The Obama administration is pulling out all the stops to kill the naturally occurring oil and gas boom in North America — but it’s not going well. Too much relatively clean, inexpensive fuel has been discovered. We could definitely use the energy and more jobs would be great. No viable alternatives have appeared.
Still, the administration soldiers on. Moratoriums in the gulf. Bans on permits. Wildland regulations. Accelerated Environmental Protection Agency restrictions. Massive subsidies for impractical green energy suppliers. Nothing seems too extreme, and none of it works.
Many Americans don’t realize the phenomenal growth in our domestic energy stores that has occurred in the past few years. Technological advances in locating petroleum have combined with the financial motivation of rising fuel prices to increase supply. The result has been the discovery of astonishingly vast new stores of energy beneath the Great Plains, under the ocean, in Canada and elsewhere.
But good news for the rest of us is cause for desperation in an Obama administration whose own energy secretary — prior to being selected for the position — once stated a goal of boosting “the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” No matter the cost or who has to pay, their dream of eliminating fossil fuels lives on. To see how this ideology trumps sound science and economics, consider the case of the XL pipeline.
Canada, our largest and friendliest fuel supplier, has discovered vast reserves of “tar sand” in remote northern Alberta. Crude oil [*see correction] can be recovered there by fracking — cracking apart rocks with pressurized water and diluted chemicals to release natural gas.
There’s no free lunch in energy production and fracking itself is relatively energy intensive. There’s also a concern about contaminating drinking water supplies, although the only case on record so far has already been resolved.
The good news is that the process is so cost-effective that if Canada were to transport the fuel for refinement to the U.S., 830,000 barrels of oil per day would come our way, 600,000 new jobs would be supported and $775 billion would be added to our economy by 2035.
The “problem” is that the XL pipeline would have to be constructed to transport the fuel south. The way most of us see it, that would be a good thing, too, since 20,000 new jobs would be created by the project.
Multiple pipelines already criss-cross our fair land. Yet the self-appointed environmentalists are putting their foot down on this one, insisting that President Obama refuse to give the OK, on pain of losing their support in the 2012 election.
Congressional Republicans and some Democrats have urged going ahead with construction, which led the New York Times to headline that Republicans are trying to “rush” the pipeline. That’s rich, since it has already been studied for three years, twice the time normally required for similar projects.
The arguments of the obstructionists are weak. There has been extensive review by state and local governments along the route, by environmentalists, government agencies and landowners. Questions have been answered, the route has even been adjusted.
Frustrated pipeline advocates are trying to include the pipeline go-ahead in a bill authorizing the extension of the payroll tax reduction and other administration-approved measures. But Obama is having none of it, pouring enormous political capital into the “delay until after the election” option. There’s leadership for you.
How does that even make sense? He believes, probably correctly, that postponing the decision will likely kill the project. Canada, already disgusted with our dysfunctional politics, won’t stop production but will find other buyers. The Chinese are interested. Energy markets will go on without us.
Meanwhile, Obama gets to have it both ways. He’ll get his “attaboy” from the enviros but still collect campaign funds from producers hoping the pipeline will be built. Then, when it’s too late, the great decision will be made.
Meanwhile, we’ll continue to pay higher fuel prices. And even though we now have the opportunity to be energy independent, we’ll continue to buy oil from people who use our dollars to spread hatred against us. This is absurd.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson is a retired physician and former state senator. He can be reached at pattersontomc@cox.net.
*CORRECTION: Dec. 27, 2011: The original version of this commentary, appearing online and in print on Dec. 17, 2011, should have stated that crude oil, not natural gas, would be transported through the XL pipeline. The Tribune regrets the error.
wdgnas posted at 7:47 am on Fri, Dec 23, 2011.
vofreason: I do know this though, why do they need tax subsidies if it is such a good idea on it's own.
ask the nucular power industry the same question. why do they need the federal government (that's you and i, in case you have forgotten) to subsidize, err i mean to their provide insurance. is this not a subsidy? how about having 2 carrier groups in the persian gulf and 1in the mediterranean sea? isn't that subsidizing the oil and natural gas industries?
and to answer your question, How much does the government have to give you in tax incentives to buy a TV? Computer? that would be zero, unless of course i were using them as a business expense.
VofReason posted at 12:53 pm on Thu, Dec 22, 2011.
