The Energy Compromise
Submitted by PAforClark on August 2, 2008 - 11:49am.
Energy
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/senate_gangs_new_energy_plan.html
The most detail I can find in a quick search. This sounds very practical to me -- the offshore drilling section is not a free for all. Interesting that only Georgia is represented in the Gang of 10 -- Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia being the additional states to be allowed to opt for offshore drilling. It's obvious Georgia must want to do it badly...
"Responsible, Targeted Domestic Energy Production
To help meet our energy needs until our economy transitions to advanced alternative fuel vehicles, the New Era bill increases domestic energy production in environmentally responsible ways. The legislation:
• Provides a CO2 sequestration credit for use in enhanced oil recovery to increase production from existing oil wells while reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
• Opens additional acreage in the Gulf of Mexico for leasing (in consultation with the Defense Department to ensure that drilling is done in a manner consistent with national security) and allows Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia to opt in to leasing off their shores. Retains an environmental buffer zone extending 50 miles offshore where new oil production will not be allowed. Requires all new production to be used domestically. Creates a commission to make recommendations to Congress on future areas that should be considered for leasing. Provides for appropriate revenue sharing for states that allow leasing off their shores;
• Provides grants and loan guarantees for the development of coal-to-liquid fuel plants with carbon capture capability. Plants must have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions below those of the petroleum fuels they are replacing;
• Supports nuclear energy by increasing staff at the NRC, providing workforce training, accelerating depreciation for nuclear plants, and supporting R&D on spent fuel recycling to reduce nuclear waste."
It's obvious that Georgia is pushing to be allowed to drill offshore, but we know that New Jersey and Florida aren't interested.
In addition to not drilling the already existing leases, there was a piece in the NYT or Washington Post recently about the fact that we are exporting more oil daily than new drilling would bring it -- I'll have to see if I can find it again.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
I heard some second hand facts on a talk-radio show from a caller who had recently listened to senate hearing on oil prices and the subject of the find in the Gulf. I believe the amount of oil was around 8 billion barrels. This caller said that even the oil execs acknowledged that if this oil could be tapped tomorrow (instead of the years it will take) it would only reduce the cost of gasoline by around 17 cents per gallon.
Yet it does stand to reason that at the rate that we currently use it, we may need these sources of oil in the 5 to 10 years it takes to develop the sites.
Hopefully plug-in hybrids and advances in alternative energy sources will also progress during that time period.
hybrids and alternatives are the long term answer no doubt about that
But are you saying that we should or should not drill in the Gulf?
I'm unclear as to whether or not you agree with the "compromise".
I'm on the fence. If I do the math correctly, 8 billion barrels of oil (supposedly the technically recoverable amount in the Gulf) is roughly a 200 day supply for the U.S. at our current consumption rate. But we get our oil from a variety of location and countries so that 8 billion barrels could be a valuable addition to the supply chain if extracted over a long interval.
I am concerned about environmental impact and I'd much rather see a Manhattan style project building offshore wind and other alternative energy sources but the country needs fossil fuels to run in the interim.
This can't be an excuse to mothball development of alternative power sources. That has to be moved up as the top priority.
We probably wish we had "compromised" to bring more oil into the pipline 5-10 years ago.
If this is a national problem, including national security, and if it requires a national solution, I'm not sure I know why individual states get veto rights on their shores, unless gasoline prices in those states don't get the benefit of any price drop created by the additional supply.
I'm not much of a states-rights-er. State boundaries often don't make much sense, and the differences among states make less and less sense in this day and age.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
energy plan had been in place since Jimmy Carter nagged us about it in the 70s.
And if it is a national problem and the drilling is in national waters, I think states have to be prepared to compromise as well. I'm not sure why states that have ocean as a boundary would get benefit from leases that are not part of the state itself...
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
The U.S. recognizes a three-mile limit from the shore as the dividing line between national and international waters. Some countries recognize a 12-mile limit, while some try to enforce a 50-mile limit. That applies to things like territory violations and salvage rights (in international waters regarding a sunken ship, even a warship, it's who gets there first who can raise the ship).
But I don't know how that relates to drilling/mineral rights.
