Monday, April 02, 2012

The White House's War Against Fossil Fuels

From my editorial in today's Investor's Business Daily (with Thomas Hemphill):

"At a critical time for America's energy future, Obama's proposed energy platform is likely to damage the economy, drive energy prices higher, and move us further away from energy independence and economic security.

Behind Obama's recent claim that he supports a "sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy," lays a war against traditional fossil-based energy sources like oil, which he has publicly stated to be a "fuel of the past."

For example, Obama continues to demonize and target the oil and gas industry for punitive tax treatment, while showering the politically favored "green" energy sector with preferential tax subsidies, tax credits, and public funding increases.

The reality is that our economy will continue to rely overwhelmingly on traditional energy sources in the 21st century.

Obama might wish for an energy future of alternative energy, but the scientific and economic realities suggest that the "fuels of the future" will mostly be the same as the "fuels of the past" — dependable and low-cost oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear."


31 Comments:

At 4/02/2012 11:24 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

And the biggest greenie-weenie program of them all, by 10 country miles?

Ethanol. GOP booze. 13 billion gallons this year! That's a lot bottom's up from the R-Party. And it's your bottom that is up in vaseline alley!

And the corn lobby is pushing for a 15 percent blend in most USA gasoline. They will get it. The farm lobby gets what it wants.

Imagine if Obama proposed an "urban liquid fuels program" that subsidized ethanol produced from urban wastes for a few decades while mandating use, and then mandated use thereafter. Mandated! By that socialist!

Imagine if Obama forces you to buy his urban liquid fuels every time you buy gasoline. Imagine the pique! The outrage! The op-eds by Dr, Perry!!! Oh, the exquisite torment you would feel!

Of course, I did not describe Obama. I just described the rural ethanol lobby, and the rural Red State Socialist Empire.

So, let's change the topic.....

 
At 4/03/2012 4:40 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

more of the Koch Bros/right-wing echo chamber "War on Obama" makes a mockery of the idea of Academic institutions seeking knowledge and understanding of issues.

U.S. to open up remaining Gulf oil leases

Onshore oil, gas lease revenue up, yet below 2008

Oil and gas leases on public lands up 20 percent in 2011, feds say

 
At 4/03/2012 9:49 AM, Blogger Paul said...

"That's a lot bottom's up from the R-Party."

I know it's futile to point this out to you yet again Benji, but your boyfriend was/is a giant Big Ag whore. Under his racket, we get ethanol AND Solyndra AND a massive expansion of food stamps(administered by the Ag Department.)

In short, you're an epic buffoon.

 
At 4/03/2012 10:04 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

It boggles the mind how Obama and his henchmen could conduct a 3 year war on fossil fuels so openly, and yet here you are actually disputing the fact laced with your "Koch brothers" crap. Nary a day goes by without Obama launching attacks against oil companies, and yet you still live in denial.

I couldn't open your first link, but it's just marvelous how you would believe Obama, who is taking massive heat for the price of gas, would do a sudden turnaround in an election year. Let's revisit this promise again if he wins another term and has more, as he put it with Medvedev, "flexibility."

From your own 2nd link:

"Revenue from U.S. Bureau of Land Management oil and gas lease sales rose from $213 million in 2010 to $256 million in 2011. Revenue in the Rocky Mountain region, however, remains far below levels four years ago. New acreage leased each year also is down significantly.

The vast majority of federal land is in the West. The top oil and gas states in the U.S. include Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico. Yet nowhere near as much federal land was leased for oil and gas development in those three states in 2011 compared with 2008.

In fact, in Wyoming and New Mexico, the amount of federal land sold at oil and gas lease auctions has been in steady decline for three straight years. In Colorado, the roughly 35,000 acres sold at BLM lease sales last year was less than a third of the 120,000 acres sold in 2008."


Let me point out that the clown who Obama picked to head the agency that oversees those leases is this guy.

 
At 4/03/2012 10:27 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Larry and Paul:

US to open up remaining Gulf oil leases

Here is a good link.

 
At 4/03/2012 10:29 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Ethanol. GOP booze. 13 billion gallons this year! That's a lot bottom's up from the R-Party ... Imagine if Obama proposed an "urban liquid fuels program" ... Imagine the pique! The outrage!" -- "Benji"

Imagine that you weren't the ignorant half-wit that you are. The ethanol program was started by the Democrats under Jimmy Carter and, before the GOP allowed the tax credits to expire, primarily diverted tax dollars into the hands of urban blue state parasites who were the largest shareholders in the agribusinesses that benefited from the tax credit. Why do you continue to post this bullshit?

 
At 4/03/2012 10:47 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Jon,

Thanks for the link. As I expected, more Obama bullshit.

