Obama's plan to cut imported oil by one-third: Drill, baby, drill?

Obama has plenty of rather plain flaws; there's no need to make shit up about him.

We'll see blue team leaders blow some smoke about cap and trade every so often just to keep that portion of their base hopeful and engaged, but that's about it.

or, maybe there is and I'm just behind the times. maybe truth and rationality are just slogans in this era of political postmodernism.

my lies and cant versus your lies and cant; that's the political whole, with nothing in the middle.

A few links, and a few selected passages.

Barack Obama's Anti-Coal Policies Will Raise Energy Prices

Quote:

---

Under Obama, the EPA has proposed and promulgated the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule—more commonly known as "Utility MACT"— imposing expensive control retrofits on coal-fired plants. The agency itself estimates the costs to the economy because of the new rule will be $10 billion per year. Private studies indicate it is more likely to be twice that, leading to higher electricity rates and, when combined with new rules on so-called "greenhouse gases," force most of these plants to close.

---

Obama’s war on coal can be stopped, not reversed, says CEO of coal company

Quote:

---

Obama is planning to close 175 power plants by 2020, roughly equivalent to 83,000 megawatts, he said. Most of the plants will go off the grid by 2014.

---

Quote:

---

“Coal-fired electrical generation has historically been $0.04 per kilowatt hour,” he said. “Wind and solar power that Obama promotes is $.22 per kilowatt hour.”

---

Obama’s war on coal hits your electric bill

Quote:

---

Last week the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported a shocking drop in power sector coal consumption in the first quarter of 2012. Coal-fired power plants are now generating just 36 percent of U.S. electricity, versus 44.6 percent just one year ago.

---

Quote:

---

The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt. In the mid-Atlantic area covering New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and DC the new price is $167 per megawatt. For the northern Ohio territory served by FirstEnergy, the price is a shocking $357 per megawatt.

Why the massive price increases? Andy Ott from PJM stated the obvious: “Capacity prices were higher than last year's because of retirements of existing coal-fired generation resulting largely from environmental regulations which go into effect in 2015.” Northern Ohio is suffering from more forced coal-plant retirements than the rest of the region, hence the even higher price.

---

The Real Reason Obama's EPA Targets Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas

Quote:

---

The administration's Big Brother approach to energy and environmental policy—coming from a coal-state senator no less—seeks to fundamentally alter the way our factories, vehicles, and homes are fueled. President Barack Obama's plan involves raising the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force America to embrace energy resources that are deemed clean and green, such as wind and solar. As he stated before his 2008 election, his plan was to make energy prices "necessarily skyrocket" to make expensive, inefficient forms of energy more competitive.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Norman, senior economist with the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation, estimated the cost of EPA's proposed ozone standard to be a whopping 7.3 million jobs by 2020 and $1 trillion in compliance costs between 2020 and 2030. The White House delayed the new standard until after the November elections.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

my lies and cant versus your lies and cant; that's the political whole, with nothing in the middle.

---

Why are you such a whiner today?

Gecko National Energy Plan is OIL OIL OIL OIL

Ryan continues $45B of breaks for carbon industriies

No mention of NG

All subsidies for renewable energy killed. It would be hilarious if the Repug politicians and Repug Human-Americans of wind-states like Iowa with 10Ks of wind jobs came out against Gecko and voted Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mavs>spurs

Obamas war on coal isn't anything new..you board
Liberals are so intellectually dishonest like snakes

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...l-fired-power/

---

that's an opinion piece from fox news... any other sources mr intellectualy honest?



Phil Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity and the author of “Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America - and How to Stop Him."

a coal company CEO blaming Obama for plants predicted to close after 2016 is super credible

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Why are you such a whiner today?

---

this forum doesn't bring out my best qualities

Quote:

---

The Obama administration has cleared another hurdle for Shell to drill in Alaska’s Arctic waters – the second in as many days – changing the company’s air pollution limits so its drill ship can operate in the Chukchi Sea.

Shell told the Environmental Protection Agency in June that the company was able to meet overall air quality standards. But it said a set of generators on the drilling rig Noble Discoverer fell short of the specific requirements for nitrous oxide and ammonia emissions.


The EPA now has agreed to allow the drill ship to go ahead and operate in Arctic waters while the agency decides how to handle Shell’s request for a revised permit.
Shell praised the decision Friday as a reasonable accommodation that will let it get to work while still limiting its emissions.



