PDA

View Full Version : Same Old Obama



okie52
2/14/2012, 11:53 AM
After a State of the Union address that indicated Obama was embracing oil and gas:


Obama’s 2013 budget: A familiar tune for energy

The proposal is more of a campaign document. By DARREN GOODE | 2/13/12 12:19 PM EST

President Barack Obama on Monday rolled out a series of familiar proposals and goals to boost clean energy and cut incentives for oil and gas companies.





Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72794.html#ixzz1mNMemtoW

badger
2/14/2012, 12:04 PM
As much as I love how much oil an gas feed Oklahoma's economy, they are getting record profits and probably don't need government help to continue getting record profits.

The clean energy stuff has the potential to be an emerging economy in Oklahoma, so I'd be fine with our traditional oil/gas companies trying to stretch their reach into new energy initiatives rather than just rely on what has always made them money.

And I can say all of this knowing that Congress will rip Obama's ideas to shreds and the final budget will not resemble what he's presenting now, so is it really that big of a deal?

okie52
2/14/2012, 12:18 PM
As much as I love how much oil an gas feed Oklahoma's economy, they are getting record profits and probably don't need government help to continue getting record profits.

The clean energy stuff has the potential to be an emerging economy in Oklahoma, so I'd be fine with our traditional oil/gas companies trying to stretch their reach into new energy initiatives rather than just rely on what has always made them money.

And I can say all of this knowing that Congress will rip Obama's ideas to shreds and the final budget will not resemble what he's presenting now, so is it really that big of a deal?

Oil and gas were getting basically the same tax deductions that are given to just about every other business and industry so there is no reason to target just them. And NG is doing very poorly because of oil and gas companies drilling successes that has created a huge glut of NG on the market. They certainly don't need to be punished. Many comanies have shifted their exploration to oil rather than ng because of low prices and no movement by the feds to incorporate ng in transportation even though it would be the quickest reduction in CO2 and move us towards energy independence.

Ethanol (particularly the corn variety) is and has been a virtual dead end for over 30 years. It is dirtier than NG yet Obama has insisted on its continued subsidation and mandatory inclusion in our energy equation. It is a failed policy that should have been ended years ago.

I support R & D for alternative energy but not mandated consumption when there are no viable alternatives. The low NG prices has actually created a domestic business advantage in dealing with other global business concerns. Obama stated we have enough NG to last for 100 years yet he has done very little to utilize it. In fact, he continues to seek to punish it as seen above.

This from the guy that acted like he was now going to open up 75% of our reserves to exploration.

SoonerPride
2/14/2012, 01:06 PM
Oil & gas is so 20th century

we need to tax it into oblivion.

seriously.

gas should be $7 / gallon

badger
2/14/2012, 01:11 PM
gas should be $7 / gallon

Europe says hi

SoonerPride
2/14/2012, 01:20 PM
Europe says hi

I wouldn't mind living in France.

Or Germany.

Or Denmark.

Italy, Greece, not so much...

So it just depends. Europe ain't all bad. The food and wines are generally good. Except in England.

Curly Bill
2/14/2012, 01:22 PM
I wouldn't mind living in France.

Or Germany.

Or Denmark.

Italy, Greece, not so much...

So it just depends. Europe ain't all bad. The food and wines are generally good. Except in England.

You should go to Europe. They like their welfare trash over there.

SoonerPride
2/14/2012, 01:26 PM
You should go to Europe. They like their welfare trash over there.

Yeah, because if you want to improve America, real patriots always scream "love it or leave it."

Such a tired reply.

Try harder.

Curly Bill
2/14/2012, 01:29 PM
Yeah, because if you want to improve America, real patriots always scream "love it or leave it."

Such a tired reply.

Try harder.

I like that you didn't dispute that you're welfare trash. No one who has to support themself would think like you.

Oh...and you're welcome. ;)

REDREX
2/14/2012, 01:33 PM
Oil & gas is so 20th century

we need to tax it into oblivion.

seriously.

gas should be $7 / gallon---You are Clueless

SoonerPride
2/14/2012, 01:42 PM
I like that you didn't dispute that you're welfare trash. No one who has to support themself would think like you.

Oh...and you're welcome. ;)

You are a sad person.

Curly Bill
2/14/2012, 01:50 PM
You are a sad person.

You'd be sadly mistaken to assume such. A little peeved I have to support losers like you, but not at all sad. ;)

XingTheRubicon
2/14/2012, 01:51 PM
You are a sad person.

Employed people sometimes seem sad or mean to others. It's usually just an unavoidable misunderstanding.

soonercruiser
2/14/2012, 03:18 PM
Oil & gas is so 20th century

we need to tax it into oblivion.

seriously.

gas should be $7 / gallon

Is that you Barry?
:playful:

BetterSoonerThanLater
2/15/2012, 12:07 PM
I wouldn't mind living in France.