What I said before comes from the national nature of the energy problem, my own distrust of states rights, and a sense of shared sacrifice. I think we should have the attitude that we're all in this together, meaning all states. The states that don't want offshore platforms seem to want to have their cake and eat it too -- others' cake, without offering to help make the batter.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
Santa Barbara's 1969 Oil Spill
short read:
http://www.sbwcn.org/spill.shtml
even Nixon "got it"
U.S. President Richard Nixon:
"It is sad that it was necessary that Santa Barbara should be the example that had to bring it to the attention of the American people. What is involved is the use of our resources of the sea and of the land in a more effective way and with more concern for preserving the beauty and the natural resources that are so important to any kind of society that we want for the future. The Santa Barbara incident has frankly touched the conscience of the American people."
Californian's will never go for additional offshore drilling leases. I think we'd be happy to let them put wind farms out there tho...
But what makes you think there's a national solution?
Oil is fungible. Putting more into the pipeline doesn't mean more for the U.S. (or not much more). Oil doesn't stay in the country it's extracted from.
Personally, I think this is a political gimmick. The GOP knows that high gas prices are killing us and most Americans are desperate for a solution. More drilling sounds great, it's simple enough for voters to understand, and it's a good way to beat up on Democrats. But it won't solve anything.
I also think the Big Oil muckety-mucks know that their days are numbered and are trying to squeeze every last penny out of our oil dependency while they still can.
There's lots of truth in what you say, Jai. I see drilling offshore as only a PART of a whole national strategy, and only effective in the 8-25 year horizon if we start now.
I read somewhere this morning that most of the new finds offshore consists of natural gas instead of oil. Making more use of natural gas over oil and coal can be good since it's cleaner.
To answer your question, I don't think there IS a national solution now. But we probably should create one, consisting of some combination of increased drilling and production, conversion from coal to natural gas, nuclear power for electricity, wind, non-food biofuels, solar, and other alternative sources.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!
If it were, downstream-only companies would be making money and they're losing it bigtime right now; refining margins are in the shitter. Refining capacity really only becomes an issue when something like Katrina happens and takes out a couple of big ones. And then it's just temporary.
The problem here is that we're just plain using too much of a limited resource. All the rest is just noise. And we're letting the Republicans win that battle.
It's one of those things that reminds me why we're at such a huge disadvantage as liberals. We're not willing to lie, hit below the belt, or just make irrelevent noise to cloud the issue. We have this thing about the truth and about fairness. Nice guys finish last. But if we weren't the nice guys, we'd be Republicans....
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
My cynicism makes the red flag go up on this one. Profit margin's at the refinery across all oil product have gone up considerably since Cheney's sealed Energy Policy took effect. These companies limit refinery output to maximize profit.
What I never hear, is any of these demcrats come out and quantify the magnitude of the problem. State how much crude oil we use in a year and compare that against the quantities available in these offshore locations.
If we could tap the find in the Gulf of Mexico and the one in ANWR, tomorrow, and they were our only source of oil, we would exhaust them both in less then then two calendar years.
Take this to the Republicans. This issue has no teeth. You want to go after your 8 billion barrels in the Gulf, let's do a cost benefit analysis. Home much is it going to cost? Who is going to pay for it? What is the benefit? How much will it increase our supply? How will it influence prices at the pump. What is the cost to the tax payer relative to Oil company profit increase?
Going after this oil is probably prudent but as far it solving prices at the pump or the long term problem, this a Red herring. Obama should be running a well done ad on it Monday. Making it quite clear that alternative energy will be the top priority. Not one of these moveon.org type of ads either.One with quotes from neutral experts and from congressional hearings etc.
The players here all know what is really going on and they are playing politics with it. Probably because of the many millions of lobbyist $$ in play.
Nobody is limiting refinery throughput to control profits. They're all waaaaay to greedy for that.... downstream companies are intentionally losing money to help upstream companies profit??? There's enough capacity right now. Downstream capacity is not the problem.
I think we should just let them drill. It won't solve a damn thing. But I think letting them drill is the only way to prove it.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Lead the stubborn mules to conservation and alternative sources by including a little drilling is sensible to me. It's the oil companies who spend the money to drill.
Are the oil companies after more drilling rights or is it just the Republicans pushing a quick fix?
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
That's why I think we should shut them up--even give them ANWR. However, I also think we should implement a windfall profits tax and use that money to help the people who are hurting. Thirdly, I think we should put a floor on the price of gasoline. If it goes below a certain price naturally, we should tax it to bring it back there, and give that money back to poorer people so the tax isn't regressive. The one good thing that high prices have brought is the awakening of the public that we need to use less. We should have had the political courage to tax gasoline a long time ago, but we didn't, so now Exxon's reaping the profits. We should take them back now and ensure it doesn't happen again.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
I was interested in Obama's $1000 energy rebate he wants to give out. I guess funded by windfall profits...?