“EPA has worked closely with us to come up with a solution that is realistic and achievable,” said Shell spokesman Curtis Smith.


The company said its exploratory drilling could begin within days. Shell is the first oil company attempting offshore drilling in the Alaska Arctic in two decades, and it’s hugely controversial. Opponents warn of degradation to the relatively pristine environment and argue the company won’t be able to clean up a spill in water with floating ice. Shell sees huge potential for oil and has spent more than $4.5 billion on the effort.


The air pollution issue was the second defeat in a row for opponents of Shell’s plans. The Obama administration on Thursday agreed to let Shell start drilling in the Arctic waters even though its oil spill containment barge isn’t ready to go, although the drilling can’t go so deep as to hit oil until the barge is certified.

---

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/3...gets-pass.html

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/3...#storylink=cpy

out of control EPA and Barack Obama trying to destroy America, again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

out of control EPA and Barack Obama trying to destroy America, again.

---

Why is it a Dutch company? Why not a US company?

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

:lmao

---

Am I wrong?

Isn't Shell a Dutch oil company?

love the spin, WC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Am I wrong?

Isn't Shell a Dutch oil company?

---

yep, Shell US is a Dutch company just like BP US is a UK company.

http://www.shell.us/

Do you have any objection to Exxon, Chevron, etc drilling in Iraq?

Obama challenges oil companies to drill existing leases

The White House on Tuesday pushed back against the oil and gas industry's claims that the Obama administration is blocking domestic energy development, releasing a new analysis showing that 46 million acres of federal lands and waters leased for drilling are sitting idle.

According to the Department of Interior report, oil and gas companies are actively drilling or have launched development on less than a third of the 36 million acres they have leased offshore, and on just over half of their onshore leases.

That includes leases where the companies have not yet filed exploration and development plans with the federal government, and ones where companies have received drilling permits but haven't launched the work. According to the report, the government has issued about 7,000 permits for exploration not yet under way on federal and Indian lands.

http://www.chron.com/business/articl...ng-3561090.php

came across this, this morning. I'm unfamiliar with the authors and wouldn't really know how to cross check their claims, but here is their take:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

---

We have long suspected that the never-ending sturm und drang surrounding climate change would have little real impact on public policy or energy markets because no politician ever got elected by promising to impose – or defending the imposition of – significant, observable costs on the present for the well-being of the future … in any policy arena. Believe what you like about the science, but the inescapable political fact is that voters – and in particular, swing voters – have the time horizons of newborn babes. Any serious policy response to climate change would, by force, require a rather steep increase in fossil fuel prices and American voters have demonstrated time-and-time-again a deep aversion to exactly that. Good luck finding the pol-on-the-make willing to put his or her head into that political wood chipper.


If you listened to conservative policy activists, however, you might think we’ve found exactly that pol in the person of President Barrack Obama. Almost five months ago, his EPA issued its long-awaited regulations for greenhouse gas emissions, regulations that were required by law once the EPA deemed those gases a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act (a finding that was, in fact, made on December 15, 2009). And … the Right promptly went nuts. “EPA’s new rule will do much more than kill coal,” warned Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “The higher electricity prices caused by the EPA rule will close American factories and send jobs overseas.” The Manhattan Institute’s Robert Bryce charged that the proposed regulations would ultimately cost around $700 billion (the cost of replacing coal-fired power plants with natural gas-fired power plants) and, accordingly, “result in significant price increases for domestic electricity consumers.” Mike Brownfield and Nicolas Loris – both of the Heritage Foundation – argued that the regs mean “higher energy costs, fewer jobs, a less prosperous economy.” And so another talking point was born for the political Right as we enter the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign.

And yet … it’s simply not true. The regulation at issue proposes an emissions target of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of generation – something impossible for coal-fired power plants to meet without expensive carbon capture technology – but it applies only to brand-spanking-new, non-peaking natural gas power plants and coal-fired power plants that might be built some day in the future. Not to existing power plants. Not to existing power plants that undertake extensive upgrades that might deem them a “new source” for regulatory purposes under the Clean Air Act. And not to peaking gas-fired power generators.


