unemployment rate has been stuck above 8 percent for years is because the Obama administration is actively blocking the private sector from creating jobs. Approving the Keystone XL pipeline, now in its third year of review, would have gone a long way toward boosting American job creation and strengthening our energy security. But the President prefers the politics of energy poverty and has sided with environmentalist radicals over hardworking Americans and their families.

The reality at the White House has nothing to do with protecting the environment -- it’s about reinforcing a myth of energy scarcity on the United States and driving up the price of energy.   

For decades, one of the key tenets of environmental doctrine has been that the United States, and North America as a whole, is running out of affordable energy sources like oil, natural gas, and coal. For this reason, they argue, our economy must switch to renewables like wind farms and solar panels that produce electricity at intermittent rates. Through mandates, government has forced consumers to buy these sources, and the Obama administration has propped up Big Green Energy through taxpayer-funded loans to companies like Solyndra. 

 Yet the discovery of cost-effective oil production from Canadian oil reserves—as well as the large-scale deployment of shale technologies here in the U.S.—turns the environmentalists’ politics of energy scarcity on its head, and that is at the heart of the administration’s opposition to Keystone XL. The president wants the United States to be energy poor."

Read more here.


41 Comments:

At 1/21/2012 10:02 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

That's just silly.

It was the height of arrogance, and stupidity to attempt to route the Keystone over the Sandhills. The Republican Governor of Nebraska was among the First to call "foul.'

And, while we're at it, a Solar Panel in El Paso is U.S. Energy.

The Tar Sands is Canadian Energy.

And, in addendum, the XL Pipeline will Not lower energy prices in the U.S. It will raise them. In my area we're looking at, probably, another $0.25/gal for gasoline once the pipelines are completed.

 
At 1/21/2012 10:26 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Here's something you'd better think about; While gasoline demand has been running Down between 5% and 6% YOY for some time now (we're currently at -6% YOY,)

The Price of Gasoline is Up 9% YOY.

And, this is after the U.S. Government, and the IEA released 60 Million Barrels of Oil from "Strategic Reserves.

 
At 1/21/2012 10:35 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

So what, then, explains the president’s veto of the project?

Recall the article appearing a few weeks ago, noting that the Democratic Party has decided to write off the votes of the white working-class in the 2012 election, which it has judged is going to overwhelmingly go to the Republicans. Instead, it has decided to try and increase the vote of the suburban upper-middle class and coastal elites, as well as the vote of college students who had been so enthusiastic about Obama in 2008. Without such an increase to make up for the loss of working-class votes (once a Democratic mainstay), the Democratic policy wonks believe Obama will lose. ...

... in the process, Obama would try to energize the left-wing base in Hollywood and the campuses, which care little about the needs of the working-class and the unions, but respond with passion to the clarion calls of Al Gore, Robert Redford, and Laurie David.

So if the unions supported the pipeline, as they did, why are they so silent now that the president has turned against a proposal they backed? The answer is that I suspect a private deal was made last week: The unions would downgrade their disappointment at the veto of Keystone XL, in return for the president unconstitutionally using his powers to override the Constitution and put in pro-labor recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the same board that tried to penalize Boeing for wanting to move its new facility to South Carolina from the state of Washington. -- PJ Media

 
At 1/21/2012 10:45 AM, Blogger Don Culo said...

Some people are so stupid, we will never run out of natural sources of energy. Oil and natural gas will be here forever so drill baby drill !!

 
At 1/21/2012 10:47 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 1/21/2012 10:49 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

TransCanada may shorten the pipeline, building it out on the US side of the border. This strategy would allow them to complete the project more quickly once Obama and his leftist cronies no longer hold the reins of power:

TransCanada Corp. (TRP) may shorten the initial path for its rejected Keystone XL project, bringing oil from Montana’s Bakken Shale to refiners in the Gulf of Mexico and removing the need for federal approval.

“There certainly is a potential opportunity to connect the Bakken to the Gulf Coast,” Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president of energy and oil pipelines, said in a telephone interview today. “That is obviously something we’ll be looking into over the next few weeks.”