Or Germany.

Or Denmark.

Italy, Greece, not so much...

So it just depends. Europe ain't all bad. The food and wines are generally good. Except in England.

well...bye

okie52
2/15/2012, 12:39 PM
Oil & gas is so 20th century

we need to tax it into oblivion.

seriously.

gas should be $7 / gallon


Seriously, please name the 21st century replacements.

pphilfran
2/15/2012, 12:44 PM
Oil and gas were getting basically the same tax deductions that are given to just about every other business and industry so there is no reason to target just them. And NG is doing very poorly because of oil and gas companies drilling successes that has created a huge glut of NG on the market. They certainly don't need to be punished. Many comanies have shifted their exploration to oil rather than ng because of low prices and no movement by the feds to incorporate ng in transportation even though it would be the quickest reduction in CO2 and move us towards energy independence.

Ethanol (particularly the corn variety) is and has been a virtual dead end for over 30 years. It is dirtier than NG yet Obama has insisted on its continued subsidation and mandatory inclusion in our energy equation. It is a failed policy that should have been ended years ago.

I support R & D for alternative energy but not mandated consumption when there are no viable alternatives. The low NG prices has actually created a domestic business advantage in dealing with other global business concerns. Obama stated we have enough NG to last for 100 years yet he has done very little to utilize it. In fact, he continues to seek to punish it as seen above.

This from the guy that acted like he was now going to open up 75% of our reserves to exploration.

Some ethanol subsidies were lifted at the first of the year...

pphilfran
2/15/2012, 12:45 PM
Oil & gas is so 20th century

we need to tax it into oblivion.

seriously.

gas should be $7 / gallon

You do realize what would happen to the economy with $7 a gallon gas....

In five years $7 a gallon gas will crush the economy...

okie52
2/15/2012, 12:48 PM
Some ethanol subsidies were lifted at the first of the year...

Hallelujah.

But the inclusion of ethanol is mandated. We can't really dodge that bullet regardless of price.

pphilfran
2/15/2012, 12:51 PM
Seriously, please name the 21st century replacements.

GM has invested around 750 million to get the Volt up and running...if they make a grand profit on each sale they need to sell 750k vehicles to break even on the line....only 743k to go....

pphilfran
2/15/2012, 12:54 PM
Hallelujah.

But the inclusion of ethanol is mandated. We can't really dodge that bullet regardless of price.

Some companies actually got fined for not using enough cellulose ethanol...even though there is no commercial application available...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=1&ref=business

When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.

“It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

diverdog
2/15/2012, 01:28 PM
You do realize what would happen to the economy with $7 a gallon gas....

In five years $7 a gallon gas will crush the economy...

Not only that but a lot of us in the east will not be able to heat our homes. My last oil bill was $625! For on month! Drill baby drill!

okie52
2/15/2012, 02:11 PM
Some companies actually got fined for not using enough cellulose ethanol...even though there is no commercial application available...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=1&ref=business

When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.

“It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

I saw that a while back. Amazing.

okie52
2/15/2012, 02:12 PM
Not only that but a lot of us in the east will not be able to heat our homes. My last oil bill was $625! For on month! Drill baby drill!

You still using heating oil there Diver? NG not available around there?

okie52
2/15/2012, 02:27 PM
GM has invested around 750 million to get the Volt up and running...if they make a grand profit on each sale they need to sell 750k vehicles to break even on the line....only 743k to go....



LOL.

Where else can we apply such an effective business model?

sappstuf
2/15/2012, 02:36 PM
GM has invested around 750 million to get the Volt up and running...if they make a grand profit on each sale they need to sell 750k vehicles to break even on the line....only 743k to go....

I'm fairly certain it was reported that GM was losing money on every Volt sold. They might be another 7 million in the hole!

Midtowner
2/15/2012, 03:39 PM
LOL.

Where else can we apply such an effective business model?

The Department of Defense.

If you're a typical Republican, let that one sink in.

okie52
2/15/2012, 03:52 PM
Natural gas sector set up by Obama to be sabotaged?

Industry insiders fear rules, taxes


By Ben Wolfgang

-

The Washington Times

Sunday, January 29, 2012

President Obama spoke of the role natural gas must play in America’s energy future during his State of the Union address last week, but industry insiders fear it’s merely lip service designed to distract from what they consider the administration’s behind-the-scenes plan to sabotage the sector.

“They’re trying to make it more difficult for the industry to survive while the president is standing in front of the country saying we’re going to create jobs through hydraulic fracturing,” said Ken von Schaumburg, former deputy counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency during the Bush administration.

Mr. Obama “is talking the game, but you can’t support the industry and then have this aggressive rule-making process going on,” Mr. von Schaumburg said.

