-
The Taxman Cometh (for Tea Partiers)
May 13, 2013 | 150 comments
-
Farrell’s Fallacies
May 9, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Turning on Obama
May 7, 2013 | 227 comments
-
The Pigs of Pigford
April 30, 2013 | 71 comments
-
Overstating Boston
April 26, 2013 | 143 comments
Special Report
Yes on Green But No on Green River
How Obama’s environmentalism makes life harder for those who can least afford it.
Barack Obama’s muddled thinking, so typical of a radical environmentalist’s hatred for oil and other things that improve human life, leaves him with an energy policy that only a Democrat (but not one from an energy-producing state) could find satisfactory.
This is not some sort of theoretical debate with unknown policy impacts. It is not a fundamentally trivial make-believe issue such as the “war on women.”
Instead, there are few policy issues as critical as this to all Americans, especially to those of modest or fixed incomes: high oil prices function as a massive tax increase, and a tremendously regressive one at that.
Low-income Americans spend about 11 percent of their income on energy while the top 20 percent (by income) of households spend less than seven percent. Again, this is only direct energy spending. When you include the cost of other things people must buy, particularly food, whose costs rise with higher energy prices, the regressive nature of rising fuel prices becomes all the more dramatic.
Particularly in the northeast, oil prices directly correlate to the cost of heating one’s home in winter. (That part of the country tends to use more heating oil where other areas use more natural gas, propane, or electric heat.)
For 25 years now, analysts have noted the devastation that high energy prices cause to our nation’s least well-off residents: “On some days, many of America’s poorest households must choose whether to heat or to eat. This kind of choice is beyond the comprehension of most middle-class Americans.… But for the poor… it remains a daily part of their lives.”
According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, “For every 10-cent increase in the price of a gallon of gasoline, it costs the economy about $11 billion.” Even the Obamaphile ABC News has noted that “A 10 cent rise in prices means that the average household spends $93.25 more on gas and diesel per year.”
So it’s not surprising that by one analyst’s calculations consumer confidence “falls half a percentage point for every 10-cent rise in gasoline.” Why shouldn’t it? And these are just dimes, whereas the price of gasoline is up by about $2 per gallon since Obama took office. Multiply the numbers above by twenty and consider the financial devastation to the country, especially to the non-rich. And then think about Barack Obama’s chilly indifference.
It makes perfect sense that the recent record-high gas prices for a Labor Day holiday corresponded to a decline in consumer confidence in August, leaving the leading consumer sentiment index at its lowest level since late last year. And yet Barack Obama remains ahead in political betting odds to win reelection (though I’m betting against him).
Is President Obama’s soaring but vapid convention rhetoric supposed to get Americans to forget the near-daily pain at the pump? Republicans must make sure it does not.
The section of Obama’s Thursday night nomination acceptance speech that discussed energy was a triumph of hope over reason and fact, but then why should energy be any different than his other policy positions or his supporters’ Through the Looking Glass view of reality?
Obama noted that the U.S. is less dependent on foreign oil than in the past. However, some facts were conveniently missing: First, the decline of our use of foreign oil began under President Bush in 2005. Second, and more important, the reason is primarily the recession and weak “recovery” which has sapped demand for fuel to transport goods and people.
Obama claimed that he has “opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration in the last three years” but didn’t mention that essentially most new drilling on federal land was approved under the prior administration. This administration has been relentlessly hostile, and the issuance of permits to drilling on federal lands has plummeted under Obama. It’s only on private land that drilling has increased.
One of the several political tin-ear remarks made by Obama on Thursday, unless he was only speaking to his radical base in which case he probably made sense in their miswired minds, was his list of the energy projects he supports, which includes wind turbines, long-lasting batteries, solar, clean coal, and biofuels.
Of course, we’ve heard it all before and know the results. (Can you say “Solyndra”?) It was hard to listen to the president and not wonder how life is on Planet Enviro, since he’s clearly not interested in, nor concerned with life on, Planet Earth.