TransCanada’s $7 billion Keystone XL proposal to bring crude from Canada’s oil sands to the Gulf was rejected yesterday by the Obama administration. The project required U.S. approval because it crossed the border with Canada. The company may seek that approval after it builds the segment from Montana to the Gulf, Pourbaix said. -- Bloomberg

 
At 1/21/2012 11:16 AM, Blogger jorod said...

Once again, reality trumps ideology.

 
At 1/21/2012 11:26 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Then, of course, they connect up to the tar sands after the election, regardless of who wins.

The "Unions" know this.

 
At 1/21/2012 11:40 AM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

If one considers alternative energy schemes as crony capitalist ventures, with taxpayer dollars being profit to the rent seeking special interests, then is the postponement of the XL pipeline merely an exercise in the best interest of the special interest?

A special interest, in this case alternative energy, can only rent seek (acquire taxpayer dollars) if the special interest has a politico or collection of politico enablers. Governments do not think, act nor react. Only politicos think, act and react. Hence politicos through the mechanism of government allocate taxpayer dollars to special interests. Therefore, politicos associated with alternative energy have a vested interest in the political constituency exercise that taxpayer dollars generate.

Many of the politicos with a vested interest in the crony capitalism of alternative energy also have a vested interest in environmentalists. As the formula goes, the politico through the mechanism of government uses taxpayer dollars to build a political constituency. In this particular case the constituencies are associated in that the crony capitalist of alternative energy “appears” to be the champion of the environmentalist. Therefore the politico sponsor receives a double constituency building outcome through the awarding of taxpayer dollars.

 
At 1/21/2012 12:28 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

This commentary is hyperbole, but the D-Party needs to become more pro-energy. And more pro-business.

 
At 1/21/2012 12:36 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I don't read Obama as being anti-energy. I see him as a rational man, looking at flat to Declining Oil Supplies, (depending on whose figures you accept) since 2005, and trying to develop other technologies, and resources - just like George W. Bush was doing.

 
At 1/21/2012 1:22 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

If the Canadians were "smart", they'd agree to sell the oil to only the US.

That WOULD put Obama in a real bind.

or if the Canadians were only "half smart", they'd bargain... for say 1/2 of it going to the US instead of an all or nothing, throw down the gauntlet approach.

by the way, the Gov of Nebraska ..you know..the guy who has a problem with the pipeline.. he's a Republican, right?

so does this mean he's a "job killing" gov?

;-)

 
At 1/21/2012 1:51 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"And, this is after the U.S. Government, and the IEA released 60 Million Barrels of Oil from "Strategic Reserves"...

Good one obamabot!

Golly! Why that much oil is four days of refinery production...

"The Republican Governor of Nebraska was among the First to call "foul.'"...

Gov. Heineman Disappointed in President Obama's Decision to Deny Pipeline Permit

 
At 1/21/2012 2:03 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Ahhh well, it just gets better and better...

From CBS News/AP Bismark: More ND oil will be railed with no US pipeline

North Dakota oil drillers increasingly will rely on trains to move barrels of crude to market after the Obama administration's decision to reject plans for a pipeline that would run from Canada to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico, state and industry officials say.

"Pipelines are by far the safest and most economically efficient way to transport oil, but we are left with a limited number of options if pipelines are off the table," said Tony Clark, chairman of the North Dakota Public Service Commission. "Once the oil is flowing, it has to go somewhere."

 
At 1/21/2012 2:14 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Nebraska governor suggests ‘conditional’ Keystone approval

January 18, 2012, 4:52 PM
The Obama adminstration could have given conditional approval to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, according to Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman.

In an interview published Tuesday by the Governors Journal, prior to the administration’s rejection of the pipeline, Heineman said Obama could arrange it so that the last part of Keystone XL to be built would be the section that runs through Nebraska.