From the House Natural Resources Committee: "WASHINGTON, D.C., January 26, 2012 – Today, President Obama made a “major announcement,” in what otherwise must be a slow day for the White House, by moving forward with offshore lease sales that were scheduled before he even took office. The rather banal “major announcement” does not open any new offshore areas for energy production but combines a lease sale delayed for a year by the Obama Administration (216 Central Gulf of Mexico 2011) and a lease sale scheduled for this year by the previous Administration (222 Central Gulf of Mexico 2012). Since elected, President Obama has delayed or canceled multiple lease sales, including #220 off the Virginia Coast, which was scheduled for 2011 and is now delayed indefinitely. These delays have destroyed jobs, caused a decline in American oil and natural gas production and harmed local economies. "

 
At 4/03/2012 10:58 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Che,

Good link. I've been meaning to point out how the ethanol credit was finished off in large part by the efforts of the same Tea Party Benji repeatedly attacks for some inexplicable reason.

 
At 4/03/2012 11:05 AM, Blogger marmico said...

The bulk of oil and gas production on federal lands is off shore. The Macondo disaster certainly slowed down offshore permitting and drilling.

The Congressional Research Office reports that there is no production from 75% of all onshore and 60% of all offshore federal leases.

What's the big hurry in leasing federal lands?

 
At 4/03/2012 11:16 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Che,

Good link. I've been meaning to point out how the ethanol credit was finished off in large part by the efforts of the same Tea Party Benji repeatedly attacks for some inexplicable reason.


A bit of clarification: the Tea Party is somewhat ideologically different from the mainstream Republican Party. The Republicans have repeatedly voted for the subsidies, partly because some of their states enjoy the benefits.

It's somewhat unfair to lump the Tea Party in with the GOP, even though their politicians do have an R next to their name.

 
At 4/03/2012 11:29 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Jon,

I agree, and did not intend to lump them together. There are lots of bad Republicans. There are no good Democrats.

 
At 4/03/2012 11:32 AM, Blogger Paul said...

Marmico,

"The Congressional Research Office reports that there is no production from 75% of all onshore and 60% of all offshore federal leases."

Sure, there isn't an equal amount of oil(or any) under the ground of every lease.

"What's the big hurry in leasing federal lands?"

If for no other reason, to help plug the massive hole in the federal budget. Free money.

 
At 4/03/2012 12:09 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"... the Tea Party is somewhat ideologically different from the mainstream Republican Party. The Republicans have repeatedly voted for the subsidies, partly because some of their states enjoy the benefits. It's somewhat unfair to lump the Tea Party in with the GOP, even though their politicians do have an R next to their name." -- Jon Murphy

Perhaps, but in order for Tea Party Republicans to achieve anything they must operate within a party structure open to their ideas. There are no "Tea Party" or libertarian Democrats. And since the political fallout, whatever form it takes, would have to have been borne by the party as a whole, it's somewhat unfair to deny the GOP credit for the expiration of these tax credits.

It's also important to understand that when it comes to government spending there are no "pure" politicians, even of the libertarian stripe: Ron Pauls Earmarks

 
At 4/03/2012 1:48 PM, Blogger NormanB said...

Its the perennial mis-sightedness of Democrats and Liberals: Trying to fit a round peg into a square whole by assuming that the real world is a mirage and only they can see through it. Hope and wishing is not a Strategy.

Obamaism will only delay the inevitable.

Also, to show how wrongheaded the Democrats are, Jerry Brown of Calif is proposing a tax on (inefficient) green energy to pay for (inefficient) High Speed Rail. Unfortunately, the citizens of California are so goo-goo they might actually think this is a good policy. But like energy, the real world will eventually intrude.

 
At 4/03/2012 1:52 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Unsubsidized Ethannol is selling today on the CBOT for $2.28/Gal

Wholesale RBOB is selling for $3.38/gal.


Yeah, quite the "boondoggle."

 
At 4/03/2012 2:07 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Paul:

"Let me point out that the clown who Obama picked to head the agency that oversees those leases is this guy."

Larry has seen this video before, and didn't understand it. Perhaps you should explain that Salazar doesn't believe there's ANY price that constitutes an emergency, and at which offshore drilling should be allowed.

 
At 4/03/2012 2:31 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Rufus, you know a lot about energy, so help me out here:

RBOB. Is that what us common folk call gasoline?

 
At 4/03/2012 3:10 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Che,

"It's also important to understand that when it comes to government spending there are no "pure" politicians, even of the libertarian stripe: Ron Pauls Earmarks"

While it's correct to say that there are no pure politicians, at least not in a positive sense, I don't believe Paul's position on earmarks is clearly understood.

The "ricochet" article contains a video link in which Paul explains his position. I get the following from that explanation:

- Paul believes that ALL spending authorized by Congress should be "earmarked", in that Congress *supposedly* represents the taxpayers, and should, therefore, decide how their money is spent. Otherwise the Administration gets to make those decisions.

- The people in Paul's district are certainly as entitled as anyone else to benefit from their own tax dollars, so he asks for them.

This seems much like a person accepting Social Security retirement benefits as a way to get some of their own money back, even if they think SS is a terrible idea, and shouldn't exist.

