PDA

View Full Version : Harold Hamm to be chairman of Romney's energy policy advisory group



okie52
3/1/2012, 02:17 PM
From another board.



Harold Hamm will be the chairman of Romney’s Energy Policy Advisory Group

We can now be sure that Romney will be receiving sound and practical advice on energy issues.
Harold Hamm is a great man who possesses an extraordinarily high amount of common sense. He is very respected man in his industry.
Whereas I had been leaning toward voting for Santorum with this news Romney will now get my enthusiastic vote.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...tml?cmpid=yhoo


Mitt Romney, the front-runner for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, appointed Oklahoma oil billionaire Harold Hamm as energy adviser to his campaign.

Hamm, the 66-year-old founder, chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Resources Inc. (CLR), will be chairman of Romney’s Energy Policy Advisory Group, the candidate’s campaign office said in a statement today.

Hamm ranked 36th on Forbes magazine’s list last year of the 400 wealthiest Americans. His 68 percent stake in Enid, Oklahoma-based Continental, the largest leaseholder in the Bakken oil formation, had a value of $11.2 billion as of yesterday’s close.

Romney has attacked President Barack Obama for policies he says increased energy prices. Gasoline prices averaged $3.56 a gallon last month in the U.S., the highest ever for this time of year.

“Mitt’s goal of cheap, plentiful energy for the American economy offers the American people a stark alternative to President Obama’s goal of driving prices higher,” Hamm said in the statement.

With nine months to go before U.S. voters choose a president, Romney has won an estimated 151 of the 1,144 delegates needed to get his party’s nomination to oppose incumbent President Barack Obama, more than all three of his opponents combined.
Streamlined’ Regulation

Romney’s energy plan calls for establishing fixed timetables for federal decisions on oil, natural-gas and nuclear projects, and a “streamlined approach” to regulation, his campaign said in the statement. He also would urge Congress to amend the Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from the list of regulated pollutants.

The U.S. should abandon Obama’s “course of restricting supply, increasing regulation, and hoping for miraculous new technologies to save the day,” Romney said in the statement.

Continental is the largest leaseholder in the Bakken shale, a geologic formation beneath the northern Great Plains that holds more crude than any other deposit in the contiguous U.S.

Hamm began exploring the Bakken almost two decades ago and now controls more than 350 wells. Using intensive drilling and rock-fracturing techniques, Hamm pioneered the oil boom that last year
pushed North Dakota’s output to a record, exceeding production of Ecuador, an Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries member.

The Bakken shale and two nearby formations known as the Three Forks and Sanish have the potential to become some of the largest oil-producing zones in the next 30 years, said Christian O’Neill, an analyst with Bloomberg Industries.



This should mean a lot to OK's oilies.

rock on sooner
3/1/2012, 06:35 PM
Yup...figures! Romney will surround himself with his wealthy buddies, so they can figure out how to get wealthier
while seniors, everyday middle class folks and the working poor carry the burden. No, I don't begrudge success and
wealth, just those that step on the backs and shoulders of those that aren't to increase their own wealth. Before I
get blasted, know that I worked in the Oklahoma oil patch as a young man and watched first hand how it worked
there. Roustabouts busted their humps while the higher ups stood back so they didn't get dirty and watched....slapped
each other on the back when we brought a well in, fished the rods out or in some other way increased their bottom line.
No, don't begrudge wealth and success at all...just the way the dreck treated those that didn't have it. The likes of
Romney will do nothing but exacerbate the situation.

okie52
3/1/2012, 08:55 PM
Well where to start. I roughnecked summers and and a winter in the 70s so I know how it works out there too. That was a good paying job back then and it's even better today. For not begrudging others you could have fooled me.

You brought in the wells? What about the engineers, landmen, and geologists? Did they have anything to do with it? What about the promoters and investors that risked their money and paid your way during the process? Any credit for them or were they just taking advantage of you?

Now what makes sense to you? To surround yourself with energy idiots like commie van jones or socialist carol brown or to hire people that actually knows how it works? Should Romney surround himself with roustabouts or people that actually know how to develop oil and gas fields? And, FYI, Hamm started out as a roughneck and worked his way up so that he is one of the richest men in the US and largely is responsible for the Bakken field.

You really need to get educated on energy idiots like Obama that would deny jobs in oil and gas rather than help promote them like a Harold Hamm.

rock on sooner
3/1/2012, 09:57 PM
Told you that I don't begrudge success or wealth, just the method that some use to get it. All of those you mentioned
were intending to make the $$ and more power to them. No problems here, just the dreck that were ruthless, uncaring,
hell bent to make money no matter the cost to the people who actually did the work. Saw many hardworking men wanting
to get ahead and, yeah, the $$ was okay but after some success I saw guys try to get raises to get better and hear, "hell,
Boy, you got a job, be happy you got it! Not good enough, hit the road, I'll get someone who will do as I say for what I want
to pay them". And, if you got marked, the answer to "looking for work" was "sorry, got nothin'".

Energy idiots, hmmmm, every prez that I can remember since it was as issue, Nixon, that paragon of virtue, going forward
sez "let's cut down or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." Obama's problem, trying to do that, protect from the "drill,
baby, drill" nutcases and accelerate alternative sources of precious energy. Hard work? Yup, no doubt!