About the Author
Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ross Kaminsky
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/10/yes-on-green-but-no-on-green-r
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 9.10.12 @ 7:06AM
Why would anyone vote for Obama?
Do Obama voters want higher food, gasoline and electric costs? Someone 'splain it to me.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.10.12 @ 8:24AM
In order to get to that point, you have to have an enforced stupidity and ignorance. This, in turn, explains the Left's desire to dominate the education system and ensure that it indoctrinates instead of teaching people to think critically.
c. j. acworth| 9.10.12 @ 8:27AM
I've been wondering the same thing for weeks, Pete. How is it that this race is even close? As for energy production, people forget that this country once ran on solar energy 100%. Want to go back 200 years? There would have been no industrial revolution without coal, oil and gas. You simply cannot expect to run a modern state on so diffuse a source of energy as sunbeams. We require concentrated, easily transmissable energy, and we will require it in ever-increasing amounts. Fossil fuel for now, with fission (and fusion if we can figure out how to do it). But the green freaks DO want to go back in time to some imagined paradise where everything was pure and unsullied by man. The fact that the world's population would have to decrease by about 90% matters not to them. They always assume they will be among the remaining 10%.
TLP| 9.10.12 @ 9:04AM
It's the TV Guide.
It's Kim and Khloe, their Whore Mother, and that Big Amazon Sister of their's.
It's American Idol. America's Got Talent. So You Think You Can Dance. everything with Charlie Sheen in it, and all of the GAY IS GOOD Shows.
It's 60 Years of Hippies Controlling the Education System.
50 Years if The Immigration Act of 1965.
40 Years of 80% Out of Wedlock Births, Generational Welfare, and the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations in the Ghetto.
30 Years of the Same Democrats in Congress.
20 Years of an Über Biased Media.
10 Years of Blaming Bush.
And 4 Years of Radio Silence, when it comes to TELLING THE TRUTH about The Thing in the White House.
Anybody hear ANYTHING about New Orleans?
Anybody see a Daily Body Count in the Liberal Media, that we saw EVERY NIGHT, when George Bush was President?
Have you ever heard the word HOMELESS since Hamas' Deliveror took Power?
And where are the Daily Gas Price Updates?
TLP| 9.10.12 @ 9:22AM
This is President Green Light, and, as everyone knows - Green means Go.
His Hamfisted treatment of Honduras, when they through out the would be Presidente' for Life - Zeleya - was a Green Light to every Leftist Regime, South of the Border. Just ask Wikileaks. They'll tell ya.
His treatment of Mubarek in Egypt, and his Illegal Attack on Khaddafi, in Libya, combined with his Utter Silence on Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program, and Syris's Mass Murder of its Citizens, is a Green Light to the Radical Islamists that Jordan and Saudi Arabia are their's for the taking.
And, his message to I'mahandajob , in Tehran, that he will do NOTHING to support Israel, should it Attack those Weapons Facilities, is a Green Light that Hamas is correct in thinking that Obama has been sent by their God of Murder to Destroy the Jews and Deliver Jerusalem back in to the hands of the Muslims. They have given him the name - Abu Hussain. Son of the Father.
And of course, his Infamous - "Tell Vladimir to be patient. Once I'm Re-elected, I'll have more flexibility."
That Green Light big enough for ya?
So, in answering Pete - Why would anyone Vote for this Guy?
"Some Men just wanna watch the world burn."
The Dark Knight.
Have you seen that one, Ross?
Or, do you only go to those with English Subtitles?
Von Mises Jr| 9.10.12 @ 9:47AM
Pete, it is because when private companies in a capitalist economy drill for oil, people must work for the oil companies to directly enjoy the profit.
When lazy SOB welfare and OWS slugs like Perp have the government seize the oil companies, they believe the profits will be given to them for things like writing propaganda and attacking the remaining private sector workers.
It is called laziness and greed by the slackers that want something for nothing. That is the definition of entitlement society.
