The North American Energy Colossus Will Fuel Our Hydrocarbon Future and Create Prosperity, Jobs
The Manhattan Institute released a study today by Mark P. Mills, titled "Unleashing the North American Energy Colossus: Hydrocarbons Can Fuel Growth and Prosperity," here are a few excerpts:
Executive Summary: "The United States, Canada, and Mexico are awash in hydrocarbon resources: oil, natural gas, and coal. The total
North American hydrocarbon resource base is more than four times greater than all the resources extant in the
Middle East. And the United States alone is now the fastest-growing producer of oil and natural gas in the world.
The recent growth in hydrocarbons production has already generated hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions
in local tax receipts by unlocking billions of barrels of oil and natural gas in the hydrocarbon-dense shales of North
Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and several other states, as well as the vast resources of Canada’s oil sands.
It is time to appreciate the staggering potential economic and geopolitical benefits that facilitating the development of
these resources can bring to the United States. It is no overstatement to say that jobs related to extraction, transport,
and trade of hydrocarbons can awaken the United States from its economic doldrums and produce revenue such that
key national needs can be met—including renewal of infrastructure and investment in scientific research.
Conclusion: The U.S. has yet to adopt a coherent policy in response
to the deep changes in energy demand and supply. The
world will need enormous quantities of hydrocarbons
in the future, regardless of and despite substantial gains
in energy efficiency and alternative energy deployment. No single region of the world could make as
significant a difference to the supply dynamic as could
North America. In the energy arena, North America, to
paraphrase, is punching below its weight class.
And, in these trying economic times, expanding hydrocarbon production may be the single most important
opportunity for economic growth for the U.S. and
North America."
Here's the press release and here's the full study.
HT: Steve Hayward and Ken Green
17 Comments:
you mean the US economy is going to recover DESPITE Obama?
MY LORD!
Obama has created more economic damage than most people know.
However, Peak Oil means we'll need to expend more resources for the same amount of oil, which will lower living standards, ceteris paribus.
"you mean the US economy is going to recover DESPITE Obama?"
Only if we beat his worthless ass in November.
Ten percent of the fuel in your car's tank is ethanol, mandated by federal law.
Corn farmers have received $85 billion in subsidies in the last 15 years--and they produce corn, the base stock for USA ethanol.
What kind of energy policy is this?
Why is the federal government insisting on renewable, heavily subsidized, mandated "green" fuels like ethanol, even when we are awash in fossil fuels?
Why is Dr. Perry mute about this? Why is the GOP mute about this?
U.S. Real GDP Per Capita is more than $1,000 below the Q4 2007 peak through Q1 2012, while federal deficits remain above $1 trillion a year. Chart:
http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/indicators/GDP-overview.html?Real-GDP-per-capita-since-1960.gif
Benjamin-
I like you. You have some good insights.
But can you please let the ethanol thing go? You've made your point, and it's now time to move on. If this is such a big deal to you, feel free to start your own blog and write about it there, but can you please stop taking up time and space here?
Jon-
Hey, many issues are raised permanently on this board---the useless regulations of barbers, limo drivers etc (on the local level), the stupid outlawing of marijuana (which Romney supports), the lameness of the D-Party on many business matters.
I concur with these frequent complaints---I am just puzzled that the largest, most ubiquitous, intrusive, green, renewable, expensive federal energy program (ethanol!) is seemingly off-limits.
I never get tired of trying to get rid of ethanol---it is costing the USA a fortune. It is bad policy. If it were Obama's program, it would be subject to tireless and endless ridicule (justifiably).
But it is not Obama's program. It is a GOP program, largely.
"But it is not Obama's program. It is a GOP program, largely." -- "Benji"
Yeah, started by that GOP stalwart - Jimmy Carter.
What you "never get tired" of is posting comments grounded in ignorance.
The ECRI predicted a recession in 2012 late last year. The economy slowed to 1.9% real growth in the first quarter and slowed even further to perhaps 1% real growth in the second quarter.
ECRI’s Achuthan ‘Recession Has Started’
July 10, 2012
"What we said back in December was that the most likely start date for the recession would be in Q1 and if not then, by the middle of 2012. I’m here to reaffirm that. I think we’re in a recession...it is very rare that you know you’re going into recession when you’re going into recession. It often takes some big hit on top of the head."
Benji,
"I never get tired of trying to get rid of ethanol---it is costing the USA a fortune. It is bad policy. If it were Obama's program, it would be subject to tireless and endless ridicule (justifiably). "
80% of the 2012 farm bill is slated to cover food stamps, a program Obama has doubled the spending on to feed his mostly freeloader constituents.
Why are you mute about this? Why are the Democrats mute about this?
"But it is not Obama's program. It is a GOP program, largely."
This nonsense has been refuted for you over and over. Big Ag subsidies are a bi-partisan scandal, including your boyfriend. At this point you're simply a brazen liar.
I’m a librarian who has been studying this in my spare time for three years. I will try to explain it briefly.