As I see it, there is a group that says let's rape the land and ocean for right now...to hell with any kind of management! And,
there is a group that says, yes, we need to do some things to let us be more energy efficient but let's do it with some reason.
Obama is in the latter. As to denying jobs, as I understand it, it was, "we need more study, for environmental impact." Besides,
Keystone, not mentioned here yet, only sells to the Chinese, as the Canadians have said. Let them rip up Canada and not foul
our heartland when the pipeline leaks, and it surely will. Maybe my "education" on energy idiots doesn't meet your definition
but I am quite certain that I know what the underlying motivation is.

okie52
3/1/2012, 10:56 PM
Told you that I don't begrudge success or wealth, just the method that some use to get it. All of those you mentioned
were intending to make the $$ and more power to them. No problems here, just the dreck that were ruthless, uncaring,
hell bent to make money no matter the cost to the people who actually did the work. Saw many hardworking men wanting
to get ahead and, yeah, the $$ was okay but after some success I saw guys try to get raises to get better and hear, "hell,
Boy, you got a job, be happy you got it! Not good enough, hit the road, I'll get someone who will do as I say for what I want
to pay them". And, if you got marked, the answer to "looking for work" was "sorry, got nothin'".

Energy idiots, hmmmm, every prez that I can remember since it was as issue, Nixon, that paragon of virtue, going forward
sez "let's cut down or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." Obama's problem, trying to do that, protect from the "drill,
baby, drill" nutcases and accelerate alternative sources of precious energy. Hard work? Yup, no doubt!

As I see it, there is a group that says let's rape the land and ocean for right now...to hell with any kind of management! And,
there is a group that says, yes, we need to do some things to let us be more energy efficient but let's do it with some reason.
Obama is in the latter. As to denying jobs, as I understand it, it was, "we need more study, for environmental impact." Besides,
Keystone, not mentioned here yet, only sells to the Chinese, as the Canadians have said. Let them rip up Canada and not foul
our heartland when the pipeline leaks, and it surely will. Maybe my "education" on energy idiots doesn't meet your definition
but I am quite certain that I know what the underlying motivation is.

Good lord, you've bought into the nonexistent green jobs will power America. The energy idiot Obama has banned drilling off both the atlantic and pacific coasts....even Nixon didn't have those options. In fact no president in over 40 years has had those options.

Do you consider drilling for oil and/gas raping the land?

Please tell me how denying America access to her reserves is good for the working man or good for America?

SCOUT
3/1/2012, 11:35 PM
Told you that I don't begrudge success or wealth, just the method that some use to get it. All of those you mentioned
were intending to make the $$ and more power to them. No problems here, just the dreck that were ruthless, uncaring,
hell bent to make money no matter the cost to the people who actually did the work. Saw many hardworking men wanting
to get ahead and, yeah, the $$ was okay but after some success I saw guys try to get raises to get better and hear, "hell,
Boy, you got a job, be happy you got it! Not good enough, hit the road, I'll get someone who will do as I say for what I want
to pay them". And, if you got marked, the answer to "looking for work" was "sorry, got nothin'".

Energy idiots, hmmmm, every prez that I can remember since it was as issue, Nixon, that paragon of virtue, going forward
sez "let's cut down or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil." Obama's problem, trying to do that, protect from the "drill,
baby, drill" nutcases and accelerate alternative sources of precious energy. Hard work? Yup, no doubt!

As I see it, there is a group that says let's rape the land and ocean for right now...to hell with any kind of management! And,
there is a group that says, yes, we need to do some things to let us be more energy efficient but let's do it with some reason.
Obama is in the latter. As to denying jobs, as I understand it, it was, "we need more study, for environmental impact." Besides,
Keystone, not mentioned here yet, only sells to the Chinese, as the Canadians have said. Let them rip up Canada and not foul
our heartland when the pipeline leaks, and it surely will. Maybe my "education" on energy idiots doesn't meet your definition
but I am quite certain that I know what the underlying motivation is.
Type it in the quote box first, copy and paste to Word for editing if you need it and then paste back.
Otherwise your
returns could
be
off.

okie52
3/2/2012, 12:02 AM
Type it in the quote box first, copy and paste to Word for editing if you need it and then paste back.
Otherwise your
returns could
be
off.

He was a roustabout...he already knows this.

rock on sooner
3/2/2012, 08:45 AM
Nope, don't consider drilling to be raping the land...do consider drilling with little or no consideration
for the surrounding environment to be that. Green jobs will not power the country but they can
help...foolish not to consider alternative energy sources to lessen the fossil fuel load. Seems to
me that common sense dictates they can peacefully coexist...after all, a hybrid vehicle is a
compromise of sorts.

okie52
3/2/2012, 09:08 AM
Nope, don't consider drilling to be raping the land...do consider drilling with little or no consideration
for the surrounding environment to be that. Green jobs will not power the country but they can
help...foolish not to consider alternative energy sources to lessen the fossil fuel load. Seems to
me that common sense dictates they can peacefully coexist...after all, a hybrid vehicle is a
compromise of sorts.

They've been drilling in the gulf for over 60 years and have thousands of wells there...yet the only thing keeping us drilling off of the Atlantic and/or pacific coasts right now is obama.
Most of the wells would be far from the view of the coastline. All lease sales in offshore lease blocks are studied geologically and for their environmental impact. So would drilling there be raping the land?

Do you know that over half of the gulf coasts economy comes from oil? Can you envision that off our two major coastlines that haven't been touched in 40 years?

Nobody has said dump green energy....all energy sources should be used. But Obama has consistently tried to deny America access to her own assets. He even has tried to dump oil and gas through cap and trade without providing any alternative fuel sources to take their place. Does that sound smart to you?