Al Adab| 9.10.12 @ 11:53AM
Pete:
In point of fact increases in the price of those commodities is exactly what the central planners do want. Have you not heard The Left (now in complete control of the DEM party) continually maintain that America is too rich, uses too much, eats too much, and harms the worlds' poor? It is what their Faith teaches them. It is why they want a poorer America with less opportunity, more dependency and a centrally controlled economy.
Whether their Faith stems from misguided guilt or some other psychosis matters little. It is that view which they wish to impose through their policy choices. Every action is designed to reduce the American standard of living, our use of natural resources and deliver more power over daily life to the central authority.
Pecos Pete| 9.10.12 @ 5:26PM
Thanks to all responders. I appreciate the time you took to intelligently answer my question. I guess, in the end, the education system is the root cause for the stupidity of the Obama and democrat voters.
JD| 9.10.12 @ 8:11PM
The answer is simple. People believe what the Left tells them. Media, education, whatever - it's all the same. To Obama's supporters, we are greedy evil racist tyrants who cause all of America's problems, and they are all that is good in the world.
Orwell's 1984 wasn't just a book. It explained how to take power, and keep it - you have to control information. Atlas Shrugged was similarly prescient - it showed how leeches can not only justify themselves, but can turn the work of the productive against them. They seize your production, hand it out, and convince the public that it came from them, but that its inadequacy is your fault. If you produce less, they blame you. If you produce more, they take more credit. Either way, they win.
Purp| 9.10.12 @ 8:28AM
So we're back to complaining about high gas prices - when clearly GW Bush nor President Obama can affect gas prices month to month?
Gas prices were up and down under GW Bush and Obama and has nothing to do with them.
In the world market, it doesn't matter where the oil or gas is drilled or refined. It's a world economy and all oil companies are Global Giants, that buy oil on the WORLD market.
There will never be "American Energy" - even if produced here, it will be sold worldwide to the highest bidder - that's the market forces y'all love so much, so what's so hard to understand?
Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.10.12 @ 8:43AM
Hey Purp, I seem to recall you giving the POTUS credit for lowering the prices when the cost of a gallon of gas dipped slightly in the spring. Just like Obama, being on the Left means you never have to be consistent with regard to what you communicate.
DTOM| 9.10.12 @ 9:20AM
ACJ;
Go back at look at the price of oil between September of 2008 and December of 2008. In September the barrel price as about $140, in early October President Bush announced that we would greatly increase offshore drilling. The price by Dec 2008, the price was down to $35 a barrel. Yes, the President can influence the price of oil. If he wants to.
And if Obama were to grab at the straw of opening up the Green River Oil shale, gas would be back down to the price it was in December 2008 - $1.80/gal.
Naturally, this would destroy any shred of pretense that unreliable renewables and green energy are worth a single drop of cold spit.
The question remains: what does the littlest President really want? Green energy or lower energy prices for you sucker voters?
Still thinking of staying home Nov. 6?
Pity the fools...
DTOM
JD| 9.10.12 @ 3:24PM
Traditionally, high energy prices would hurt the president in the polls. However, this president has bet his future on the hope that he can simply convince voters that the high prices are the fault of the people his opponent represents, which means they actually HELP his reelection prospects.
So far, he's been winning his bets.
Purp| 9.10.12 @ 4:22PM
No, I didn't - I know better than that ... it is the global market that determines the price. There is no such thing as "American Energy" - not anymore regarding oil, gas and coal.
Now, I'm not sure there's a Global Electricity Market, so Nuclear, Wind, Solar and Geothermal American Electricity might make a difference, for sure. But then, those might be considered "Green" and the right-wing will have none of it, sadly.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.10.12 @ 5:41PM
This must have been one of those other jackasses using "Purp" to post here:
Purp| 6.25.12 @ 1:02PM
I don't know, but we're swimming in oil and natural gas, so much that we are exporting both. Have you noticed gas prices have tanked recently and continue to drop .... Good Job Mr. President ! He made the gas prices drop. He forced the price down. He's amazing, that magic Obama.
Obama 2012!
