Michele Bachmann's promise to lower the pump price of fuel to $2 per gallon is generating a fair amount of controversy.  Leaving the conservative presidential candidate's specific promise to one side, can we at least agree on how not to run a federal energy policy?  First, from the San Jose Mercury News:

A controversial proposal to build a massive underground pipeline to carry 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas has become the environmental issue of the summer, pitting developers and labor unions desperate for construction jobs against environmentalists and Native American tribes who fear the pipeline will spell environmental disaster.

So now it's controversial to transport oil from our close ally to the North to Texas refineries able to supply US energy needs, adding thousands of jobs in the process.  And, of course, the Obama State Department is blocking the permit needed to start construction of this international project.  I guess State prefers Saudi Arabian to Canadian crude.

Meanwhile, the Obama Interior department is blocking Exxon Mobil's effort to develop an enormous discovery in the Gulf.  The Wall Street Journal reports:

Exxon Mobil Corp. is fighting with the U.S. government to keep control of one of its biggest oil discoveries ever, in a showdown where billions of dollars hang in the balance for both sides.

The massive Gulf of Mexico discovery contains an estimated one billion barrels of recoverable oil, the company says. The Interior Department, which regulates offshore drilling, says Exxon's leases have expired and the company hasn't met the requirements for an extension. Exxon has sued to retain the leases.

Maybe it's just something about Texas that rubs Obama administration appointees the wrong way.

No energy update can be complete without the latest from the Business Destruction Agency (formerly: EPA).  The Washington Times reports that BDA is proposing to ratchet down acceptable ozone concentrations to the background level occurring naturally in such pristine locales as Yellowstone National Park.  Gee, if everyone everywhere is always in violation of federal ozone standards, then just about every economic activity becomes impossible without some sort of government waiver.   

Think of all the waiver-writing jobs this will create.  

Comments:


Whiskey Sam
Joined
Jul '10
Whiskey Sam

At what point do we finally say, "Enough!" and defy blatantly unconstitutional usurpations of power?  The current administration could not do a better job of destroying the economy if they actively tried.

Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

I'm betting he nationalizes the oil companies in the run up to the election. They are being so reckless, actually trying to exploit innocent hydrocarbons in their mad quest for evil profits. The easiest way to end the horror is obviously to transfer the productivity secrets of the federal government to the oil industry. This, of course, will clinch the election for him. 

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque
Sisyphus: I'm betting he nationalizes the oil companies in the run up to the election. They are being so reckless, actually trying to exploit innocent hydrocarbons in their mad quest for evil profits. The easiest way to end the horror is obviously to transfer the productivity secrets of the federal government to the oil industry. This, of course, will clinch the election for him.  · Aug 19 at 10:09am

Well, that would be a sure-fire way to get Maxine Waters back on his side.

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque

 Spot on, George.  The Obama Administration's energy policy is to put up every conceivable roadblock to hydrocarbon production and use, and then blame Big Oil and speculators for jacking up gasoline prices.

It's amazing that people think Bachmann is suggesting some command-and-control regime to force gas prices to $2, when the opposite is true: she knows that removing the Obama roadblocks will let gas settle back to its more recent historical pattern (demand from China and India being offset by recession in the West).

Pilgrim
Joined
Jun '10
Pilgrim

 Is it obvious why oil has to be piped from Canada to Texas? Wouldn't a refinery closer to the source be cheaper than a pipeline?

Snow Bird
Joined
Feb '11
Snow Bird

It sounds like The Onion has taken over the federal government.

Snow Bird
Joined
Feb '11
Snow Bird

Stuart Creque:  Spot on, George.  The Obama Administration's energy policy is to put up every conceivable roadblock to hydrocarbon production and use, and then blame Big Oil and speculators for jacking up gasoline prices.

It's amazing that people think Bachmann is suggesting some command-and-control regime to force gas prices to $2, when the opposite is true: she knows that removing the Obama roadblocks will let gas settle back to its more recent historical pattern (demand from China and India being offset by recession in the West). · Aug 19 at 10:28am

Nothing has changed significantly in terms of supply and demand since the start of the Obama administration when gas was around $2. The current price of $4+ is a market response to the political climate.

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque

Snow Bird

Stuart Creque:  Spot on, George.  The Obama Administration's energy policy is to put up every conceivable roadblock to hydrocarbon production and use, and then blame Big Oil and speculators for jacking up gasoline prices.

It's amazing that people think Bachmann is suggesting some command-and-control regime to force gas prices to $2, when the opposite is true: she knows that removing the Obama roadblocks will let gas settle back to its more recent historical pattern (demand from China and India being offset by recession in the West). · Aug 19 at 10:28am

Nothing has changed significantly in terms of supply and demand since the start of the Obama administration when gas was around $2. The current price of $4+ is a market response to the political climate. · Aug 19 at 10:33am

Present prices as a signal of future expectations?