I am a penny pincher, above all things. Because I have been doing things to reduce my energy costs over the last 5 years, I really haven't seen the big jumps like DB described. And I am close enough to work that a tank of gas lasts me almost 4 weeks in my Prius, so I haven't felt the pain at the gas pump.
$1000 would certainly help pay down the home equity loan so I move forward with other projects to reduce energy -- one of those nifty new water heaters that only heats it when you need it and a new refrigerator. Circa 1984 is humming away in my kitchen right now.
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
low-e coated, argon-filled double windows, vampire electronics, etc...does that get me the job?
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
And I dropped thousands of dollars into those same windows a few years back.
My upstairs is almost all windows so it was quite a job.
Hold your thoughts and develop something now if you want. I have a backlog all of a sudden of about 5 or so blog entries I'm busy editing out so we won't need anything new for a few weeks I'd say.
Thanks!! You're hired. Pay is not great but the perks are inestimable. <---Which is a nice adjective meaning.... anybody's guess. :)
This problem will be here to stay. Period. Exclamation point. Europe has been "enjoying" gas prices double ours for decades so I guess the oil companies know that we'll do the same. That's part of the reason they have such efficient public transportation - which will take decades to build here, so don't count o it. Now that they've reached the $4.00 barrier with no concerted public outcry, and nearly every other item, particulary food, sky high as a result, they will keep it there. Maybe drop it down now and then, when there's a glut, but they've reached the psychological barrier.
Time to dust off your bike.
McCain is OK: John Kerry.
And the republicans are managing to make people think there is one and the dems are denying them that quick fix. (thud, thud, thud, thud, thud) I'm beating my head against a wall. How do we let them keep getting away with this shit?
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
They output just enough to meet the demand with some "glitches" as theyswitch products on a seasonal basis. If there was an over supply of gasoline or heating oil on the market, prices in theory should drop. There is no profit for the Oil companies in doing that.
There is no "immediate" crude oil supply issue either. The Saudi's on a regular basis state that non of their customer are requesting more crude.
They're not going to keep extra capacity around just out of the goodness of their hearts. At this moment, there's no shortage of refining supply. Just ask Sun Oil.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
When the son of bitches make $12 billion in profits while Senators like Obama vote to give them $6 billion in tax breaks and another $12 billion to other energy industries, that is called rape.
Wall Street just dumped on them because these insane profits were not good enough. This is a crime syndicate.
No doubt. And we should use that money to fix the problem. First, help the people who are suffering. Then, help Detroit start making more fuel efficient cars. Then work on alternative energy.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
First on the list would be a massive move towards wind energy (i.e. - like construction of the Interstate highway system). Spain and Denmark already derive 20% of the energy from wind turbines. Include incentives for people to install residential wind turbines or other alternate sources (solar/geothermal) as well
Second would be tax credits for people to improve the insulation and energy efficiency of their homes (no untargetted tax "rebates"/stimulus checks to help people who are suffering).
Third, I'd make ridership on mass transit free and financed by car/truck usage.
Fourth, move Detroit towards production of electric cars that could be plugged into the power grid driven by wind turbines or natural gas powered cars; otherwise, let them go bankrupt.
When corporations go bankrupt in this New American Century... we the peeps - the taxpayers- are given the privilege of bailing them out.
I am still recovering from bailing out the airlines and the banks. Now with the Gropenator's supreme mismanagement of the budget, it looks like I may have to bail out the state of California too. Not sure I'll have enough left for Detroit. Guess I could work 4 jobs though.....
I had to save some openings of time for my future role as a neighborhood Serf, picking my wealthy neighbors grapes in his vineyard. I was thinking that might be a good activity to do at sunrise while it's still cool outside.
That would be the fourth job.
Oh, and I don't think "poker" qualifies as a real "job"...:D
Takes a lot of study/applied math/experience to be successful. Not complaining about the extra $1K / month it brings in for something I really enjoy.
This could be another course in the New Age Education curriculum to teach students something about probability theory and risk/reward in capitalist societies.
I just ran across this article while searching for related information. It discusses the world refining shortage and possible soloutions.