Look to the UN. They proposed that mankind is a blight on the planet. Then they hired scientists who would program a computer model accordingly. The computer model proved that mankind is a blight on the planet. If you read the core publications of the UN they stand ready to step up to offer governance and enforcement to lead the globe out of this dilemma.
The scientists involved are James Hansen at NASA GISS and Phil Jones at UK CRU. Together with Michael Mann, who works in the same office bldg as James Hansen in the Big Apple they cooked up the science. James Hansen continues cooking the data today.
Also look back to the 60s when Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb. And see the website Population Matters.
At least one-third of American voters been taken in and will vote for “environmentalists.” (Dems) A large percentage of them are concerned, all our academic and governmental institutions are convinced that catastrophic global devastation is imminent (could take up to 200 years.) Their religion, their life-view is that mankind will have to fight each other for food at the North and South Poles because the rest of our planet will be too hot to support life. Some of them speak up at blogs, flagellating themselves for being alive, or exchanging advice on the best places to move their families now.
Anyway, in early 2000s a quiet Canadian scientist, Steve McIntyre, at climateaudit.org spotted the computer bugs. He asked for the data. He was refused. He kept asking.
In Nov 2009 someone anonymously posted the data at the website of James Hansen’s lieutenant Gavin Schmidt and at one other place. Scientists have taken the data apart by now, but no one is listening.
Starting place: http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/09/yamal-and-hide-the-decline/ You must keep the search term YAMAL in mind when reading
There is only one Congressman who is watching this: James Inhofe. There is simply too much money involved. Think about being able to penalize producers, transporters and users of energy with fees, taxes and carbon credits.
Back in early 2000s President Obama helped fund the Chicago Climate Exchange. Al Gore and Goldman Sachs quickly invested millions. Try to imagine the endless cash stream.
"you mean the US economy is going to recover DESPITE Obama?
MY LORD!"
despite is the right word.
imagine what we could accomplish WITHOUT obama.
here's some more fun energy policy that i had not known before:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2012/07/great-moments-in-government-energy-policy-failure.html
"So, why do we have all these “dirty” coal plants? Market failure? Industry greed? Nope — Carter-era government policy. For you younger folks, here is a law you may have never heard of:
The Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (FUA) was passed in 1978 in response to concerns over national energy security. The 1973 oil crisis and the natural gas curtailments of the mid 1970s contributed to concerns about U.S. supplies of oil and natural gas. The FUA restricted construction of power plants using oil or natural gas as a primary fuel and encouraged the use of coal, nuclear energy and other alternative fuels. It also restricted the industrial use of oil and natural gas in large boilers.**
In other words, all new fossil fuel-powered boilers had to be coal-fired (which in a year or so, after Three Mile Island, translated to all new boilers since nuclear was essentially eliminated as an option). Yes, this may seem odd to us in an era of so much environmental concern over coal, but something coal opponents don’t tell you is that many of the exact same left-liberal-government-top-down-energy-policy types that oppose coal today lobbied hard for the above law several decades ago. Here is a simplified timeline:
1. Government energy policy sets price controls that create artificial shortages of oil and gas
2. Government-created shortages of oil and gas lead to this law, with government demanding that all new fossil fuel-powered electric plants and boilers be coal powered.
3. Government mandates on coal use create environmental concerns, which lead to proposals for taxes and bans on coal power.
4. The need for government action against coal is obviated by a resurgence of oil and gas supply once government controls were removed. However, in response, government beings to consider strong controls on expansion in oil and gas production (e.g. fracking limits).
** I got involved with this because I worked in an oil refinery in the 1980′s. We had to get special exemptions to run our new boilers on various petroleum products (basically byproducts and waste products of the refining process). Without these, the law would have required we bring in coal to run our oil refinery furnaces."
that government, she sure does a great job of picking winners and losers, yessirreebob.
unfortunately, the winner always seems to be the bureaucrat and the loser the citizens.
re: Coyote blog
geeze... how old is that law? When was it repealed?
How many POTUS and Congresses have come and gone since then?
isn't this just yet another anti-govt rant?
that law was repealed 25 years ago... what has happened since then?
Keep in mind when Obama took office 60% of our oil was from foreign sources. Today it is 40%.
In the last 3.5 years outsourcing to foreign countries has slowed. Some companies are actually bringing jobs back on shore.
Seems to me Obama is doing something right. Maybe not everything, but can you imagine what it would be like if G.B. was still in office.
Hervey-
Correlation does not prove causation.
Oil imports are falling thanks to increased domestic oil production from the shales (Bakken, Eagle Ford), historically low natural gas prices, and reduced demand for oil.
The outsourcing has slowed because costs have risen in the respective countries.
Simply because these things happen when a person is in office does not mean they deserve credit for it. The two events you mentioned have extra-political reasons for occurring (in the cast of oil, it is occurring despite the Administrations efforts to stop it).
Harvey,
Production is up in the areas where Obama has no control. It's down where he does have control. His own stated objective is to drive up the costs of fossil fuels in order to make his green jobs cronyism more competitive.His Energy Secretary said he wants the price of gas to be on par with Europe. His Interior Secretary said we should not open up drilling even if the price of gas hit $10 a gallon.
Post a Comment
<< Home