Now I realize trying to convince a hard line dem/Obama supporter using logic and/or facts probably isn't going to happen but it would be nice if you guys would take the blinders off every now and then just to see how far from reality you really are.

rock on sooner
3/2/2012, 11:42 AM
Drilling in the Atlantic and/or the Pacific would NOT be raping the land.
If the studies you mention support good environment stewardship then
I'm all for it. Yes, I'm well aware of the economic impact of oil on the
Gulf coast. I'm also aware of how poorly some of the drilling activity
was supervised and what the end result was. Yes, it was only one
rig but it only took one. Folks on the Gulf are resilient, hardworking
decent people that deserve someone to help watch over the likes of
BP, Haliburton, et al. Not a hard line dem at all, districts here in
Iowa were represented by two moderate Pubs...Leach and Ganske...
moderate until the Party leaders got in their heads and then they
got tossed. I'm pro-choice and pro-gun, I believe in government
taking care of people who can't take care of themselves. I believe
that same government overreaches at times and needs to back the
hell off. I believe that government needs to be strong enough to
prevent anarchy.

I'm an Obama supporter now but I caucused for Clinton. The choices
your party puts forth now include an isolationist, a serial adulterer,
a religious zealot and a venture capitalist who wants to "take America
back(ward). Is Obama perfect, completely right...of course not but,
O My Lord, the alternative is downright frightening!

dwarthog
3/2/2012, 11:43 AM
I have been trying to do a little bit of reading about this selection.

His bio is certainly impressive with regards to his humble beginnings, and he has obviously been spectacularly successful, but to be honest this looks like a slow pitch softball right into the anti big oil crowds sweet spot.

Hopefully he can negate that with a well reasoned approach to energy independence that takes all viable options into consideration.

pphilfran
3/2/2012, 12:16 PM
I have been trying to do a little bit of reading about this selection.

His bio is certainly impressive with regards to his humble beginnings, and he has obviously been spectacularly successful, but to be honest this looks like a slow pitch softball right into the anti big oil crowds sweet spot.

Hopefully he can negate that with a well reasoned approach to energy independence that takes all viable options into consideration.

What viable options?

Solar and wind do nothing to reduce oil usage...only CO2 emissions...

okie52
3/2/2012, 12:42 PM
Drilling in the Atlantic and/or the Pacific would NOT be raping the land.
If the studies you mention support good environment stewardship then
I'm all for it. Yes, I'm well aware of the economic impact of oil on the
Gulf coast. I'm also aware of how poorly some of the drilling activity
was supervised and what the end result was. Yes, it was only one
rig but it only took one. Folks on the Gulf are resilient, hardworking
decent people that deserve someone to help watch over the likes of
BP, Haliburton, et al. Not a hard line dem at all, districts here in
Iowa were represented by two moderate Pubs...Leach and Ganske...
moderate until the Party leaders got in their heads and then they
got tossed. I'm pro-choice and pro-gun, I believe in government
taking care of people who can't take care of themselves. I believe
that same government overreaches at times and needs to back the
hell off. I believe that government needs to be strong enough to
prevent anarchy.

I'm an Obama supporter now but I caucused for Clinton. The choices
your party puts forth now include an isolationist, a serial adulterer,
a religious zealot and a venture capitalist who wants to "take America
back(ward). Is Obama perfect, completely right...of course not but,
O My Lord, the alternative is downright frightening!

Thousands of wells and one spill...thats a pretty good track record particularly if oil and gas operations have sustained the economy of the Gulf Coast for many decades...not to mention that a 1/3 of our production is coming from that region.

Over 1/2 of our trade deficit is due to imported oil. Our unemployment is high and our debt spiralling out of control. Our foreign policy is handcuffed to protecting our oil supplies in the Middle East and we have been involved in 2 wars in that region in the last 20 years primarily over oil. Yet, we have the potential here to change a big part of that by utilizing our own natural resources. But, as I've said, Obama is the fly in the ointment.

The US government would receive billions in royalites, bonus money, and tax revenues from our offshore drilling along with thousands high paying jobs. WHY. AREN'T. WE. DOING. IT?
Only one reason and its not congress or the EPA....Obama.

Had we a president with any kind of vision he would have already supported moving a large segment of transportation to NG. NG is less than $2.50 an MCF and would show consumers a real savings at the pump if price was ever a consideration for Obama. A move that would have moved us much closer to energy independence and....drum roll please...been much cleaner on the environment...you know, his stated goal. Yet, Obama not only didn't embrace NG until his election year epiphany, he sought to punish it under his cap and trade bill that the house passed in 2009. Fortunately for this country this monstrosity of a bill didn't pass the senate....even with an overwhelming dem majority.

Obama has repeatedly sought to remove what he inaccurately calls subsidies from the oil and gas industry. These $4,000,000,000 are writeoffs that are given to virtually every other industry in the country yet he never had a problem in handing $80,000,000,000 in subsidies to green energy. And what % of our energy supply comes from green energy????

There has to be a pragmatic approach to our energy needs rather than some idealistic nonsense that jeopardizes the security and economy of this country.

There is a difference between Isolationist and noninterventionist. Paul would be the latter. Obama, in spite of all of his denouncement of Iraq, had no problem intervening in Libya.
Romney a venture capitalist? So what? Obama's energy policies could land us in the land of Fred Flinstone.