- Paul doesn't believe most spending should occur in any case, so he votes against the spending bills, but if they are passed anyway, which is almost always the case, his constituents should benefit.

I don't see that as inconsistent or hypocritical. Do you see it differently?

What DOES seem hypocritical is for representatives to brag that they haven't requested any earmarks, and therefore deserve praise for not trying to benefit the people in their own districts, all the while voting for massive programs that their constituents may not benefit from or even want.

 
At 4/03/2012 3:15 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Unsubsidized Ethannol is selling today on the CBOT for $2.28/Gal

Wholesale RBOB is selling for $3.38/gal.


Yeah, quite the "boondoggle."
"

That's the same price it was the last time you posted - or is it pasted - this meaningless comment.

How much will it cost to get it to your car?

 
At 4/03/2012 4:20 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

I gave a link, Ron. What do you want?

How much does it cost to get that Iraqi oil-originated gasoline to your car?

 
At 4/03/2012 5:13 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

Sorry, Jon; I didn't see your question.

RBOB - Reformulated Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending

They took your conventional gasoline and removed some of the aromatics, all known carcinogens (Benzene, Toulene, Xylene, etc) that were added to improve Octane Rating.

With Ethanol having a 114 Octane Rating they were able to remove these carcinogens, and produce an 84 Octane fuel that, with the addition of 10% Ethanol would come up to the Minimum 87 Octane required of most modern car engines.

So, no, it's Not Gasoline that you could use in your car. The knock sensor would kick in and shut the engine down.

 
At 4/03/2012 5:23 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Hey Rufus,

You know alot about this subject. Curious if you work in the industry?

 
At 4/03/2012 5:33 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Thanks, Rufus.

So, can I assume that RBOB and Ethanol are roughly substitutes for one another?

 
At 4/03/2012 5:50 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

No, Paul, I'm just an interested, amateur observer. I do read a lot about Renewable Energies.

I guess I blew that answer, Jon. Let me try again. RBOB is just conventional gasoline with some of the ingredients that boost its Octane, removed (the Ethanol additive brings its Octane Rating back up to 87.)

If you tried to operate your modern automobile on 84 Octane RBOB it would either shake itself to death, leaving you with a lap full of hot metal, or the Knock Sensor would shut it off.

Ethanol is also an "Oxygenate," which is helpful to older engines, but isn't nearly as necessary in the new ones.

 
At 4/03/2012 5:52 PM, Blogger Rufus II said...

One last point: You could run your car on 100% Ethanol, but you couldn't run your car on straight RBOB.

 
At 4/03/2012 9:21 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 4/03/2012 9:25 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"How much does it cost to get that Iraqi oil-originated gasoline to your car?"

We don't care where the global commodity known as crude oil comes from. The price you quoted for RBOB is at the New York gate. It's on a barge in the harbor, so your question about Iraq is meaningless.

Why are you bringing up stuff that doesn't matter?

 
At 4/03/2012 9:48 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"One last point: You could run your car on 100% Ethanol, but you couldn't run your car on straight RBOB."

Well, not exactly, not without modifications. And, don't try it in cold weather.

If you are going to allow modifications then I can adjust my timing to run on RBOB. If it's fair for the goose, etc.

 
At 4/04/2012 5:42 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

No, you can't adjust your timing to run on RBOB. It's not a timing issue; it's a compression issue. You would have to, at the minimum, change out the pistons, and/or connecting rods.

And, No, you would not have to make modifications to run straight ethanol. You would get a "check engine light" due to the fact that the computer would detect all the oxygen in the exhaust, and think you were running lean. It would be hard to start in cold weather.

 
At 4/04/2012 6:17 AM, Blogger Rufus II said...

What about the Trillion Dollars we blew on the war, Ron? Is That in the price of that gasoline?

 
At 4/04/2012 8:44 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"No, you can't adjust your timing to run on RBOB. It's not a timing issue; it's a compression issue. You would have to, at the minimum, change out the pistons, and/or connecting rods."

Unless 84 octane gasoline will actually diesel at normal cylinder temperatures and compressions without a spark, and I doubt that it will in most newer engines, the knock problem can be fixed by timing, and may even be within the range of the knock sensor. Keep in mind that in higher altitude areas 85 octane is common.

"What about the Trillion Dollars we blew on the war, Ron? Is That in the price of that gasoline?"

All costs are included in the gasoline you get at the New York Gate, except transportation to the end user, and blending.

From there, it travels easily and cheaply, partly by pipeline, all over the country - unlike ethanol, which must travel by rail or truck.

What about the $Trillion we've blown on corn and ethanol subsidies and mandates that force people to use ethanol they wouldn't otherwise chose to use?

You can't seem to understand that ethanol as a motor fuel, is dead without subsidies and mandates.

If it were economic, as you pretend it is, it would already be the fuel of chosice, without any government involvement. The market would choose it.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home