Heineman, a Republican, last year rejected TransCanada Corp.’s TRP initial plans for the pipeline with the backing of the GOP-controlled legislature as it would have run through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills area above the Ogallala aquifer. The Sand Hills area — grass-covered sand dunes in the northwestern part of the state — consumes roughly one-third of Nebraska’s land mass, and the aquifer is a key source of water for Nebraska and much of the Great Plains region.

But Heineman and lawmakers say they aren’t opposed to the pipeline, only that it ran through the Sand Hills region. TransCanada was supposed to have come up with an alternative route in coming days and weeks.

One of the reasons the Obama administration’s State Department gave for rejecting the project was that Nebraska had yet to settle on where the pipeline would run. Officials from Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality said TransCanada has yet to submit a proposed rerouting."

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/01/19/keystone-xl-the-sandhills-problem-60039

So the Gov is speaking out of both sides of his arse?

He was opposed to it before he was
"conditionally" in favor of it?

such a principled position!

liar liar pants on fire.

 
At 1/21/2012 3:27 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Anyone who says there's no difference between the GOP and the Democrats is a f*cking idiot.

"Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
~Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu

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


The Man Who Bought North Dakota

"Hamm is convinced that the Bakken—and another formation right under it called Three Forks—can help North America take a big step toward energy independence. He gets downright angry talking about federal legislation that he says threatens tax benefits for oil exploration. Over a plate of chicken-fried steak at the Buckskin Bar & Grill in Killdeer, he sets his fork down and scowls, recalling a chat he had with President Barack Obama in July at a White House event for Hamm and others who’ve pledged most of their wealth to charity. Hamm says he told Obama there’s plenty of oil to be found in the U.S. He felt the President blew him off. “It was like, if you’re in the oil-and-gas industry, you don’t matter,” he says."

 
At 1/21/2012 4:13 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

that he says threatens tax benefits for oil exploration.

Let's substitute the word, "ethanol" for oil exploration, and see how it sounds.

 
At 1/21/2012 4:52 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Tax benefits, eh? Are there really any real tax benefits?

Just how much more of a tax & fees load should the oil company pay and pass that increase onto the consumer?

 
At 1/21/2012 6:13 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Rufus: "It was the height of arrogance, and stupidity to attempt to route the Keystone over the Sandhills. The Republican Governor of Nebraska was among the First to call "foul.'"

I guess they all forget how few spills there have actually been, in the middle of a pipeline. In addition, they must have forgotten that oil floats on water, so deep wells would be unaffected in any case. This is NIMBY, pure & simple.

"And, while we're at it, a Solar Panel in El Paso is U.S. Energy.

The Tar Sands is Canadian Energy.
"

Oil and energy are commodities, and lack citizenship papers. What does this even mean?

"And, in addendum, the XL Pipeline will Not lower energy prices in the U.S. It will raise them. In my area we're looking at, probably, another $0.25/gal for gasoline once the pipelines are completed."

Can you explain how this wou d work? Hypothetically, of course, as the pipeline won't now be built.

 
At 1/21/2012 6:49 PM, Blogger Tom said...

The Sandhills area already has 28,000 miles of pipelines in it, I heard one commentator say on TV. In any case, they will reroute around it. The nation will reroute around Obama. Neither can happen too soon.

 
At 1/21/2012 9:00 PM, Blogger randian said...

I don't read Obama as being anti-energy. I see him as a rational man, looking at flat to Declining Oil Supplies, (depending on whose figures you accept) since 2005, and trying to develop other technologies, and resources - just like George W. Bush was doing.

It's not the President's job to develop technology or resources. Energy companies will take care of that just fine if you get out of their way.

 
At 1/22/2012 3:51 AM, Blogger kmg said...

I am amazed that there are still idiots who believe in 'peak oil'

 
At 1/22/2012 12:03 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

If the Canadians were "smart", they'd agree to sell the oil to only the US.

You mean, If the Canadians were "STUPID", they'd agree to sell the oil to only the US.

 
At 1/22/2012 2:14 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

"If the Canadians were smart"?

What are you guys talking about?

The oil sands development is owned by the shareholders of a vast number of multinational corporations (many of them based in the US). You make it sound like the Canadian Oil Sands are governed by some sovereign wealth fund like happens in so many of your present sources of oil. That ain't the case.

