Harold Hamm to be chairman of Romney's energy policy advisory group

[okie52]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.