TheHumanAlphabet
3/2/2012, 01:05 PM
I'm an Obama supporter now but I caucused for Clinton. but,
O My Lord, the alternative is downright frightening!

Another 4 years of O'Bammy is scarier than hell. He will take away your gun, he will take away your health choice, he will bust the constitution and likely increase everyone paying taxes now to pay off those bums that do not pay any tax currently... Yeah, that is soooo much better than the Republican choices.

dwarthog
3/2/2012, 01:28 PM
What viable options?

Solar and wind do nothing to reduce oil usage...only CO2 emissions...

Nuclear would be the big one with regards to a capability that could actually displace oil usage to any significant degree. Like you said, wind and solar at best will just provide some input back into the local grids when the sun shines and the wind blows.

okie52
3/2/2012, 01:31 PM
I have been trying to do a little bit of reading about this selection.

His bio is certainly impressive with regards to his humble beginnings, and he has obviously been spectacularly successful, but to be honest this looks like a slow pitch softball right into the anti big oil crowds sweet spot.

Hopefully he can negate that with a well reasoned approach to energy independence that takes all viable options into consideration.

I hope it upsets the anti-oil crowd....they weren't going to be on board with anyone a pub picked anyway unless it was the head of the Sierra Club.

diverdog
3/2/2012, 01:45 PM
Okay, I am totally selling out. Mom and Dad just leased their farm. The money will be used to help with college savings. So right now I say drill baby drill.

pphilfran
3/2/2012, 01:48 PM
Nuclear would be the big one with regards to a capability that could actually displace oil usage to any significant degree. Like you said, wind and solar at best will just provide some input back into the local grids when the sun shines and the wind blows.

Please explain how nukes will displace oil usage.....less than one percent of our electricity comes from crude...the crude burners are already being shut down due to age and crude cost...

Nukes will lower CO2 but will do little or nothing to reduce our crude usage....

Electric cars probably will increase overall electrical demand but electric cars can run on coal or gas produced electricity as it can on solar, wind, or nukes...

pphilfran
3/2/2012, 01:51 PM
We can cover the entire United States with solar panels and wind generators...place a nuke on every corner...and we would still import the same amount of crude....

dwarthog
3/2/2012, 01:56 PM
We can cover the entire United States with solar panels and wind generators...place a nuke on every corner...and we would still import the same amount of crude.... Very good point.

rock on sooner
3/2/2012, 02:01 PM
Only one spill IS pretty good...but what a spill! Could closer monitoring and not taking shortcuts
prevented that? Big, greedy oil...hmmm

Protecting national interests in the Middle East is a given and here I believed Dubya when he said
there were WMD's in Iraq. If he had stayed focused of the real prize in Afghanistan there probably
wouldn't have been the Iraq war....oh, I guess I'm wrong there...Dubya would have found another
reason to go after Hussein.

I agree that Obama could have and should have done more to pursue NG and offshore drilling. I
think the ointment to which you refer is the abject mess that Dubya left him. As to the subsidies
for big oil and green energy, well, I guess the enormous profits big oil enjoys gives one a reason to
think they don't need any more "help". Big oil says that prices would increase if the subsidies dry
up. Is that because they can't use profits for R & D, just to pay dividends to stockholders. Honestly,
7 and 8 Billion profit a quarter and still they raise prices if there's a fire at a refinery...hard to believe,
much less, justify.

You are correct when you say Paul would be a noninterventionist, only after he completely isolated the
U.S. from the rest of the world. He would let tyrants like Ghadaffi continue to run amok, Ahmandinajad (sp?)
develop a nuke to fulfill his desire to wipe Isreal off the maps and let the Korean peninsula go up in flames,
among so many other hot spots around the globe. I don't believe Paul understands that it is a global
community. Nothing really wrong with being a venture capitalist, just using that approach to solve so
many complex problems won't cut it. Glad to see that you ignore the zealot and serial cheater.

I believe there are a lot more issues to work on than just energy, although your arguments about NG
and offshore drilling is compelling. I guess if Obama's energy policies land us in Flintsone land Paul
would be happy!

rock on sooner
3/2/2012, 02:20 PM
Another 4 years of O'Bammy is scarier than hell. He will take away your gun, he will take away your health choice, he will bust the constitution and likely increase everyone paying taxes now to pay off those bums that do not pay any tax currently... Yeah, that is soooo much better than the Republican choices.
To amend the constitution takes 38 states to ratify so I don't see the 2nd amendment being overturned. As to my
health choices, what's wrong with gender premium equality, pre-existing condition protection, going to another state
to live and have my health choices still intact, keeping adult children protected longer, being able to get many
preventive procedures and falling through the "doughnut hole"? The taxes issue...well most people think the
upper income folks should pay at the same percentage rate that they do and not have some many loopholes.

EVERY analysis of the Pub's tax plans eviserates government revenues and balloons the deficits far more than
is possible to solve with spending cuts and what the "Fab Four" have to offer on most other issues don't pass
the smell tests.

okie52
3/2/2012, 03:13 PM
Only one spill IS pretty good...but what a spill! Could closer monitoring and not taking shortcuts
prevented that? Big, greedy oil...hmmm

Protecting national interests in the Middle East is a given and here I believed Dubya when he said
there were WMD's in Iraq. If he had stayed focused of the real prize in Afghanistan there probably
wouldn't have been the Iraq war....oh, I guess I'm wrong there...Dubya would have found another
reason to go after Hussein.

