Drill, Drill, Drill?
Yesterday, in his energy speech, President Obama seemed to say he's ready for America to drill.
We've known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades...So today, I'm setting a new goal: one that is reasonable, achievable, and necessary. When I was
elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third...
...our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our own backyard. And we boast one critical, renewable resource the rest of the world cannot match: American ingenuity...Meeting this new goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things: finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing our dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
This begins by continuing to increase America's oil supply...To keep reducing that reliance on imports, my Administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it's safe and responsible.
But Larry Kudlow says, don't be fooled:
Is it credible? Well, when you get to the fine print, it may not be.
In the fact sheet that accompanied the speech, there's a lot of talk about "responsible development" for natural gas fracking chemicals, state regulators, tapping experts, the environmental community, and protecting public health and the environment. In other words, the standards for new drilling could be so high that there won't be that much new drilling.
Kudlow goes on to say that natural gas will solve our energy problem, and questions whether Obama has the wherewithal to "unleash the great American energy industry":
But here's what America wants: Less government and fewer regulatory barriers in order to unleash the great American energy industry. If we do this, not only will we get the power to fuel the economy, but millions of new high-paying jobs will be created.
Does President Obama get this?
Though Obama doesn't open wide the door to drilling, isn't his speech at least a small step toward America's independent energy production? Doesn't it show a change in his energy position?
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
There was another comment in Obama's speech that should be highlighted. That is, the "Use it or lose it" proposal regarding drilling leases. At first blush, this appears reasonable and is rooted in well-established mineral rights laws granted by the government such as gold and silver claims. But does anyone truly believe that Obama wants to increase domestic production? Or that oil producers are hoarding leases simply to drive up the price of oil? Enter The Strawman.
By ramping up onerous regulation as Kudlow pointed out, they will kill further development. What's more, this "Use it or lose it" policy will claw back mineral rights from oil producers in fields that will no longer be economically viable.
In short, the Obama administration, spearheaded by ubersocialist Dr Chui, will shrink domestic production while at the same time claiming to expand it. And gasoline will continue to "necessarily skyrocket" in order to serve their anticapitalist agenda. It's insidious and it makes me sick.
Feb '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
Activists and "community organizers" like Obama have created a widely-distributed complaining & litigation machine that they would have have great difficulty in turning off even if they wanted to. Just about ANY project that needs to exist in physical space (as opposed to pure software) is going to be held up for years & years by environmentalist lawsuits, NIMBY lawsuits, endless demands for additional "studies", etc etc. This is true even for projects which have been certified as meeting the sacred criteria of GreenNess, such as solar, wind, and high-speed rail.
See, for example, "the typical transportation project timeline" at the website for the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. (At the bottom of the page)...note that there are TEN YEARS from "start" to "begin construction."
Edited on Mar 31, 2011 at 8:54amFeb '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
Link I mentioned for the HSR site is here
Mar '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
Was this the same speech where Obama was mocking "Drill Baby Drill"?
I am surprised that Lauren has any belief at all in anything that Obama says.
If we had the supposedly-stupid VP Palin, instead of the smart, eloquent, Obama, no doubt there would be a lot more drilling going on.
Longer term, we should be growing our own oil:
http://www1.umn.edu/news/news-releases/2011/UR_CONTENT_314387.html
Aug '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
There is alot of drilling activity going on right now. Look at the rig count
Granted the regulations make this very expensive, and natural gas prices are depressed right now, so there is alot more activity in oil/gas with prices over $100/bbl.
The Eagleford formation in South Texas is enormous, and they're hitting more than missing. Amazing success rate on drilling. The Bakken formation in Dakotas is huge too. And there'smore natural gas under the Rockies than anywhere in the world.
Technology has brought us to the point of realization: the US has enormous amounts of untapped petroleum wealth.
Too bad, these greenies think wind turbines and solar power will solve all our problems. Too bad these greenies are in charge of most of the departments in Washington right now and their principles have been bought up by corporations with enormous invesments, think Gore and his venture capital buddies, GE, and the owners of the Volt car company ( you know who you are).
American know-how has created the stupidest national energy policy imaginable.
Oct '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
What's the point of setting this goal, Chairman Maobama? It won't come to fruition for ten years...say, isn't that the same timetable envirowackos use to discredit the idea of drilling for oil? "Drilling isn't the solution, because the oil won't be available for 10 years."
Do these clowns ever say anything that's consistent, and not hypocritical?
I say, let's run Obama's goal parallel with vastly expanded drilling, and look at the scorecard in ten years.
Aug '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
Posturing, posing, lying, and distortion. Didn't he say last week that we're producing more than ever? He doesn't want American independence; he wants us dependent on "the world community", and him, of course.
We're sunk until he's gone or utterly disgraced. I know these people, the radical environmentalists. They don't want any drilling - no way, no how - and they make up a large part of Obummer's base. Economic illiteracy is the proximate cause of this dilemma and so much more.
Oct '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
"Doesn't it show a change in his energy position?" Don't be silly. The only meaningful change will be if and when Obama is replaced by an American.
Oct '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
flownover: ... The Eagleford formation in South Texas is enormous, and they're hitting more than missing. Amazing success rate on drilling. The Bakken formation in Dakotas is huge too. And there'smore natural gas under the Rockies than anywhere in the world.
Technology has brought us to the point of realization: the US has enormous amounts of untapped petroleum wealth. · Mar 31 at 8:56am
Fracking is the number one target that this administration's pseudo scientists are zeroing in on right now. My guess is that within a year there will be a "scientific consensus" that fracking will lead to the end of life as we know it in a mere three or four thousand years. AlGore will make a movie, the lamestream media will climb on board, universities will offer degrees in this anti-technology technology, and the American electorate can be counted on, once more, to stupidly oppose their own survival.