At the same time the president boasts of the nation’s vast shale gas deposits, his EPA is poised to make extracting that fuel much more difficult. The agency will this year release a widely anticipated study on hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” the use of water, sand and chemical mixtures to crack underground rock and release huge quantities of gas. The practice is widely used in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and other states, and has helped revitalize small-town economies and led directly to the creation of thousands of jobs in recent years.

Many in the gas industry fear that the upcoming EPA study will call for harsh new regulations on the process, and many environmental groups - a key constituency for Mr. Obama during this year’s re-election bid - are publicly pushing the administration to outlaw fracking entirely.

The EPA has already dealt a severe blow to fracking with the release of a report last year alleging the process was responsible for water contamination in Pavillion, Wyo. That study was met with ridicule from across the natural gas business because it was put out before being subjected to an independent, third-party review. While the EPA has promised such an unbiased look will be conducted, the study has likely already had a negative impact on the public perception of fracking.

Possibly making matters worse, Mr. Obama has over the past week repeated his calls for increased federal investment in the renewable energy sector, a policy some view as an effort to stack the deck against natural gas.

“Job creators and American consumers should welcome the president’s latest energy promises with suspicion,” Thomas Pyle, president of the nonprofit Institute for Energy Research, said in a statement following Mr. Obama’s State of the Union speech, during which he called for an “all-of-the-above” approach toward energy independence that relies heavily on American oil and gas reserves.

“In the same breath that he extolled the virtues of natural gas development and called for higher energy taxes on the companies that produce it, President Obama continues to press for more taxpayer subsidies for Solyndra-style green energy companies,” Mr. Pyle said.

Mr. Obama’s positive rhetoric toward natural gas could also represent a desire to please both sides of the debate, though the move to the middle has, thus far, seemed to satisfy no one. After the speech, environmental groups blasted the administration for being too timid and called for an all-out war on fracking.

“We can’t wait much longer for the clean energy revolution. We need to clean up a fossil fuel industry run amok, by ensuring … natural gas safeguards that go much further than what the president suggested,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement after the State of the Union address.

So far, however, the administration has stopped far short of what the Sierra Club and other liberal groups want to see. Mr. Obama did, however, call for legislation requiring any company drilling on public land to disclose all chemicals used during the fracking process. Several states, such as Texas and Colorado, have already passed disclosure bills, and many leading companies voluntarily post detailed breakdowns of their chemical mixtures to the website fracfocus.org, an online clearinghouse.

Potential state or federal regulations aren’t they only problems confronting the gas industry. The explosion of natural gas extraction in areas like the Marcellus Shale region has glutted the market, keeping prices low for consumers but leading to diminished returns for drilling companies.

Last week, Chesapeake Energy, one of the largest players in the game, announced plans to reduce daily gas production by 500 million cubic feet, an 8 percent drop. The firm said it’s considering slashing production even further and predicts “flat or lower total natural gas production in the U.S. in 2012” as supply outstrips demand.


.

okie52
2/15/2012, 03:55 PM
The Department of Defense.

If you're a typical Republican, let that one sink in.

True, but that inefficiency would apply to just about any government sector.

badger
2/15/2012, 04:10 PM
You do realize what would happen to the economy with $7 a gallon gas....

In five years $7 a gallon gas will crush the economy...

Anyone else remember their parents complaining when gas was raised 10 cents per gallon by the Clinton administration to help pay down the deficit? The tax was lifted a week later, but omg, we paid $1.30 per gallon for a week instead the usual $1.20 that we had grown accustomed to for about a decade.

And then... it shot up to $1.50, followed by $2.00 by my high school graduation (around the millennium turn) and suddenly $1.30 didn't look so bad in retrospect.

$7 per gallon will prevent some people from driving, though. It will just become unaffordable. Already I'm seeing the Tulsa drivers only fill up $5 here, $10 there rather than just topping it off, who cares what the price is.

A waaay higher price might make some reconsider their long commute to work and cause them to move closer or seek a new job. It might make people drive only if necessary. It might make people consider mass transit options.

Or, it might just make people spend more on gas and less on everything else... which, yes, would crush the economy.

okie52
2/15/2012, 04:28 PM
I've never had a problem with a gas tax if it wasn't going to be detrimental to the economy. I like the idea of fuel efficient vehicles. But $7 would be absurd. Even a floating tax that would have a ceiling of $5 a gallon would be too painful for the nation right now. Cheap energy would likely serve to propel a recovery right now.

SoonerPride
2/15/2012, 04:32 PM
Anyone else remember their parents complaining when gas was raised 10 cents per gallon by the Clinton administration to help pay down the deficit? The tax was lifted a week later, but omg, we paid $1.30 per gallon for a week instead the usual $1.20 that we had grown accustomed to for about a decade.

And then... it shot up to $1.50, followed by $2.00 by my high school graduation (around the millennium turn) and suddenly $1.30 didn't look so bad in retrospect.