Nancy in NC| 9.10.12 @ 8:53AM
Just admit it, puke bag, you will vote for Ozero regardless of what he does. You "feel" it's the right thing to do. Don't listen to what he's done, just listen to the rhetoric. You're such a good little Dimwit.
Ross Kaminsky| 9.10.12 @ 11:40AM
Purp:
Two things: First, in terms of global prices, it is basically true that it doesn't matter where the oil is drilled. But it does matter whether oil is drilled. And the federal government is preventing drilling here, where it can.
Second, transportation costs are relevant, so local commodity markets can have substantially different prices from world markets. Look at local grain markets, for example, as well as the fact that gasoline prices vary widely around the US. Substantial production in the US will give us prices lower than global prices because of lower transportation costs.
So your theory that energy produced here won't have large benefits is absolutely wrong. It will reduce global prices, and reduce local prices in relation to global prices.
Purp| 9.10.12 @ 4:42PM
First of all, we're awash in oil and gas - we are simply experiencing fluctuations I suspect have to do more with the management of oil and gas by the Oil Giants than any lack of oil OR gas.
It's not costing them much or they wouldn't have such astronomical profits, after tax, would they? But the price is high - hmmm, very curious.
Moreover, any oil drilled on the coasts is exported. We don't have the refining capacity to handle the oil pumped and they get a higher price to send West Coast and Alaskan oil to China and India by ship than to the Continental US. Atlantic oil would go to Europe and Gulf Oil could go either way.
Oil imports into this country are down significantly over the last few year, yet the price stays high. It's not a lack of supply here that is causing the price of oil to fluctuate. Indeed, world oil demand is down as well, with China and Europe both suffering economic woes as well.
And, oil is a finite commodity - one day it WILL be gone. No more is being made by nature. Who knows when? - but why burn through all we have here, since oil is used to make pharmaceuticals, plastics and so much more than gasoline for transportation?
When Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. run dry, then we will still have oil.
Finally, we don't need to smash through pristeen wildlife areas to get oil or gas. As technology improves, we'll find ways to get it without disturbing what can't be replaced. We can extract oil now that we couldn't a generation ago.
JD| 9.10.12 @ 6:32PM
You know their profit margins aren't particularly high, and you know they pay tons of tax, but in foreign countries, which actually allow them to do work there. Yet you persist with these claims of "astronomical profits".
The lack of refining capacity here is a problem that can be fixed, creating lots of jobs and tax revenues. But before refineries are built, investors must feel that government won't kneecap their investment at a moment's notice.
You seem convinced that so long as something is marketed globally, it doesn't matter whether it's produced here or abroad. If that's the case, why do we care that manufacturing has moved overseas? Why care about outsourcing at all? The absurdity of your argument is exposed by applying it to other industries.
You suggest that we're smartly saving our oil until everyone else runs out, but nobody believes you. They'll own our country before they run out of oil, if your ideas continue to run our economy. You're just grasping for any anti-drilling argument you can find.
Stan Redmond| 9.10.12 @ 1:53PM
President downgrade is at the helm with Turbo Timmy and helicopter Ben. The dollar is being trashed by this clown car cabal raising the cost of oil. Obama's environmental policies and his EPA have limited the production and refining of domestic oil.
Purp| 9.10.12 @ 4:43PM
Bush retread - heard it for years - it doesn't matter when your guys are in charge - not interested.
JD| 9.10.12 @ 2:07PM
Give it a rest, Purp. Your side frequently blames factors under heavy political control for oil prices, without connecting the politics to the factors.
For example, you love to blame "speculators", even though speculation is a symptom of a price factor, not a cause. Speculators have reasons for their speculation, and bad energy policies are a big reason. If policy changes favorably, speculators will sell, driving prices down. This happens IMMEDIATELY, not over time. In other words, politicians can have short term price impacts. And they often do.
Furthermore, your attempt to dismiss local production for reasons of globalization is highly hypocritical, and also wrong. Your side loves to blame the right for "outsourcing" and other inevitable realities of this world (magnified by Democratic policies). Yet now you decide to recognize globalization's inevitability?