It's not the "Canadians" that want to open up a new market for this oil....it's Exxon, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Suncor, Total, Sinopec, etc etc etc

Just about all projects are joint ventures so no one company has complete control...of even one project let alone the whole show.


There's a hundred years of oil there at a present day break even cost of about sixty dollars a barrel.

It's open, it's transparent and 100% market driven.

 
At 1/22/2012 3:01 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

if that were true...then why wasn't it a proposal of domestic companies instead of Canadian companies?

We build thousands of miles of domestic pipelines all the time... for domestic companies, right?

what made this one different?

why was the State Dept involved?

 
At 1/22/2012 3:04 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey paul, Jeff Harding over at the Daily Capitalist explains some of the differences:

The Osawatomie Speech: A Defining Moment In History

(1st paragraph)

I am not a fan of Barack Obama, but I have not criticized him as harshly as many other writers do. I have a different view of him. I see him as a rather run of the mill Progressive/Liberal who firmly believes his ideology and acts somewhat consistently on those ideas. Rather than pillory him personally, my approach has been to criticize the philosophy of which he is a product. In my mind, it’s all about ideas. I detest his ideas because I believe they are anti-intellectual and they don’t work....

 
At 1/22/2012 4:04 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"if that were true...then why wasn't it a proposal of domestic companies instead of Canadian companies?"...

larry g did you miss one of the salient part of t or c's comment: 'Just about all projects are joint ventures so no one company has complete control...of even one project let alone the whole show'?

 
At 1/22/2012 4:25 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" larry g did you miss one of the salient part of t or c's comment: 'Just about all projects are joint ventures so no one company has complete control...of even one project let alone the whole show'? "

uh huh.

did you catch mine asking why the State Department has to approve?

 
At 1/22/2012 4:50 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"did you catch mine asking why the State Department has to approve?"...

That's up to you to look for that reason larry g since I've repeatedly commented that the federal government shouldn't be sticking its collective nose in business...

I don't care what reason the State dept is trying to foist off with regards to the Keystone pipeline but as usual my initial thought is so that some collection of parasitic bureaucrats are looking for ways to to rationalize their continued existence on the back of taxpayers...

 
At 1/22/2012 4:57 PM, Blogger Ian Random said...

Funny that everytime any spending is cut, the poor will be adversely affected. Yet, when costs go up, that argument is never heard for things like those wonderful CFL's. If you really look at the poor trying to move up through opportunity, then the GOP is the party. If you are part of the permanent under class, then you need Dumbercrats.

 
At 1/22/2012 9:40 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"did you catch mine asking why the State Department has to approve?

Because the pipeline is coming down from a foreign country.

 
At 1/22/2012 10:00 PM, Blogger VangelV said...


why was the State Dept involved?


Because the pipeline crossed an international border.

 
At 1/23/2012 12:47 AM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

Vange has it right. I have read some commentary that Trans-Canada could apply for the part of Keystone that does not cross the border and not have to seek Washington's approval for that....the plan would then be to tweak a number of smaller lines that already cross the border (like converting gas lines, no longer needed due to fracking whitin the US) to get the same amount of oil across the border and into the new Keystone mainline...this might very well come to pass...if all else fails.

and again....Trans Canada is a multinational listed on the NYSE...anybody can buy a piece of it any day of the week...

It's "Canadian" because it's head office is in Canada, it's operations cover all of north america.

So is Boeing an Illinois planemaker to some of you guys?...LOL

If you really want free markets you have to grow up and not pay so much attention to borders.

 
At 1/23/2012 9:22 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

if that's true then why didn't they use that approach to start with?

and it appears that Conoco-Phillips initially was a partner but they bailed out.

this is not an uncommon problem is many other countries.. by the way.

all over Europe and the Middle East..there are kerfuffles about pipelines going from one country to another.. and it does not matter that the companies doing it are "multinationals"... the country where there pipeline is proposed is the final arbiter - not the multinational.

