-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
30 Mar 2011, 2:38 pm
steve
Government intervention has and is distorting it.
But, the fact that regulation was often co-opted (see MMS and Massey Energy or the scandal of the latest Gulf Oil disaster) has to make you wonder why?
To who's benefit?
Generally multi national corporations. (See Cheney energy policy?) Poor regulation or no regulation led to things like Enron. Remember? I don't disagree that government regulation has been poor..
1. So this would be an excuse for not formulating one now--how exactly?
2. This is a great argument for dismantling the Department of Energy. It was formed nearly 40 years ago to handle this problem and has proved a waste of money.
1. Not an excuse. Just a reminder that the problem isn't new, and that corporate friendly administrations allowing oil companies to act in the interests of the corporations helped dig the problem deeper from the late 70's through to today.
2. Or empowering them more. Other nations don't let multi national corporations act with impunity in their energy markets. They tend to demand that the countries national interests are considered when decisions on policy, investment and exploitation are considered.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 15994
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
30 Mar 2011, 3:24 pm
Yeah, Jav. Silly you for presuming that Steve was debating with what you said or referred to. Clearly he was attacking the tree-huggers in his head. Get out of Steve's head, you dirty hippies!
Every US President since Carter has said he will do more to reduce US dependence on foreign oil. Every single one has failed to dent the trends. I guess what you are arguing for, Steve, is some good old fashioned state interference.
-
- Javelin
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: 01 Oct 2001, 7:56 am
31 Mar 2011, 12:10 am
Yes, silly me! Someone get me a gun so I can shoot the dirty tree hugging hippies in Steve's head! Provided the 2nd Amendment allows for that sort of thing...
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
31 Mar 2011, 10:39 am
Javelin wrote:Yes, silly me! Someone get me a gun so I can shoot the dirty tree hugging hippies in Steve's head! Provided the 2nd Amendment allows for that sort of thing...
Not for non-citizens. Lo siento.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
31 Mar 2011, 11:07 am
Argue with Kudlow, who sees through the President's smoke and mirrors, also known as an "energy speech," given yesterday:
If you buy into the energy speech President Obama delivered on Wednesday, it sure sounds like we're headed for drill, drill, drill. It would be a total reversal of policy. I guess $100-plus oil and near $4 gas at the pump -- along with a consumer economic-political revolt -- will do that to you.
After bashing oil and gas companies for a couple of years and instituting a virtual drilling moratorium, President Obama now says yes to offshore oil and makes a big pitch for natural gas. There may even be incentives for faster leasing and smaller royalty payments to the government.
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.
The president doesn't discuss the role of the EPA, which is going after coal, natural gas, and oil. And while he says he'll speed up new leases and permits, he then blames oil companies for not using their old leases. That's an old saw of an argument that neglects to mention dry holes. . .
All this is why I favor market forces and a drill, drill, drill policy. The U.S. has 112 billion barrels of oil, both on- and offshore. As much as two trillion barrels are locked up in shale rock. Even excluding shale, discovered oil resources could fuel 60 million cars for about 60 years. These are all Interior Department statistics.
And by the way, market forces create significant incentives for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear producers to be as safe and environmentally sound as human engineering can make possible. They don't want BP-level calamities. Nor do they want repeats of the Japanese disaster.
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?
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
31 Mar 2011, 2:28 pm
kudlow
And by the way, market forces create significant incentives for oil, gas, coal, and nuclear producers to be as safe and environmentally sound as human engineering can make possible. They don't want BP-level calamities. Nor do they want repeats of the Japanese disaster
.
If the incentives were as significant as he says why did the disasters he mentioned happen in the first place?
Why has Massey Energy has so many die in its coal mines?
More dubiously, why do the international drilling companies that willingly accept certain safety measures in the North Sea under Norwegian laws demand looser regulations in the Gulf of Mexico?
Apparently the restricitions for acoustic valves wasn't crippling to the endevours in the North Sea. But couldn't be borne in the Gulf?