But regardless of where oil is sold, domestic production means domestic jobs. And tax revenues, which you love so much. Even if it doesn't impact prices, it's very, very worthwhile!
Albert Constantine Jr.| 9.10.12 @ 8:35AM
When I saw the headline, I thought somehow the choices were between environmentalism and an affection for Creedence Clearwater Revival hits. I am glad Mr. Kaminsky cleared things up with the article, as I would hate to give up “Lodi”.
I seem to recall an interview with Michelle Obama before 2008 in which, when asked if she feared having her husband assassinated if he ran for or became President, she responded to the effect of “As a black man, Barack could be shot going to the gas station”. Perhaps somewhere in the rationale of the Obama energy approach is an attempt to save the lives of all of those potential murder victims by limiting the frequency of their trips to refuel by increasing the cost while decreasing available income.
Jacob McCandles| 9.10.12 @ 8:48AM
Good point, going to get gas can be very dangerous. Michelle makes a very good point about black men being the victims of violence just going about their daily lives. Since most of these murders are perpetrated by other black men, perhaps Michelle should have qualified the statement with a warning to stay out of certain neighborhoods.
DTOM| 9.10.12 @ 9:22AM
Obama would be going to get gas in that haven of Chicago - the largest city in the only state in the nation which prohibits individuals from carrying around the means to defend themselves.
He'd be safer getting gas in Gary, Indiana...
DTOM
Butch| 9.10.12 @ 7:55PM
"I thought you were dead."
DTOM| 9.10.12 @ 9:37AM
Mr. K;
Nice article - but the referenced article needs a little plumbing up. The New American author considered revenue from the Green River Formation based on a $100/barrel price, i.e. a doubling of known global reserves would not cut oil prices. That assumption is patently Obamaesque.
Look what has happened to the price of natural gas since the directional drillling/fracking natural gas supply boom that hit in 2007. Its price went from $7/MCF to about $2.25/MCF. Natural gas is less fungible than oil. It's harder to ship except to pre-established users - most of whom are in no position to double or treble their consumption. Oil price is far more elastic than natural gas. So bring the Green River formation up and oil prices will probably plummet - so we probably will actually have to create some ancillary economic growth to pay down the federal debt - separation taxes alone will not do the trick.
But that'd be a damn good start!
So Mr. Romney here's your energy platform:
1. Expand use of nat gas domestically. Palpable sop to insatiable enviro kooks. Shows undecideds that RnR are trying to help Gaia, too.
2. Expand coal exports to China and other 1.5, second ant third world countries. This'd deliver swing states PA and OH to RnR...
DTOM| 9.10.12 @ 9:37AM
3. Remove EPA from the oil/gas development picture. Letting us experience almost instantaneous oil price drop globally - stimulating world economy, our economy, and showing Islamists that their endless cash supply is shrinking - you better feed those people something other than hatred of Israel, US, West - and shock the crap out of Putin as Russian energy revenues shrink.
Good grief! This is not hard - Obama must really be stupid...
Any questions?
Don't Tread On Me!
P.S. and talk about city on the hill and a thousand points of light..
DTOM| 9.10.12 @ 9:40AM
Mr. K,
Obamaesque = STATIST.
Which is how CBO scores everything- prices drop by factor of 4, and they assume that there will be no change in market prices. DOH!
'Splain it to 'em, again, pretty please...
DTOM
Cobalt| 9.10.12 @ 9:38AM
Axt Obama if it be cool to git ammo wid my EBT card?
Kwan| 9.10.12 @ 10:05AM
What we have here is a case of non-logic 101. Obama, Al Gore, and the radical environmentalists tell us that we must adopt "green energy" sources to avoid flooding the atmosphere with CO2 which will cause the dreaded "Global Warming". At the same time we have India and China whose developing industrialization is pouring large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Thus we have the ridiculous situation where Obama's energy policies are removing X amount of CO2 from the atmosphere-at a tremendous cost to the citizenry- while India and China are adding 20X Co2 to the atmosphere. Of course from the perspective of Obama's crooked pals, it's an ideal situation for stealing billions of dollars from the American taxpayers with crooked "green energy" scams like Solyndra.