 
At 1/23/2012 9:25 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

see.. here is the BIG LIE?

the title of this thread:

"Why Does Obama Want the U.S. To Be Energy Poor?"

the clear implication is that this pipeline will keep the US from becoming energy poor ...but as per most of the proxy arguments - no a word in the narrative about how much of the production will be kept within the US borders.

rank demagoguery is thy name.

 
At 1/23/2012 12:03 PM, Blogger randian said...

the clear implication is that this pipeline will keep the US from becoming energy poor

Not by itself, but in combination with worthless "green" energy, shutting down coal power, taking dams offline, and cap & trade it evinces a pattern that, if allowed to mature, will make us energy poor. As Obama said, we must reduce our lifestyles, and if he has to force us he will.

 
At 1/23/2012 2:22 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Not by itself, but in combination with worthless "green" energy, shutting down coal power, taking dams offline, and cap & trade it evinces a pattern that, if allowed to mature, will make us energy poor. As Obama said, we must reduce our lifestyles, and if he has to force us he will."

in combination with the overall war against Obama on all fronts.

YAAOR - yet another anti-Obama Rant

that is basically a lie... but those who hate Obama feel that any lie is fine... as long as it adds to the anti-Obama rhetoric.

It would be one thing if the oil actually was going to be used in the US Only.

They'd have a very powerful argument and would reflect badly on Obama - and should.

but even though it's not true.. the narrative is to play word games so that it sounds like it is true.

Classic propaganda and misinformation.

your basic "swiftboat" tactic.

 
At 1/23/2012 2:48 PM, Blogger truth or consequences said...

so Larry what's your point???

you want garantees??? From who? Who are you going to get them from?

Trans Canada does not own the oil. Oil companies do.

Export taxes? That'll work...but good luck with that.

Don't want the oil? Fine... but as I said there's a hundred years of oil there, widely held in a totally free market? So now you don't like the free market all of a sudden (?).

Do you know what Hugo or some King in the desert is going to do next week? Do you remember 1973?

 
At 1/23/2012 3:07 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

that is basically a lie... but those who hate Obama feel that any lie is fine... as long as it adds to the anti-Obama rhetoric.

It isn't just Obama. Gingrich was into green energy subsidies and carbon taxes too. But as a man who is not big on standing on principle and is willing to bet that Republican voters will forget his past deeds was willing to change his mind and speak out against the green energy swindle.

But he was just as wrong as Obama. This issue is not one about politics but economics. Obama is a big government guy who believes that the economy is made up of a bunch of buttons and levers that can be manipulated to get a desired outcome. Like most lefties he is clueless about this and has no idea that the economic calculation debate was lost a long time ago. The Republicans are not all that different because most of them also believe that the economy can be managed by the 'right' leader who surrounds himself with wise business-friendly advisers. Both are full of crap and both will say and do what they have to in order to advance political agendas that have nothing to do with what is good for the economy.

Sadly, most voters are just as clueless as you are and can't quite see the picture clearly enough to figure out what is going on. Like you, they turn every economic or social issue into a political game and the opportunity to act rationally is lost. Which is why the smart money is betting that the USD is going to collapse right after the Euro and that the US will find itself in the same position as the PIIGS but in worse trouble because it has not had to go through that type of economic turmoil for a very long period of time. (When Taleb publishes his next book I suggest that you pick up a copy. You might actually learn a little about risk and robust systems.)

 
At 1/23/2012 3:09 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

so Larry what's your point???

He has no point. Larry is one of the most ignorant and illogical people on this board who says a lot of stupid things because either he does not understand or is looking to get a reaction from others.

 
At 1/23/2012 8:32 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" you want garantees??? From who? Who are you going to get them from?"

from the folks who want the permits.

that's pretty simple, eh?

that would be Trans Canada...

they are the ones who are sending letters out to landowners making offers and threatening eminent domain if they refuse.

re: " most ignorant and illogical people"

all I can say is that I'm not someone who explains things by claiming there are worldwide conspiracies..

and the man breeds also..tsk tsk

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home