Snow Bird
Joined
Feb '11
Snow Bird

Stuart Creque

Present prices as a signal of future expectations? · Aug 19 at 10:37am

Yes, if the current administration stays in power.

raycon and lindacon
Joined
Oct '10
raycon
Pilgrim:  Is it obvious why oil has to be piped from Canada to Texas? Wouldn't a refinery closer to the source be cheaper than a pipeline? · Aug 19 at 10:29am

Getting permission from the feral government to build a new refinery or expand an existing one is a far sight harder than getting the pipeline built, and that will probably never happen.  Of course, Canada could build a pipeline to the Pacific coast and sell the oil on the world market, then we get the OPEC bargain pricing.

ManBearPig
Joined
May '10
Ryan Gaines

 Why not $1 per gallon? With new massive oil and gas finds seemingly every day, a Republican controlled govt. should be able to lower the price of oil by a ton...

Also, isn't ozone good for you? When my mother was being treated for cancer, one of the tools they used was an ozone machine in her room.

wilber forge
Joined
Oct '10
wilber forge
Pilgrim:  Is it obvious why oil has to be piped from Canada to Texas? Wouldn't a refinery closer to the source be cheaper than a pipeline? · Aug 19 at 10:29am

This covers a lot. Texas refineries are of the older variety and the rules govering them are immense. To construct a new refinery is almost impossible due to all the agencies, let alone the vast cost.

An oil pipeline would be far safer than a gasoline pipeline. As well as the distribution network  required to get the fuel to destinations.

This is will be a non started. Just too grandiouse on its face.

CandE
Joined
Jul '11
CandE
Pilgrim:  Is it obvious why oil has to be piped from Canada to Texas? Wouldn't a refinery closer to the source be cheaper than a pipeline? · Aug 19 at 10:29am

It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions) to build a refinery capable of processing the Canadian tar sands crude in the amounts that they are extracting it.  There are already several facilities in TX, OK and other states that can refine these crudes so a pipeline is far superior to building a new grassroots refinery.

-E

CandE
Joined
Jul '11
CandE

Stuart Creque

It's amazing that people think Bachmann is suggesting some command-and-control regime to force gas prices to $2, when the opposite is true: she knows that removing the Obama roadblocks will let gas settle back to its more recent historical pattern (demand from China and India being offset by recession in the West). · Aug 19 at 10:28am

This.

We had $2 gas prices for 17 years in this country (1986-2003).  While true that demand has grown since that time (with a temporary drop in 2008), supply disruptions and restrictions are what are really driving prices up.  Iraq war, Katrina, 2006 Congress, and now the Obama administration have kept prices higher then they need to be for years. 

-E

Dan Hanson
Joined
Aug '10
Dan Hanson

 I live in Alberta, and I can tell you that people here are getting fed up with the U.S. Congress.   Every time some yammerhead from the Obama administration or the Congress starts bad-mouthing Alberta oil,  we get renewed purchase queries from the Chinese and others. 

Most people here would much rather see our oil go to the U.S. than to China, but we're also not going to just leave it in the ground when there are customers for it.  So it IS going to be extracted and sold.  If the U.S. refuses it, it won't help the environment one bit - it will just get burned in another country.

The same is true for all oil.  Once it's extracted, it's fungible.  You can slap local carbon taxes on it or implement cap and trade in the U.S., but it won't help the environment one bit.  If demand in the U.S. falls, that will just drive the price of oil down for everyone else, and demand will pick up elsewhere to take up the slack.  The U.S. will essentially be subsidizing everyone else's oil with taxpayer money.

Pilgrim
Joined
Jun '10
Pilgrim

Dan Hanson:  

Dear Mr President: 

I can tell you that people here are getting fed up with the U.S. Congress.   Every time some yammerhead from your administration or the Congress starts bad-mouthing Alberta oil,  we get renewed purchase queries from the Chinese and others. 

Most people here would much rather see our oil go to the U.S. than to China, but we're also not going to just leave it in the ground when there are customers for it.  So it IS going to be extracted and sold.  If the U.S. refuses it, it won't help the environment one bit - it will just get burned in another country.

The same is true for all oil.  Once it's extracted, it's fungible.  You can slap local carbon taxes on it or implement cap and trade in the U.S., but it won't help the environment one bit.  If demand in the U.S. falls, that will just drive the price of oil down for everyone else, and demand will pick up elsewhere to take up the slack.  The U.S. will essentially be subsidizing everyone else's oil with taxpayer money.

Cordially,

Stephen Harper

Dan Hanson
Joined
Aug '10
Dan Hanson

 Heh!

Diego Sun Devil
Joined
Apr '11
Diego Sun Devil

EPA = Entrepreneurial Punishment Agency


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In