Drunken Sailor| 9.10.12 @ 2:46PM
Don't forget the money to be made trading "Carbon Credits".
Von Mises Jr| 9.10.12 @ 10:06AM
Ross is spot on explaining that the benefit of oil drilling is first and foremost that it creates wealth and jobs. It improves GDP and the standard of living.
While it does help to have oil drilling and refineries for national security, oil is fungible. (Perp, that means that it is a good or commodity that individual units are capable of mutual substitution. Need I explain that again, Caliban?)
So the left's claims of it takes ten years, it won't affect world prices, blah,blah, blah are all nonsensical.
Ross has it right. Look at the Agenda21 map and it is clear that Barry and Nancy want the oil, farmland and water to control you.
http://www.godlikeproductions......878048/pg1
Al Adab| 9.10.12 @ 12:49PM
Additionally we need to build several new state of the art refineries in order to process the crude. Why do we import say 100 tankers every day while exporting the same number? Would it not make more sense, especially from a national security standpoint, to glut our domestic market before we export this very strategic commodity?
Any increase in the national economy through the creation of additional goods and services increases the national wealth. What policies promote that? Which party promotes those policies? At the same time reductions in federal spending paired with economic expansion create the opportunities we seek and reduce our dependency on credit to finance social programs which would see their demand reduced as the expansion moves forward.
JD| 9.10.12 @ 2:11PM
Any rumors of MidEast war or hurricanes or any other crisis affecting oil supplies affect prices IMMEDIATELY, even though the threat is in the future and probably won't materialize. This is because of how markets work on prices.
The Left loves to blame "speculators" for "driving up the price of oil" even though speculators are only reacting to real factors, most of which the Left makes worse. The factors, not the speculators, are the problem.
But this works both ways. If an expansion of drilling rights is announced, speculators will react immediately. They will sell, and prices will fall. Immediately. This is a benefit in addition to the job creation and tax revenues of expanding domestic energy.
The Left requires us to be highly inconsistent in considering various factors in order to believe its "logic".
Von Mises Jr| 9.10.12 @ 3:25PM
Speculators smooth out pricing by buying when prices are low and selling when prices are high. If they did not buy up and sell off to help regulate market prices (for their own personal self-interest), then price swings would be more dramatic since producers would need to dump at lower prices during glut and people would be forced to pay even higher prices if the demand was not alleviated during shortages. They bid against each other for a normal expected profit margin.
The same thing happens for instance when companies buy futures contracts where they offload some risks, or when they buy currency exchange contracts to compensate for international monetary fluctuations. If you are selling goods, why would you risk your profits or risk potential losses on things out of your control if there are financial instruments that can act as insurance. It is a function of the division of labor.
Somebody should explain this to Dear Leader.
Petronius| 9.10.12 @ 10:46AM
The EPA doesn't protect the environment. It prevents commerce in natural resources in order to reduce My standard of living. The higher the cost of a gallon of regular, the less disposable income I have. And That is the way Obama wants it. We are in thrall to the Levelers. Welcome to their 17th century.
Cobalt| 9.10.12 @ 10:53AM
Obama's refusal to drill on Federal lands is just another example of his ideology trumping what should be best for America.
The unemployment figures don't really bother Obama. It's all just part of the plan.
Obama doesn't want the economy to improve. He wants to bring the country down in order to affect the change he desires for America.
Obama is no friend of the middle class.
Obama see himself at the top of the pyramid of oligarchical collectivism. He sees himself as never personally having to be inconvenienced, by his redistributive wealth policy.
Obama is just an evil idealogue. Such audacity.
nathan| 9.10.12 @ 11:44AM
You all can correct me if I'm wrong but the price of a barrel of oil is set globally not locally. So here's how a gallon of gas gets priced: 1 - world oil price + 2- refinery costs + 3 - transportation costs + 4 - taxes. Drilling for oil in the US will impact 3 a bit, 2, some (we need to build more refineries) 4 not at all, and maybe 1 somewhat. But notice the latest surge was due to the storm impacting refineries on the gulf. An attack on Iran closing the gulf would drive oil prices to 5/600 maybe despite local production in place.