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=103677&d=17&m=11&y=2007
Regardless, there's no shortage of refining here. Take a look at the profit statements. (I didn't actually look myself, just trusting what I heard) Exxon LOST money on downstream last quarter. When there's a refining shortage, refineries make money.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
The down turn was because the amount of gasoline consumed that quarter had dropped substantially for the same quarter a year ago. I (from my feeble memory) believe the said it was the biggest such drop in 26 year.
Sun's been in trouble for quite some time now. But, anyway, refining capacity is there. As I've been saying for quite some time, if you want to screw the oil companies, cut your consumption.
I believe there's a ton of off shore capacity coming online very soon which will deal with out of USA demand. Inside the USA, we're fine. If we reduce demand anywhere near where we really need to be to handle the lack of oil, we'll be swimming in refining capacity.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
We need to cut this bullshit dial-a-profit machine down to size. Stop the the excessive speculation. Match refinery output to demand etc.. Conserve and developed energy efficiency and alternatives.
I think. And the way the Dems have used it since "taking control" (pfft) of the House and Senate is the reason why.
Yet when you get right down to it, when it comes to our governments (national, state, local) compromise is usually the only way anything gets done...be it for good or ill.
I really don't want to see more drilling along our shores. However, there are leases already let for just that.
I await the give and take (and the Dems better stand for some takes this time around) before making a judgement.
We all know something has to be done to move us toward clean energy. We also know the Republc ideology will squash said move until they can find a way to make a bundle from it just like they've done with oil.
Will we have to loose a battle to win the war? Only time will tell.
I'm all for Republicans compromising on our Progressive and Liberal Democratic policies and agendas we put forth! Yes! The more the merrier. Bring it on! That is some long, long, long overdue compromise that I, for one, will welcome with open arms. :)
Dems can teach them the art of compromise if they may have forgotten it-- or gotten rusty after so many years of refraining from practice.
Funny, it's called "compromise" when Dems do it (except Hillary- she gets her own special terminology, when she does it - it's called "triangulating"). Then it's called "caving" when Dems are fed up with too much Dem compromising, like now. And when republicans do it, it's called... oh- waitaminute.
Republicans don't do it. : /
They are, as you said, "rusty at it".
But why bring Hillary into it? Why not just keep it the generic "Dems" and avoid what tends to happen when two particular Dems (who need not be named) get mixed into the conversation?
:)
with the word shifts as the same issue applies from one to another. Like one man's ceiling is another man's floor. One voter's 'compromise' is another voter's 'triangulation'. If it were Bayh or Edwards I'd be equally interested by it. Just a word thang. Nothing to take too personally... :)
As for Teachers right now.... boy, I sure would like to see some Starchy Progressives get on the roster. That's where we are our weakest I think - these days. We got "fooled again" by some of the Nov 06 crowd that we stood behind, and it left us Dems with a serious progressive deficit... from my perspective anyways. We are swimming in Centrists and different colored "Dogs".... but where's Waldo the Progressive Dem?
This election we all need to do some in depth homework on our congressional candidates and keep an eye out for those who walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Big job.
I don't have a real good source for this. A Clarkie at DU named "crunchyfrog" said she read it in a magazine. But I am sure it is authentic.
Somebody once told me in business that when you're going to negotiate a business deal, you stake out (Clark slams the table) your position and stand on it! Don't go in there and ask what they want. Say, 'Here's what I want!' (slams table again).You've got a Republican Party under Gingrich and Tom DeLay that says, 'Here's what I want' (slams table again). Then you've got the Democrats over here saying, `Yeah, ah, yeah, we could... some of what you say makes pretty good sense...'
The result is the American people don't see the full spectrum. Before the 2002 election there were a lot of Democratic politicians apparently who said, 'I don't have the information. I can't battle with the president on the information. He's got the intelligence. What if there is a smoking gun in there? I can't fight the president in my congressional district.'
What we've got to do is stake (slams table again) out our position. For instance on tax reform, stop (slam) saying (slam) you agree with simplification of the tax code. We stand (slam) for progressive taxation. We're proud of it. If you make more, you should pay more, period!