Market forces have been at work, virtually without restraint in the US oil market since the 1970's. The multi nationals willingly chose to exploit cheaply produced Saudi oil over more expensive to produce domestic oil. market forces are mainly to blame for the way the oil economy has worked Steve... And as you realize what thats done is export great wealth to people who don't really like you. and provide them with enormous political leverage and economic clout. Bully for those market forces.
it takes a decade to develop an undersea drilling operation. You don't just drill a hole, you also have to lay the recovery pipeline system, and the delivery to refining capacity, (and in the US there isn't enough refining capacity anyway). and you don't often do that unless the region being drilled is likely to have numerous drill sites. Deep water drilling is more expensive, and has risk increased enormously over shallow water drilling. In the end, govnerments understand that they will be the final back stop for all risk, becasue no matter how big a corporation they are limited, and will also seek to avoid assuming liability as much as possible.
Kudlows the kind of guy who believes in privatizing the reward from risk taking - and socializing the cost of dealing with risk that fails... (See his attitude on bank bail outs. he was a big fan of maintaining compensation to exectuives banks acepting TARP..)
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
01 Apr 2011, 9:25 am
rickyp wrote:Market forces have been at work, virtually without restraint in the US oil market since the 1970's.
Only true if you believe government is not a "restraint."
it takes a decade to develop an undersea drilling operation.
In one sentence, you completely invalidated the President's suggestion that somehow he is responsible for increased oil production in 2009-10. Congratulations!
As for all the other dirt you throw up in the air, why do you want to debate the Japanese nuke disaster, the Gulf oil spill, and coal mine disasters? Life is too short for me to try and defend endlessly things that have no/little connection to the topic.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
02 Apr 2011, 12:38 pm
steve
As for all the other dirt you throw up in the air, why do you want to debate the Japanese nuke disaster, the Gulf oil spill, and coal mine disasters?
You complain that "regulations" are what's kept the American energy industry from growing to where it could support the domestic needs.
And yet its effective regulation and enforcement of regulation that keeps disasters from happening with regularity. When regulation becomes ineffective, inevitably private industry has taken risks that cost lives and treasure.
The possibility of destroying the Gulf of Mexico shouldn't be a risk assumed only by a private oil company. The assumption of that risk affects everyone who either lies or works in the region, or who benefits from the region.
That BP chafed at the minimal regulations placed before it is true. That their failure to even enact those standards caused deaths and disrupted the lives and economy of everyone in the region is clear. That anyone would consider once again allowing a multinational corporation to assume the same risks without all stakeholders in the potential damage having a say is foolish.
True conservatism means conserving what you have wisely. That includes being careful about how one exploits resources.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
04 Apr 2011, 10:04 am
rickyp wrote:You complain that "regulations" are what's kept the American energy industry from growing to where it could support the domestic needs.
Not quite. I am saying the Obama Administration (and it's tree-hugging friends) are actually blocking energy projects.
The possibility of destroying the Gulf of Mexico shouldn't be a risk assumed only by a private oil company. The assumption of that risk affects everyone who either lies or works in the region, or who benefits from the region.
Duh.
The least effective organization at fighting the spill was, by most accounts, the Federal government.
The lesson the Left took from the BP debacle was: don't drill. Maybe that's because that's their core belief anyway?
A better lesson: work harder at prevention. Obama has instead shut down new leases.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
04 Apr 2011, 1:24 pm
steve
A better lesson: work harder at prevention
And how would you do that in a way that doesn't involve regulation and enforcement of regulation?
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
04 Apr 2011, 1:31 pm
rickyp wrote:steve
A better lesson: work harder at prevention
And how would you do that in a way that doesn't involve regulation and enforcement of regulation?
When exactly did I say we needed no regulation or enforcement thereof?
While you're searching, I'll just say I'd probably be satisfied with whatever deal Obama cut with Brazil--in other words, we ought to be doing that here.