$7 per gallon will prevent some people from driving, though. It will just become unaffordable. Already I'm seeing the Tulsa drivers only fill up $5 here, $10 there rather than just topping it off, who cares what the price is.

A waaay higher price might make some reconsider their long commute to work and cause them to move closer or seek a new job. It might make people drive only if necessary. It might make people consider mass transit options.

Or, it might just make people spend more on gas and less on everything else... which, yes, would crush the economy.

or maybe people would ride a bike...
or walk,
or sell all those freaking SUVs which besides being eyesores are abominations of inefficiency.

None of those sound like such bad propositions to me.

but, ya know, we're AMERICANS and we have the right to guzzle gas like hogs lapping up slop.

pphilfran
2/15/2012, 05:02 PM
or maybe people would ride a bike...
or walk,
or sell all those freaking SUVs which besides being eyesores are abominations of inefficiency.

None of those sound like such bad propositions to me.

but, ya know, we're AMERICANS and we have the right to guzzle gas like hogs lapping up slop.

Who is going to buy the used gas guzzling suv?

Walking or riding a bike to work is out of the question for most workers....

Midtowner
2/15/2012, 05:05 PM
Did anyone actually RTA?


t the Environmental Protection Agency is penalizing them for failing to do the impossible, the agency is being lenient by the standards of the law, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.

Who was President in 2007 when this steaming pile of crap was passed?

pphilfran
2/15/2012, 05:05 PM
Those are really all fine ideas...it is the time frame needed to initiate the programs that is the problem...

There is little mass transit in most cities....how long would it take to build a system capable of transported 50k a year throughout the OKC metro area?

How long to replace 30 million suvs?

badger
2/15/2012, 05:18 PM
I absolutely would love to have more mass transit options. I hate driving, but it's my only option.

Can you imagine who quickly those parking, travel time etc excuses would dry up on OU sports attendance if there were trains leading from Tulsa/OKC/Dallas to Norman?

Alas, where are we going to find the money to do that. Transportation costs are high as-is. Don't say $7 gas either, because sin tax revenue in Europe has dried up because smoking et al is too unaffordable. Good for people's health yes, but the government was really counting on that tax money.

okie52
2/15/2012, 05:44 PM
Did anyone actually RTA?



Who was President in 2007 when this steaming pile of crap was passed?

W shouldn't get a pass for the law nor should the dem congress that passed it. But why is it still the law 5 years later?

diverdog
2/15/2012, 08:38 PM
You still using heating oil there Diver? NG not available around there?

My problem is that I have radiated heat and I have a 6 year old oil boiler. To replace it would cost about $7000. It would take ten years to make up the difference in gas.

Midtowner
2/15/2012, 08:51 PM
W shouldn't get a pass for the law nor should the dem congress that passed it. But why is it still the law 5 years later?

Obama's fault that Congress hasn't sent him a 5 year old law to repeal? That's a bit of a stretch.

okie52
2/15/2012, 09:04 PM
Obama's fault that Congress hasn't sent him a 5 year old law to repeal? That's a bit of a stretch.

I was being a little sarcastic since Obama has mandated inclusion of ethanol even when the EPA said it was dirtier than gasoline. He certainly had the control in 2009 to repeal this measure but I would have been shocked if he had done it. Remember that Obama got a horrible cap and trade bill passed by the 2009 house that named ethanol as a favored fuel and punished ng.

okie52
2/15/2012, 09:06 PM
My problem is that I have radiated heat and I have a 6 year old oil boiler. To replace it would cost about $7000. It would take ten years to make up the difference in gas.

No tax credits for the change?

Bourbon St Sooner
2/15/2012, 09:54 PM
Oil & gas is so 20th century

we need to tax it into oblivion.

seriously.

gas should be $7 / gallon

Actually, I would prefer such a tax to the crappy cap and trade system that's been proposed. Just another asset bubble for government sachs to inflate.

The problem is that such a tax is too much of an in your face way to raise energy prices. Cap and trade is more of a back door way. And we all know the gov't likes to give it in the back door.

soonercruiser
2/15/2012, 10:10 PM
or maybe people would ride a bike...
or walk,
or sell all those freaking SUVs which besides being eyesores are abominations of inefficiency.

None of those sound like such bad propositions to me.

but, ya know, we're AMERICANS and we have the right to guzzle gas like hogs lapping up slop.

You're correct!
It is a "free country" for now. But, maybe not for long.
In a immoral, secular society, I can't be free to use my gas guzzler. But, then again I can marry any of my male friends!
Is this a great country, or what????
:dispirited:

soonercruiser
2/15/2012, 10:11 PM
Obama's fault that Congress hasn't sent him a 5 year old law to repeal? That's a bit of a stretch.

The fault of Harry Reid and the Demoncratic Senate!