The main reason I supported Hillary Clinton, other than WKC's endorsement, is that she is a fighter. Does that mean she can't compromise, and won't compromise when it's needed? Of course not. To tell the truth, she compromises (triangulates) more than I wish she would. But at least she knows how to stand up to the GOP machine. She and Bill did it successfully for 8 years (longer, counting her time in the Senate). I have yet to see Obama do it. Not once.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/
oped/articles/2004/01/16/the_fury_of_the_democratic_convert/
Proud to be an American.
The link no longer works, but I will remember to cite the Boston Globe when I quote this in the future. :)
back together. It was too long of a link to copy/paste it here in one piece.
Proud to be an American.
I read somewhere that nature of the oil deposits in the "offshore areas" is such (diverse), that drilling will be exceedingly expensive. Wouldn't it be amusing if the Republicans got their way, offshore leases, and there were no takers!
We'll have 9,000 MW of wind turbine generated power by year end with plans to get it to 18 MW by 2012. The only impediment really is congestion in the existing power grid and the Texas Utility Commission just approved a $5 billion project to upgrade the capacity from West Texas to the cities which need the power. Will likely quickly get to 24,000 MW.
At the 24,000 megawatt level, you have enough power for 4 million homes which is about half of the total in Texas.
One thing that is enabling this is that Texas has some of the highest electric rates in the country now thanks to deregulation; however, these prices are making an investment in wind turbines attractive.
By comparison, the total output of the nation's nuclear power plants is 100,000 MW.
I've made my home as efficient as I can in preparation -- 20% hikes appear to be what we'll get where I live. An extra $20 a month for me.
I could live with that if some of the money went to the wind farms, etc...
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
...just went up 80% (this year). It was around 8 cents/kWh in 2006 and now it is 16 cents per kilowatt-hour
Many people in our county were hit with $700 or so electric bills in June (mine was for $500 for a 2400 sq ft, well-insulated house running a high efficiency AC unit). Didn't help that we've had 100 degree days every day for the last 6 weeks.
Actually looking at residential wind turbines...only problem is that we are in a city-run coop and I don't think that they are required to buy back any excess eletricity generated (most places in Texas would be required to "spin the meter back" which would occur in spring and probably fall)
Unfortunately, that means that no compromise will work. They've turned it into abortion. Probably the last thing Republicans want is for the Dems to give in on ANWR. It's probably the only place left in the US where it makes financial sense for the oil companies to drill.
Of course, y'all know that my hubby and I do work for the devil, so that does need to be disclosed. But I honestly think that we should probably just give in on this one completely. Let drilling occur the only place in the US that's profitable for the oil companies, and let people see that it's not going to affect gasoline prices one bit.
Besides, gasoline prices coming down is really the last thing we want. Sure, it's bad for the little guy. We should make up for that some other way. Hit the oil companies with a windfall profits tax and hand the money back out to little guys or something. Hell, gas prices are the least of the worries of the little guy compared to what else the Bush administration has done. And the high price of gasoline is FINALLY getting people to pay attention to what they drive and how much they drive it. We should have been taxing the hell out of gasoline all along to make this happen sooner, but no one has ever had the political courage to do it. So now, Exxon, instead of the people is getting that money. We should just take it back.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
According to the Energy Information Administration, removing restrictions on offshore drilling would, at peak — about 20 years from now — add about 0.2% to world production, with an “insignificant” effect on the price of oil.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/the-will-to-drill/
Why have Obama and the New Democratic Party chose to rehabilitate the Republican Party at a time when it and conservatism has proven to be such a failure? Answer: "Because that's where the money is."
that he is in favor of compromise on the energy issue.
Too bad they were both out campaigning instead of in the Senate trying to get something concrete accomplished.
I want a refund of my taxpayer dollars that went to salary for Mssrs. Obama and McCain. If I don't show up for work, I don't get paid...
"It takes two to speak the truth - one to speak and one to hear." - Henry David Thoreau
the only thing that bothers me about this "compromise" is that the oil companies already have been issued more drilling leases, both on and off-shore, than they're able to use.
The 'majority report', the link to which I posted in Sam's first blog (now seems to have gone missing) provided the statistics on this as well as their conclusion that more drilling has not brought down the price at the pump, quite the contrary. So what is the need for opening up additional acreage in the Gulf of Mexico or anywhere else unless it's MORE about BIG OIL speculators buyin' and tradin' and LESS about relieving the crisis for the American consumer?
In either case, we no longer have the capacity to refine crude.
... in the words of Pelosi, "use those leases, or lose them"
sometimes, madamespeaker gets it right