I agree that Obama could have and should have done more to pursue NG and offshore drilling. I
think the ointment to which you refer is the abject mess that Dubya left him. As to the subsidies
for big oil and green energy, well, I guess the enormous profits big oil enjoys gives one a reason to
think they don't need any more "help". Big oil says that prices would increase if the subsidies dry
up. Is that because they can't use profits for R & D, just to pay dividends to stockholders. Honestly,
7 and 8 Billion profit a quarter and still they raise prices if there's a fire at a refinery...hard to believe,
much less, justify.

You are correct when you say Paul would be a noninterventionist, only after he completely isolated the
U.S. from the rest of the world. He would let tyrants like Ghadaffi continue to run amok, Ahmandinajad (sp?)
develop a nuke to fulfill his desire to wipe Isreal off the maps and let the Korean peninsula go up in flames,
among so many other hot spots around the globe. I don't believe Paul understands that it is a global
community. Nothing really wrong with being a venture capitalist, just using that approach to solve so
many complex problems won't cut it. Glad to see that you ignore the zealot and serial cheater.

I believe there are a lot more issues to work on than just energy, although your arguments about NG
and offshore drilling is compelling. I guess if Obama's energy policies land us in Flintsone land Paul
would be happy!

I don't blame Obama for the economy. To be honest I'm not sure the pubs would have handled it much differently. Of course, at some point Obama has to own the economy
which he has been unwilling to do so far.

Ignoring a zealot and a cheater? Well they aren't my favorites but I could make a case for Obama being a "green" zealot and surely you wouldn't eliminate Bill Clinton as a competent president simply because he was a cheater.

I didn't realize Obama supporters were okay with interventionism particularly after Obama flaunted his anti Iraq (you know, there was a dictator there too)
stance and so many supporters with 20/20 hindsight showered him with their adulation for such a position. Now Libya is okay because.....? There are plenty of countries around the world that don't have to stick their nose or their military into fights that don't concern them. Russia, India and China come to mind. So Europe or S. Korea can't defend themselves and require our presence to insure their survival? After 60 years I think we've done our duty. Has Obama stopped Iran from going nuclear???...I must have missed that.

He11, we don't even protect our own border but we'll sure as he11 protect other countries. Obama is more concerned about protecting illegals rights and fighting states that seek to stop illegal immigration than ever protecting our own border.

It is not incumbent on any US corporation to invest in any R & D, particularly green energy. It may be wise for them to do so but certainly not their obligation. But the US oil and gas industry did invest and develop horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking which has revolutionized exploration around the world...Seems like they are doing their part. But, again, they haven't figured out a way to drill around an anti energy "zealot".

rock on sooner
3/2/2012, 03:53 PM
I think that Obama is starting to own the economy, mostly because some of the things that were wrong/sick
are starting to feel better, so he has to own it if he's going to take any credit for it.

Yep, lots of countries don't stick their noses or military into those fights. After the USSR broke into so many "stans"
and they lost in Afghanistan, they really could only kick around their own rebels. India only argues with Pakistan
and China, well, they exercise UN vetoes and spend the rest of their energy becoming an economic giant. Somewhere
along the line only one superpower left inherited the role of the world's policeman. Iran hasn't gone nuclear yet, but
they're trying...they better not overlook Isreal, because Isreal is not overlooking them. Libya was "okay" because, on
the surface, it was the humanitarian thing to do.

As to our borders, you are correct. We don't do enough. I have to take issue with the approach that some of the states
are taking. I think a better thing to do is to focus on why the illegals come here and make it less enticing. As to the
ones already here, if they commit a crime more severe than traffic stuff, send them back. Identify the rest and find a
way to integrate them into our society....can't deport 11 million of them (but we are deporting 450000 or so a year).

Big oil did do some good things with their R & D but still doesn't justify obscene profits and government subsidy going
hand in hand. I don't agree that Obama is anti energy, I think he's trying to find ways to bring everyone along. Could
he do more? You bet. Could Congress and the Tea Partiers get involved and find compromises instead of partisan
bickering? Well, there's the rub.

pphilfran
3/2/2012, 03:59 PM
whoops

pphilfran
3/2/2012, 04:06 PM
The "obscene" profits are not nearly as high as the "obscene" profits that Apple makes....

They are massive companies that operate on tight margins...spend a large share on R&D...and take the same deductions that most all companies enjoy...

In the 4th quarter Apple had net income of 13 billion on sales of 46 billion...

In the 4th quarter Exxon/Mobile had net income of 9.4 billion on sales of 117 billion....


Greedy bastards...

TitoMorelli
3/2/2012, 04:18 PM
Admit, it phil. You're just scared that one day they'll be forcing you to put ethanol in your Porsche.:playful:

cleller
3/2/2012, 04:18 PM
It seems if someone has demonstrated they have a skill for succeeding to a high degree in the energy field, that would be a good quality to possess for this position.

I'd rather do business with a guy that made money actually running an energy company than someone who makes money from the government to produce solar panels, then goes bankrupt.

When the country starts giving away its top jobs to people whose only experience is living off the government, we'll be heading down that Soviet road.

pphilfran
3/2/2012, 04:22 PM
Admit, it phil. You're just scared that one day they'll be forcing you to put ethanol in your Porsche.:playful:


The 911 doesn't sniff alcohol...

okie52
3/2/2012, 04:26 PM
I think that Obama is starting to own the economy, mostly because some of the things that were wrong/sick
are starting to feel better, so he has to own it if he's going to take any credit for it.