I got that info from solar power website- I don't have personal experience with it or have anything installed. I do know this though, why do they need tax subsidies if it is such a good idea on it's own. How much does the government have to give you in tax incentives to buy a TV? Computer?
wdgnas posted at 6:53 am on Thu, Dec 22, 2011.
vofreason:i do not know where you get your information. 75 watts a panel--maybe a b-stock thin film panel. i installed a system with 12 230 watt panels that meets the needs of the family in colorado. 2.76 kw for $12,500. it's all relative.
Dale Whiting posted at 3:32 pm on Wed, Dec 21, 2011.
And yet First Solar, the nation's largest Solar PV manufacturing company, now headquartered right here in Tempe, has done a land office business. It's revenues are dipping now, only because demand in this recession is dipping. And First Solar's chief competition ? It's not wind or coal. It's PV manufacturers in China! What do the Chineese know that you don't know, VofReason?
VofReason posted at 1:21 pm on Wed, Dec 21, 2011.
For hall monitor Dale. When he speaks about looney left ideas, I know he is spot on (wrong but spot on). Anything he claims is good for the country- not so much.
VofReason posted at 1:18 pm on Wed, Dec 21, 2011.
Yes that cheap sun energy. A very general rule of thumb: Small, single-PV-panel systems that produce about 75 watts can cost about $900 installed, or $12 per watt. A 2-kilowatt (1 kilowatt=1,000 watts) system that meets most energy needs of an extremely energy-efficient home can cost $16,000-$20,000 installed, or $8-$10 per watt. A 5-kilowatt system that completely meets the energy needs of many conventional homes can cost $30,000-$40,000 installed, (from solar installer website). Boy this seems pretty cheap way to get energy- not. Maybe that is why they have to give you huge tax breaks for people to do it. If it were smart, capitalism would take care of itself.
CooperG posted at 9:47 am on Sun, Dec 18, 2011.
Patterson plays the typical Arizona Republican card of denying Arizona's ability to utilize one of its few naturally occurring competitive advantages (the sun) to grow a local industry (renewable energy) and instead tows the old school party line of mindlessly supporting planet and water table killing natural gas fracking and oil drilling. After all, those industries bring SO many jobs to our state.
Why does Patterson hate creating Arizona jobs so much? I think it's because he's stuck in the past. Patterson should seriously considering fully retiring and make some room for more forward thinking people to state their opinions on these pages. As the saying goes, you can't hurtle into the future with your eyes affixed to the rear-view mirror. If he doesn't support creating Arizona jobs, we don't need to hear about how much he wants them created in other states.
wdgnas posted at 7:53 am on Sun, Dec 18, 2011.
Meanwhile, we’ll continue to pay higher fuel prices. And even though we now have the opportunity to be energy independent, we’ll continue to buy oil from people who use our dollars to spread hatred against us. This is absurd.
prices for most petroleum products have been dropping. here is an article that should make all of you say what is going here.
http://money.msn.com/ways-to-invest/why-the-us-is-sending-oil-overseas-jubak.aspx
CWDarling posted at 7:34 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
I forgot to point out that calling the current administration "Obstructionist" is laughable... but I am sure you don't see it that way being a "conservative" politician... I quote conservative because you are not one... you fall under the catagory of patriarchal politician. You really don't care what your constituents thought... you did what was best for you.
CWDarling posted at 7:29 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
I am with Dale on this one... Most of the US mainland is ripe for the "fracking" process. Problem is it spoils water, causes tremors or earthquakes and will likely leave entire swaths of the Country uninhabitable I am afraid. I know we need energy production... take it to the sun. The real reason we have issues with renewable energy... once we develop a true technology that can produce it... it will be so cheap everyone can afford it... big business would lose. It really is that simple... so Dr... stop being a pawn.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:23 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
Doctor Patterson,
What's up Doc?
When you speak about medicine, I give you the benefit of the doubt. But when I hear you speaking about crude oil production and job creation, I talk to my petroleum geologist friend. And he can't figure out where you are getting your facts. Would you please fill the two of us in?
Rich posted at 1:58 pm on Sat, Dec 17, 2011.
If everyone had a well paying job, they'd be voting Republican (ie: their pocketbook). The only real chance Obama has to stay in power is to keep unemployment high and blame the rich folks. Expect him to find ways to stifle jobs, as covertly as possible.