Democrat Energy Policy

[jgaffney]

While we are all entertained by the flailings in the Congress over windfall profits taxes, which will do absolutely nothing to increase petroleum production and, thus, reduce the price of gas, we should give some serious consideration to alternatives to Middle East oil.

According to The Oil & Gas Journal, we have plenty of petroleum resources right here in America, and we don't have to anguish over drilling in ANWR or offshore. It's called shale oil, and it's right here and right now.

Interestingly, most of the world's known unconventional hydrocarbon resources are found in the Western hemisphere - in the US, Canada, and Latin America - which geopolitically is relatively secure. Increased production from unconventional Western hemisphere hydrocarbon resources could substantially shift the center of gravity of America's petroleum supply. Canada and Latin America already supply at least half of current US oil imports. About one quarter, or 2.5 million b/d, is imported from Persian Gulf countries, with the remainder from numerous other sources.

While achieving total US energy independence is an unrealistic objective, it is conceivable that large-scale production of domestic oil shale, combined with continuing growth in tar sand and extra-heavy oil production, could make the US effectively independent of Persian Gulf oil supply sources. Achieving such a goal would have enormous economic, strategic, and national security benefits for the US.

Yes, I realize that we have to transition away from a petroleum-based energy supply. But, think about it: it's not going to happen overnight, and it's not going to happen during a four-year presidential administration. We've been using petroleum for over 100 years, so it will take some time to, first, develop alternative energy sources; and, second, bring them to market so that they are widely available.

So, rather than enact legislation to encourage the oil companies to reinvest their profits in alternative energy supplies, what is the Congress doing? They're debating about how much of those "obscene profits" they're going to steal from the oil companies and - do what with? Spend on alternative energy? No! They want to expand the welfare state by giving the money to "the needy."

We're doomed.

[jgaffney]

During the debate last year over the President's proposed Energy Bill, the Democrats in Congress complained that the bill did nothing to reduce our consumption of gasoline. Now that the high price of gasoline is having exactly that effect, the Democrats in Congress want to have hearings to investigate price gouging by the oil companies.

Just what exactly do the Democrats stand for?

[bolverk]

That is easy. Ruining as many businesses as they can, and blaming everyone else for the decision they make.

[saunterelle]

This article from the Chronicle really shows both approaches to energy:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/11/MNI6116RIU.DTL

A summary:

Deep divide over gas prices

The rapid run-up in gas prices has lawmakers scurrying to offer solutions, but Democrats and Republicans split sharply over how to lower prices.

Democratic plan

Tax on profits: Impose a 25 percent windfall profits tax on oil companies and use the money to invest in renewable energy.

Authority to sue: Give the U.S. government authority to sue OPEC for conspiring to raise oil prices.

More regulation: Enhance the ability of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate energy futures markets.

Undo tax breaks: Repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry.

Republican plan

Arctic drilling: Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling.

Coastal drilling: Allow states to approve drilling for oil and natural gas off their coasts.

Encourage refineries: Offer incentives to oil companies to build new refineries.

More tax breaks: Create new tax breaks to speed the development of coal-to-liquid fuels.


To me, the Democratic plan shows a country that is moving away from dependence on oil. The Republican plan opts for a quick fix "band-aid." If we go with their plan we will have to deal with the problem again later.

[jgaffney]

Saunterelle sez...

To me, the Democratic plan shows a country that is moving away from dependence on oil. The Republican plan opts for a quick fix "band-aid." If we go with their plan we will have to deal with the problem again later.

Let me paraphrase what you said:

The Democrat plan is to meddle in the market and cloak the real cost of energy by adding regulations and raising taxes. When that cloak falls away.......

The Republican plan is to utilize the resources we already own, to buy time to deveop alternative energy sources and bring them online. This last phrase is the real unknown in the equation.

The Democrat solution proves the adage, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

[jgaffney]

Today's Wall Street Journal has this:

Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress's recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate's carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for "price gouging" – everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.

Amid $135 oil, it ought to be an easy, bipartisan victory to lift the political restrictions on energy exploration and production. Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we're insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank.

Yes, I agree that we need to move away from petroleum as our main source of energy. But, can anyone give me a timeline for that? And, maybe you can include what we will do for energy in the meanwhile.

[mrroqout]

This topic for me raises bigger questions.

Like the question of Oil being Biogenic or a "Fossil Fuel"(came from "Dinosaur Bones and plant matter/zooplpankton & algae" like they told us in school) OR Abiogenic (from Naturally occuring deep carbon deposits related possibly to earths formation).

If in fact oil is Biogenic then yes we NEED to move away from oil completely sooner than later.

IF on the other hand it is Abiogenic then why not just keep trying to increase domestic production to wean off of MIDDLE EAST Oil?

For me personally there is a-lot of evidence for Oil being Abiogenic. Like the Eugene Island Oil Fields as a classic textbook example. Or the fact that the Russians have been pulling oil from 40 THOUSAND (Kola SG-3) feet below the surface, I am pretty sure there are no "Dinosaur Bones" down there...

[The Big Dog]

Wanna have electrict cars and charging stations everywhere? And have lots of energy left over to power our homes and businesses in the manner to which we've become accustomed? No problem... let's start building a few nuclear power plants.

While no new plant has opened in the US since the 1970's, Western and Eastern Europe have been on a building binge. The Germans have even solved much of the waste problem by building breeder reactors to .... shudder ... recycle spent fuel rods into new fuel rods. The Bristish are doing the same. Current technology is safe, has zero AGW implications (for those who happen to believe in that pablum) and is ... shudder again ... sustainable.

So why is it that all the naybobs, yayhoos and pointy heads won't allow new nuclear plant construction in the US? Recalling, of course, that these would be the same naybobs, yayhoos and pointy heads who refuse to allow a scintilla of exploration for fossil fuels within our own geographical boundries, have not allowed a new refinery to open since 1979 and still insist we must reduce our dependency on foreign oil.... while offering no practical or plausible substitutes.

Yep... when the Democrat leadership in Congress declares, as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did the other day, that the greatest challenge facing our nation is "global climate change" it reaffirms the thought in my mind that we are all sooooooooo screwed.

[mrroqout]

I am happy to say I live within the area of California, where my power DOES come from San Onofre Nuclear Plant. We are DEFNITELY in NEED of more Nuclear power plants.

For once I think we should (this hurts me to say) follow in the footsteps of France...(ouch that hurt)

[subdjoe]

Mrroqout, I grew up down that way. What used to be a nce little town called Vista. Where 'bouts are you?

[mrroqout]

Currently O'side prior to O'side San Clemente. I got more for my money in O'side though. I work in Vernon CA 5 days a week though, which If you know where Vernon is (S.Central LA) it is an 80 mile commute each way =/. I HAVE TO live close to my favorite surf breaks O'side Pier / Trestles..so I commute.

Reason I frequent these forums, I own a home in SoCo (in Heritage Pointe off of Stony Pt.) and was raised in West County( CN Graduate), so I like to keep up.

AND I LOVE ME A GOOD DEBATE =). I am still relatively young and there is still so much to learn, you all here are a great wealth of interesting and important topics of the day.

OH and Vista is still "relatively" nice, it has DEFINITELY seen an influx of "rougher" types recently. BUt it has also seen a nice boost to area business in the form of some real nice new business parks.

[subdjoe]

Cool! I was down that way about a year and a half ago, and was appalled at the graffiti, and the general sabbiness of the area. And it was a shock to see how the streets downtown had been redirected.