Keystone was about jobs not oil. That oil could have gone into the surplus pipeline capacity in the midwest. It didn't because the oil is mostly for export. Notice that the southern end in Texas IS under construction. The Canadians have no intentions of exporting that oil through Vancouver so yes Keystone gets built but not for the reasons people think.
The most valuable liquid on earth is water. Fracting uses huge amounts of it, most of which currently stays in the wells. What doesn't get talked about is where the water comes from especially in places like OH, PA, and elswhere. Rob the aquifer, and you don't get it back. We need to consider this carefully. Water wars are already a reality.
Jack London| 9.10.12 @ 12:50PM
The Green River Formation is oil shale not shale oil - it's not suitable for large scale extraction. No one has managed any commercial production from oil shale.
JD| 9.10.12 @ 2:01PM
Your point? Democrats throw billions of tax dollars after unviable energy technologies, leaving taxpayers to eat the losses. What right do you have to lambast oil shale?
Jack London| 9.10.12 @ 2:25PM
So you think it's commercially and technically feasible to extract oil shale? Your source?
As for new energy technologies, the overall portfolio of Energy Dept investments is doing fine.
Drunken Sailor| 9.10.12 @ 2:55PM
More recently, prices for crude oil have again risen to levels that may make oil shale-based oil production commercially viable, and both governments and industry are interested in pursuing the development of oil shale as an alternative to conventional oil.
http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/
JD| 9.10.12 @ 3:00PM
I don't think government officials with nothing to lose should be gambling taxpayer dollars on any of these. Private investors are free to do as they please, however, and they seem to like exploring unsubsidized oil technologies at least as much as solar/wind, despite the huge federal subsidy advantage that the latter enjoy.
nathan| 9.10.12 @ 2:30PM
Actually it might be. Besides fracting, one way to get at oil in the shale besides mining the rock (ghastly and should probably NOT be permitted) is to drill down and apply heat on the site which releases the oil from the rock and flows to a collection point. This doesn't disturb the ground on top. The energy cost is 1-4. One unit of energy releases four unit of oil. There were test wells in other areas that showed promise.
JD| 9.10.12 @ 1:49PM
"The more you need it, the more Obama and friends oppose it -- though they still want their campaign contributions."
What do you mean "though"? Soliciting campaign contributions through threat of political oppression is a core component of Democratic politics. Look at the ObamaCare mandates - Obama has granted scores of waivers in exchange for campaign donations. The donations and the hostility are highly related to each other.
Stan Redmond| 9.10.12 @ 1:58PM
High oil and gasoline prices serves Obama higher purpose. Government growth and dependent citzens. High gas prices willbe another tool of redistribution. Like everything else in Obamaland the solution is to make everything unaffordable to the "poor" and then give them vouchers paid for by the sweat of another man's labor. Soon gasoline cards will be part of the food stamp program. There will be a clamouring for public transportation.
It's the same with everything else liberals crap on. College tuition too high? Don't bother finding out why the cost of college is rediculously high, just give out more grants. Obamacare does nothing to make medical services cheaper. Raise the cost on everyone and then give money to those who can't afford it.
JD| 9.10.12 @ 2:15PM
Indeed. Fundamental to the survival of social welfare states is dependence on government. They take your money away from you (justifying the tax based on "means" or "fairness"), then give it back to you conditionally. The conditions are their way of forcing you to do things that they cannot legally force you to do otherwise. They'll always say that you're free to not do those things, but you'll forfeit the money, which they require you to regard as a gift from your benevolent government, even though it was yours to begin with. If you end up with less money than you had before their taxes because you don't kiss their butts enough, that's just "fairness", plus punishment for your immorality - not being a good enough citizen.
Spoken plainly, a description of their methods would frighten most of their rank-and-file supporters. But they don't believe such a description - they call us conspiracy theorists no matter how obvious it is that we're right.