Yep, lots of countries don't stick their noses or military into those fights. After the USSR broke into so many "stans"
and they lost in Afghanistan, they really could only kick around their own rebels. India only argues with Pakistan
and China, well, they exercise UN vetoes and spend the rest of their energy becoming an economic giant. Somewhere
along the line only one superpower left inherited the role of the world's policeman. Iran hasn't gone nuclear yet, but
they're trying...they better not overlook Isreal, because Isreal is not overlooking them. Libya was "okay" because, on
the surface, it was the humanitarian thing to do.

As to our borders, you are correct. We don't do enough. I have to take issue with the approach that some of the states
are taking. I think a better thing to do is to focus on why the illegals come here and make it less enticing. As to the
ones already here, if they commit a crime more severe than traffic stuff, send them back. Identify the rest and find a
way to integrate them into our society....can't deport 11 million of them (but we are deporting 450000 or so a year).

Big oil did do some good things with their R & D but still doesn't justify obscene profits and government subsidy going
hand in hand. I don't agree that Obama is anti energy, I think he's trying to find ways to bring everyone along. Could
he do more? You bet. Could Congress and the Tea Partiers get involved and find compromises instead of partisan
bickering? Well, there's the rub.

The number of deportations has plunged. Obama NOW will only deport criminals. And, to make matters worse, he fought
AZ on its 2007 law to punish employers that hired illegals...an AZ law that was signed by his own head of Homeland SEcurity
Janet Napolitano. Fortunately he lost every court case on this issue including the SC.

You don't have to deport all 11,000,000 illegals...just take away their jobs and benefits and most will leave. Of course if you
have a president fighting that process then you are definitely fighting an uphill battle. Everify would be a good start in that process.
I have absolutely no desire to integrate 11,000,000 illegals into our society nor should anyone feel an obligation to do so.

Where is it our duty to be the world's policeman? Is it even smart to do so? Libya was stupid, we don't even know if we helped a
new regime that might be worse than Ghaddafi's. I could say the same about Iraq...although at least temporarily the new regime
seems reasonable.

Oils profits on average are about 9%...hardly an obscene amount. He11, the government should be thankful they have such a healthy
industry that contributes heavily to its tax revenues rather than continually trying to kill the golden goose.

But, back to the OP. You do know in another thread Harold Hamm was telling Obama about the amazing success they have had in the Bakken
and other oil fields in the US and it could greatly help diminish our oil imports. Obama responded "Oil and gas will be important for a few years but
secretary Chu had promised there would be a battery car that would get 130 mpg in the next 5 years." As Hamm stated "even if you believed that
why would you disregard oil and gas". It is a statement of the fantasy world Obama lives in with regard to energy....and actually how low energy
costs like NG are helping to fuel the economy and provide and economic advantage vs other countries.

Just who should have Romney named as an energy advisor? Not energy secretary but energy advisor?

rock on sooner
3/2/2012, 04:45 PM
The number of deportations has plunged. Obama NOW will only deport criminals. And, to make matters worse, he fought
AZ on its 2007 law to punish employers that hired illegals...an AZ law that was signed by his own head of Homeland SEcurity
Janet Napolitano. Fortunately he lost every court case on this issue including the SC.

You don't have to deport all 11,000,000 illegals...just take away their jobs and benefits and most will leave. Of course if you
have a president fighting that process then you are definitely fighting an uphill battle. Everify would be a good start in that process.
I have absolutely no desire to integrate 11,000,000 illegals into our society nor should anyone feel an obligation to do so.

Where is it our duty to be the world's policeman? Is it even smart to do so? Libya was stupid, we don't even know if we helped a
new regime that might be worse than Ghaddafi's. I could say the same about Iraq...although at least temporarily the new regime
seems reasonable.

Oils profits on average are about 9%...hardly an obscene amount. He11, the government should be thankful they have such a healthy
industry that contributes heavily to its tax revenues rather than continually trying to kill the golden goose.

But, back to the OP. You do know in another thread Harold Hamm was telling Obama about the amazing success they have had in the Bakken
and other oil fields in the US and it could greatly help diminish our oil imports. Obama responded "Oil and gas will be important for a few years but
secretary Chu had promised there would be a battery car that would get 130 mpg in the next 5 years." As Hamm stated "even if you believed that
why would you disregard oil and gas". It is a statement of the fantasy world Obama lives in with regard to energy....and actually how low energy
costs like NG are helping to fuel the economy and provide and economic advantage vs other countries.

Just who should have Romney named as an energy advisor? Not energy secretary but energy advisor?
We're essentially saying the same thing about the illegals, with exception of the integration part...a lot of them
would leave but a lot wouldn't so the issue is still there.

It's not our duty to be the world's cop, just our job by default.
When most companies look at 3-5% as a profit, twice that does look a bit much...7-9 billion a quarter and still
taking handouts...oh, well...

As to Hamm or someone else, my whole point to this discussion is just another rich crony. It's just that
Romney can't seem to relate to the common people, only the super rich. More power to him, I guess. He
certainly doesn't relate to people like me and, because of that, I wouldn't cross over to vote for him.

pphilfran
3/2/2012, 04:49 PM
Who should he pick as his adviser...some no name with little actual wealth?

rock on sooner
3/2/2012, 04:58 PM
Who should he pick as his adviser...some no name with little actual wealth?