Mar '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
David mentions growing our own fuel. Unfortunately, as we found out here and are currently realizing with our current corn to ethanol production process, it is usually not a cost effective process. There is a similar process to the one David linked to here. It will be interesting to see what happens with these two processes as they are developed for commercial production. I have noticed, though, that after the big splash in the media these processes seem to disappear from sight. Sometimes never to be heard of again.
What the Greenies never seem to realize, is that while we are developing these usually non-viable fuel alternatives, we still need to get to and from work, the grocery store, etc.
Oh, and we don't all make 6 figure salaries with which to purchase the latest $40,000+ "Green" vehicle. Not to mention the associated equipment needed to do more than just drive it home from the dealership.
Mar '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
I agree with Buck #10 - Ethanol did not work out so well!
I think the budget for the research I linked to is about the same as two Tomahawk missiles currently being used to kill Camels.
Long term, the solution is Hydrogen, short term is more drilling and Gas, medium term is the grown petroleum (or artificial petroleum-substitute - there is some research in the UK that I have lost the link to) while we are gradually changing our cars to Hydrogen power.
These processes may become more economical when compared with $10/gal petroleum from drilled oil, whose prices will "necessarily skyrocket". Especially if we invest as much on research for "alternative" fuels as has been spent on the Libya fiasco, so far.
Unfortunately, sharp-creased Obama wants us walking or riding bicycles to the high-speed railway station, instead (not quite sure where the electricity is coming from - no doubt he will figure it out).
Oct '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
A question, after reading from a teleprompter to deliver a speech, leaving...
Wonder if Obama does not turn to an adviser and ask, What did I just say ?
And how was it different from the last time ?
Nov '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
I guess if you are a big enough fool you might believe that.
Feb '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
DavidW.."Long term, the solution is Hydrogen"....Could you expand on how you see this as working? Inasmuch as there are no hydrogen mines, the only ways I know how to get hydrogen are (a)electrolysis or other energy-consuming process turning H2O into hydrogen...in this scenario, hydrogen isn't really a fuel, but rather an energy-transfer medium...and (b)conversion from natural gas, which raises the question of why not just use the nat gas directly.
Comments?
Mar '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
DavidF,
I cannot claim to be an expert but, as I understand it, there is a lotta H20 in the World, from which H2 can be extracted using electrical power, using, say, H2 Fusion - so, yes, H2 is an energy-transfer medium (as is gasoline, on a somewhat longer timescale, in its natural form).
The missing link is, of course, Fusion Power - which is why this is long term (I would guess 100 years). Well, you could use Solar, if you don't mind covering large parts of Arizona with solar farms (this is actively being considered - I live in Tucson, BTW).
The H2 can be used either to drive an internal combustion engine, or, more likely, a fuel-cell-powered electric car. In both cases, the exhaust is H20 - hmm, a cycle!
Again, none of this is currently economical, and there are problems with storing H2 in cars, but presumably these problems can be solved in the aforementioned 100 years, by which time petroleum will be $1000/gal.
In the meantime, we can drill for, or grow, petroleum, or some other fuel such as abundant natural gas - assuming we have a rational Energy policy from Politicians...
Mar '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
I should add, if it's not already clear - all our energy currently comes from the Sun (Natural H2 Fusion Power). The only change is what cycle and intermediate media you choose to use to ultimately extract enough energy to move a car (or train, if you must) around. The original source is H2 - by far the most abundant element in the Universe - and, as Einstein pointed out, there is a huge amount of energy in it - E=mc^2 :-)
Mar '11
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
Hmm, now that I think about it - an exception to all our energy coming from the Sun is Fission Power (i.e. current Nuclear Power) - Uranium probably comes from SuperNova.
Fission Power is a messy way of making power - I hope we can get over it :-)
Dec '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
You get high marks. Almost all of our energy does come from our own sun. Some comes from the death throes of other stars.
Dec '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
I'll try to avoid the technical points and stay with the general; as Buck said, "...What the Greenies never seem to realize, is that while we are developing these usually non-viable fuel alternatives, we still need to get to and from work, the grocery store, etc."
Oh, they realize. They firmly believe and have said to me, "We are going to have to adjust people's attitudes...." That was a direct quote from the head of the Florida Audobon Society, to me, after a meeting at the Florida House, last year. They are very well aware of what their positions imply,
I am from the camp that says we need oil and natural gas as a bridge to future technologies, but I don't think we should dismiss the future of hydrogen. Yes, it will take years of further work, but here is an example of what may be coming. The key is in the manufacture of devices that does not depend upon exotic materials. Cobalt and nickel are not exactly hopping out of the ground, but this is a step forward and far better than what was functional, only a year ago.
Dec '10
Re: Drill, Drill, Drill?
David Williamson: DavidF,
I cannot claim to be an expert but, as I understand it, there is a lotta H20 in the World, from which H2 can be extracted using electrical power, using, say, H2 Fusion - so, yes, H2 is an energy-transfer medium (as is gasoline, on a somewhat longer timescale, in its natural form).
The missing link is, of course, Fusion Power - which is why this is long term (I would guess 100 years). Well, you could use Solar, if you don't mind covering large parts of Arizona with solar farms (this is actively being considered - I live in Tucson, BTW).
The H2 can be used either to drive an internal combustion engine, or, more likely, a fuel-cell-powered electric car. In both cases, the exhaust is H20 - hmm, a cycle!
...
· Mar 31 at 3:01pm
Of course you know that SCOTUS would then declare water to be a polutant, and the EPA would step in to regulate us, helpless children that we are.