That’s the key to understanding this regulation because – as the EPA points out (and as CEOs in the utility sector confirm) – there are no new coal-fired power plants in the pipeline that this rule might cover and no prospect of the same unless natural gas prices hit at least $9.60 per million BTU (in 2007 dollars) on a sustained basis. Moreover, almost all of the gas-fired power plants that will be built will meet these standards without any additional costs.


Hence the regulation will impose negligible costs and, as the EPA itself confesses, negligible benefits.

---

http://www.forbes.com/sites/powerlun...hange-edition/

for boutons:

Quote:

---

Taylor and Van Doren are senior fellows at the Cato Institute.

---

seeking alpha: new EPA regs don't drive demand

Quote:

---

Environmental regulations are indicated as one reason for the jump in planned retirements in the survey. It is possible the generators being slated for retirement have been burning low-sulfur central Appalachian coal for years to comply with older EPA regulations, and now the choice is between retiring old plants or upgrading them with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury or heavy metal scrubbers in the face of the new standards (the EPA's 'MAPS' and 'CSAPR' rules) and rising central Appalachian prices. Surely these standards impose additional costs on power generation companies.

However, the histograms of Figures 1 and 2 and the analysis suggests that any effect of the new rules on the decision to retire coal generators is primarily operative near the end of life. Instead, a major reason for the jump in capacity planned for retirement is that more bituminous-fired generators with greater capacity are approaching end of life. The lion's share of capacity as shown in Figure 3 is provided by generators built in the 1970s and 1980s, presumably with maintenance costs too low and sunk costs too high to be retired in most cases.


One possible additional effect of the new regulations is that thermal coal may become less fungible. For example the USGS indicates coal from the Uinta Basin and San Juan River regions have median mercury and arsenic levels approximately half that of coal mined in Appalachian and powder river basin regions on a mean-BTU-content-adjusted basis. If the burning of low-mercury coal allows coal plants to meet the final MAPS rule limits (temporarily partially stayed as of July 27th) with fewer modifications, these coals may command a premium.

---

http://seekingalpha.com/article/8397...ng-coal-demand

(DarrinS bailed)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

for boutons:

---

CATO is a right-wing stink tank, pro-pollution, pro-Corporate_American, pro-Repug, anti-environment, all of which are anti-Human-American.

Proof is in their funding:

The Cato Institute has been supported by:

Castle Rock Foundation (Formerly Coors Foundation)
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Koch Family Foundations
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)

In its 2006 annual report, Cato listed that it had received funding from 72 foundations during the year, amounting to $3,113,000 or 15% of total income.[88] (See Cato Institute/2006 Foundation Funders for more detail).


Cato funds 25+ "like-minded" think tanks

Aside from its own advocacy efforts, the Cato Institute has become a substantial funder of other "like-minded" think tanks around the U.S. In its 2006 annual report Cato lists 26 organizations and one individual it provided grants totaling $1,243,00 to. Groups the benefited from Cato's generosity were Agencia Americana ($30,000 "to help fund study on S.A. corruption"); the Philanthropy Roundtable ($5,000); the Manhattan Institute ($5,000); the American Enterprise Institute ($5,000); the Fund for American Studies ($10,000); the Bluegrass Institute ($50,000); the Cascade Policy Institute ($25,000); the Ethan Allen Institute ($50,000); the Evergreen Freedom Foundation ($100,000); the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii ($40,000); the Illinois Policy Institute ($50,000); the James Madison Institute ($100,000); the John Locke Foundation ($20,000); the Maine Heritage Policy Center ($50,000); the Maryland Public Policy Institute ($40,000); the Nevada Policy Research Institute ($50,000); the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs ($50,000); the Rio Grande Foundation ($50,000); the Show-Me Institute ($50,000); the South Carolina Policy Council ($90,000); the Sutherland Institute ($40,000); the Tennessee Center for Policy Research ($50,000); the Texas Public Policy Foundation ($100,000); the Virginia Institute for Public Policy ($25,000); the Yankee Institute ($68,000); and the Independent Institute ($60,000). In addition Jim Powell received $25,000 as a Hoiles Fellowship.[89] (note, the Cato annual report refers to the "South Carolina Policy Institute" when the correct name of the think tank is the "South Carolina Policy Council". Similarly, the Maryland Public Policy Institute was misidentified as the Maryland Public Policy Center.)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Cato_Institute

so, what do they say about Obama's war on coal?

in Forbes Magazine?

:rollin