He can and did pick who he wanted. I'm sure there are a lot of qualified "no names" in universities, think tanks
and research institutes. I just think his pick reinforces a widely held perception that he can't/doesn't relate.

okie52
3/2/2012, 05:03 PM
We're essentially saying the same thing about the illegals, with exception of the integration part...a lot of them
would leave but a lot wouldn't so the issue is still there.

It's not our duty to be the world's cop, just our job by default.
When most companies look at 3-5% as a profit, twice that does look a bit much...7-9 billion a quarter and still
taking handouts...oh, well...

As to Hamm or someone else, my whole point to this discussion is just another rich crony. It's just that
Romney can't seem to relate to the common people, only the super rich. More power to him, I guess. He
certainly doesn't relate to people like me and, because of that, I wouldn't cross over to vote for him.

Oil isn't taking handouts like green energy or the auto industry or the banking industry.. They are being challenged on writeoffs that most industries receive. Not the same thing.
Now I'm sure you were very upset when you heard Obama was giving a $60,000,000,000 break to unions on healthcare...regardless of income. So the nonunion working stiff that makes $45,000 a year pays higher taxes on his healthinsurance than the union member that makes $45,000...thats fair..right?

Ever hear of the best man for the job???....that should govern selections/appointments. I doubt Hamm was ever a crony of Romney's and Hamm certainly has working class roots...but it still disqualifies him in your eyes because he was successful and made a lot of money even though it was in the field where he is being hired as an advisor.

Chuck Bao
3/2/2012, 05:05 PM
Okie52, in an earlier thread I disagreed with your black-white, over-simplification of energy policy issues, particularly offshore drilling on the east and west coasts. But when you qualified your main arguments, I realized that there wasn’t a great deal of difference in our opinions. I responded only because I don’t like the idea of a mad rush to award huge offshore blocks (each the size of Oklahoma in your own words) to a few politically-connected oil companies. Of course, these same oil companies want it ALL opened up NOW. I am just arguing that it should be done prudently on terms that maximize state revenues.

From your earlier map, I thought that there was a small tract being opened up off Virginia’s coast. Did I get that part wrong? Since it seems that the majority of the people of Virginia are not opposed to offshore drilling, that would be a good place to start.

I thought it was humorous that the Republican candidates did a lot of talking about opening up offshore fields before the Florida primary and then suddenly went very quiet on the issue while campaigning in that state with a pretty long coast line. I don’t suppose that out of sight (far enough offshore), out of mind would still play very well politically there. And, please explain why Gulf of Mexico drilling hasn’t expanded east to offshore of Florida. Surely, the good people of Florida have heard about 50% of the Gulf Coast economy being driven by oil.

But that is just it. Offshore drilling on the east and west coasts will not immediately end the US reliance on imported oil or immediately create a huge number of jobs. If there are sizeable hydrocarbon reserves found, it will take 10-20 years to develop before having a noticeable impact, far beyond the two terms of a particular president.

I also guess that more than likely the offshore hydrocarbon reserves will be in the form of natural gas. I thought you were lamenting the fact that there is currently a glut of natural gas in the US and prices have collapsed. Out of purely selfish reasons, I would rather natural gas in Oklahoma be developed and marketed before either east or west coast is opened up.

I have to admit that I love your idea that our transport industry should be converting to natural gas/derivatives. You have to start somewhere and that is the most logical idea I see, instead of east-west coast drilling or the so-called green energies. Alright, I would vote for any candidate who vows to give tax incentives to vehicle conversion and service stations who supply it. Within a couple of years, all taxis in Thailand converted for economic reasons, so it can be done.

I do admire your dogged determination to keep this topic going and continue discussion. Carry on.

okie52
3/2/2012, 05:05 PM
He can and did pick who he wanted. I'm sure there are a lot of qualified "no names" in universities, think tanks
and research institutes. I just think his pick reinforces a widely held perception that he can't/doesn't relate.

Oh, a no name university person that has operated in a vaccuum vs one that has hand's on experience and a proven record of success in his field...is that how you would hire someone?

rock on sooner
3/2/2012, 05:10 PM
Oil isn't taking handouts like green energy or the auto industry or the banking industry.. They are being challenged on writeoffs that most industries receive. Not the same thing.
Now I'm sure you were very upset when you heard Obama was giving a $60,000,000,000 break to unions on healthcare...regardless of income. So the nonunion working stiff that makes $45,000 a year pays higher taxes on his healthinsurance than the union member that makes $45,000...thats fair..right?

Ever hear of the best man for the job???....that should govern selections/appointments. I doubt Hamm was ever a crony of Romney's and Hamm certainly has working class roots...but it still disqualifies him in your eyes because he was successful and made a lot of money even though it was in the field where he is being hired as an advisor.

Never said he was not qualified, never said I begrudge his success. I respect those that are successful, admire them, as
well. As I said it's a matter of relating. so..we can agree to disagree.

okie52
3/2/2012, 05:19 PM
Okie52, in an earlier thread I disagreed with your black-white, over-simplification of energy policy issues, particularly offshore drilling on the east and west coasts. But when you qualified your main arguments, I realized that there wasn’t a great deal of difference in our opinions. I responded only because I don’t like the idea of a mad rush to award huge offshore blocks (each the size of Oklahoma in your own words) to a few politically-connected oil companies. Of course, these same oil companies want it ALL opened up NOW. I am just arguing that it should be done prudently on terms that maximize state revenues.

From your earlier map, I thought that there was a small tract being opened up off Virginia’s coast. Did I get that part wrong? Since it seems that the majority of the people of Virginia are not opposed to offshore drilling, that would be a good place to start.