JD| 9.10.12 @ 2:24PM
What a bizarre time we live in - Part 1 of Atlas Shrugged is playing out almost perfectly in real life!
Except instead of the oil boom in Colorado, it's happening in North Dakota.
More and more I hear about people - young people - moving north to live out of their cars and work for six figures on a high school diploma. The towns can't grow fast enough to support the populations. Workers are getting vouchers for free weekend travel to other states in addition to their salaries, because they can't find lodging near their jobs. Local prices are sky high due to lack of supply. A Corvette dealership in a small town sold 27 Corvettes in a week!
This is all going virtually unreported in national media, but people in the region know about it firsthand. North Dakota oil is booming, and they can't find enough labor. Unskilled labor - at six figures per year!
What's even more eerie is that in Atlas, the Colorado oil boom was made possible by the character Ellis Wyatt, who invented a new way to extract oil from shale. That's exactly how the US is suddenly discovering that it has lots of new oil resources!
Now all we need is for the government to shut it all down out of spite, and the plot will be complete.
Kwan| 9.10.12 @ 3:37PM
Question is how many of the people standing in unemployment lines around the nation mumbling to themselves, "Where is John Galt?", the same dopes that voted for the anti-John Galt (Obama) in the first place.
Cobalt| 9.10.12 @ 4:05PM
Also crazy, is that Graham Beckel played Ellis Wyatt in the movie. He is the brother of Bob Beckel, the Democratic analyst and Fox News Channel commentator.
Counsel4pay| 9.10.12 @ 6:56PM
“CRONY CONSERVATION”
The sun was shining on the land,
Shining, oh, so bright.
It did the very best it could,
To make ENERGY from light,
Which was a most ambitious thing—
That they HAVEN’T YET got right*.
The wind was blowing through the land,
Blowing, swift and free,
It did the very best it could,
To make ENERGY for free,
Alas, alack, it didn’t work,
It cost too much, you see!
The Volt struggled down the street,
Powered from the "wire",
It did the very best it could,
To send “THE WON'S” stock higher,
He promised us a million sold--
But, again, he's just a liar.
The oil and gas flow sluggishly,
Our sources hampered at every turn,
And so the poor spend more each day,
For the fuel that they must burn,
To heat their homes; propel their cars,
Will OBAMA EVER LEARN?
These all are but examples,
Of a problem none too rare,
It comes from the crime of “Green Graft”,
It wastes fortunes we can’t spare.
But if BOs MINNIONS PROFIT,
Then the Dem-Rats DO NOT CARE!
Their crimes are, oh so simple,
Conceived in insanity—
Mere concepts without proven worth,
But for “eco-vanity”.
Spend grants, spend loans, spend guarantees,
YOU’RE ALL BOGUS AS CAN BE!
The money flows throughout the land,
(But it is NEVER FREE),
So soon come secret “cover ups”,
And bribes we cannot see.
From OUR HOUSE to the WHITE HOUSE,
FORTUNES spent so wastefully.
* Small scale success with home energy may be practical for some.
cicero| 9.10.12 @ 9:42PM
This whole flap about energy began in the early 70s when OPEC decided to form a cartel and manipulate the supply of oil. Our political class having attended every lecture on Pandering 101, but having decided to sleep through Econ 101, began to run on the platform of "The sky is falling". In the late 70s, they decided to show up for Ecology 101, that taught them that we were all in danger of dying from polution. The fact that CO2 was more necessary than dangerous did not seem to register. So, we found ourselves led by fools that were convinced that we were running out of oil, and being killed by too much CO2. At the same time, we were living longer than anyone in the history of the world, enjoying more access to food, required to perform less strenous labor, and living easier than anyone ever ever imagined 100 years age.
Maybe that is the problem. As we have no real fears or dangers to confront, we manufacture imaginary ones. Since the lion is no longer at the gate, we have summoned the "boogy man" to keep us adaquately frightened. Our polititions have taken advantage of this, and are playing us for fools.