I thought it was humorous that the Republican candidates did a lot of talking about opening up offshore fields before the Florida primary and then suddenly went very quiet on the issue while campaigning in that state with a pretty long coast line. I don’t suppose that out of sight (far enough offshore), out of mind would still play very well politically there. And, please explain why Gulf of Mexico drilling hasn’t expanded east to offshore of Florida. Surely, the good people of Florida have heard about 50% of the Gulf Coast economy being driven by oil.

But that is just it. Offshore drilling on the east and west coasts will not immediately end the US reliance on imported oil or immediately create a huge number of jobs. If there are sizeable hydrocarbon reserves found, it will take 10-20 years to develop before having a noticeable impact, far beyond the two terms of a particular president.

I also guess that more than likely the offshore hydrocarbon reserves will be in the form of natural gas. I thought you were lamenting the fact that there is currently a glut of natural gas in the US and prices have collapsed. Out of purely selfish reasons, I would rather natural gas in Oklahoma be developed and marketed before either east or west coast is opened up.

I have to admit that I love your idea that our transport industry should be converting to natural gas/derivatives. You have to start somewhere and that is the most logical idea I see, instead of east-west coast drilling or the so-called green energies. Alright, I would vote for any candidate who vows to give tax incentives to vehicle conversion and service stations who supply it. Within a couple of years, all taxis in Thailand converted for economic reasons, so it can be done.

I do admire your dogged determination to keep this topic going and continue discussion. Carry on.

Chuck,

Obama reneged on his original proposal for a small tract off of VA to be opened for leasing. Its back to both coasts are banned even though in his state of the union address he led the public to believe he was opening the coasts for exploration.


States have no say in offshore drilling. The offshore tracts are federally owned. The states get nothing in terms of royalties or bonus money.
But, if they are like the gulf coast there will be thousands of high paying jobs and tax revenues for their economies.

Nobody said offshore drilling was a "quick fix"...the fact that it takes most offshore wells about 5 years from the drawing board to come on line is why the situation is so maddening. Obama has already squandered 3 years and if he remains in office he will make it 8 years. Really unforgivable.

Oil companies will probably NOT drill for NG offshore at this time unless it happens to accompany oil discoveries in the process. They may buy leasehold, now, speculating on the NG price going back up and drill it later (most offshore leases are for 10 years).

I will remain "dogged" about touting energy independence and, for now, the need to pursue our own resources to achieve that end.

soonercoop1
3/2/2012, 06:23 PM
Thats great Okie but I still don't trust Romney at all...

Chuck Bao
3/2/2012, 06:27 PM
I appreciate it when you qualify your comments, Okie52. A 10-year lease would be great, especially if they could find sizable crude reserves off either coast. I somehow think that the money politics involved is much more than that. Okay, call me a skeptic.

I still think that this isn't the key energy policy issue. I would say that converting our transport sector to cheaper natural gas derivatives would be much more beneficial. Again, that is my purely selfish idea. I remember as a kid that one of my family's hay trucks ran on propane. You don't see that much anymore and I'm not sure why.

Oh, by state revenues I meant national/federal/public revenues, not individual state revenues, just like the State Department doesn't deal with individual states. Sorry about the confusion there.

pphilfran
3/2/2012, 06:36 PM
I appreciate it when you qualify your comments, Okie52. A 10-year lease would be great, especially if they could find sizable crude reserves off either coast. I somehow think that the money politics involved is much more than that. Okay, call me a skeptic.

I still think that this isn't the key energy policy issue. I would say that converting our transport sector to cheaper natural gas derivatives would be much more beneficial. Again, that is my purely selfish idea. I remember as a kid that one of my family's hay trucks ran on propane. You don't see that much anymore and I'm not sure why.

Oh, by state revenues I meant national/federal/public revenues, not individual state revenues, just like the State Department doesn't deal with individual states. Sorry about the confusion there.

I think we all agree that NG should be used for transportation...hell, Chesapeake is putting up a billion dollars over 10 years in venture capital to help make it happen...

Yet all we here out of DC is how companies are sitting on money...shipping jobs overseas...and making gross profits...not a peep out of them on Chesapeake and a billion dollars ...

Chuck Bao
3/2/2012, 06:51 PM
I think we all agree that NG should be used for transportation...hell, Chesapeake is putting up a billion dollars over 10 years in venture capital to help make it happen...

Yet all we here out of DC is how companies are sitting on money...shipping jobs overseas...and making gross profits...not a peep out of them on Chesapeake and a billion dollars ...

100% agree. So why aren't we hearing more about conversion to natural gas for our transport sector? Why are we even talking about drilling for unproven crude on our coasts? Why aren't our state energy companies investing more in gas-fired power plants and using some of our own abundant natural gas supplies?

Honestly, I am very happy with the Oklahoma oil/gas developers and their building a natural gas pipeline through to my side of the county. The potential wealth created by marketing the natural gas reserves, well it is unimaginable. I only wish that my father and grandfather were around to see it.

cleller
3/2/2012, 08:02 PM
Natural gas is cheap, versatile, and plentiful. It is the "between the eyes" logical route to pursue. It involves drilling, fracking, and pipelines, however.
The politicians either know this is the answer, and don't have the backbone to pursue it, or are just ignorant. It could solve a multitude of ills, but is controversial.

On this point, Obama, as president, has really shrunk from the challenge. To not even address the possibility is a sign of timidity.