producing existing domestic energy

[Hoosier]

Lenny- I think you have combined two issues. The domestic drilling issue has nothing to do with developing alternative sources to run our nation. This is not an either/or question.
Domestic drilling may or may not reduce gas prices. Fine.
Developing a new technology will (might?) provide America with a source of jobs, will keep more of our money here, will give us something to export to the rest of the world, and will reduce the political significance of the unstable Middle East, which we are now controlling through spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing our young men and women.

Isn't that a better option?

DC - wouldn't allowing (by allowing I mean lessening the regulatory burden and lessen the time-to-permit timeframe) additional drilling and refinement also create jobs? And wouldn't this be accomplished with no subsidies and also accomplish all of your above objectives?

No one stands in the way of alternative energy. What many stand in the way of is subsidizing the development and mandating the use of alternative energy. I realize gas and oil are also subsidized, which is a separate issue and something I also oppose.

 

[dcsnomo]

DC - wouldn't allowing (by allowing I mean lessening the regulatory burden and lessen the time-to-permit timeframe) additional drilling and refinement also create jobs? And wouldn't this be accomplished with no subsidies and also accomplish all of your above objectives?

No one stands in the way of alternative energy. What many stand in the way of is subsidizing the development and mandating the use of alternative energy. I realize gas and oil are also subsidized, which is a separate issue and something I also oppose.

Yes it would. But it doesn't solve the big problem, which is our dependence on oil that will still need to be imported, and will continue to increase in price, thus draining more and more dollars from our economy.

It's not about "standing in the way" of alternative energy. It's about solving the problem. You can poke all the oil holes you want in the good old USofA but it doesn't solve the oil problem. It's not sufficient to "get out of the way". Solve it!

 

[Hoosier]

Yes it would. But it doesn't solve the big problem, which is our dependence on oil that will still need to be imported, and will continue to increase in price, thus draining more and more dollars from our economy.

It's not about "standing in the way" of alternative energy. It's about solving the problem. You can poke all the oil holes you want in the good old USofA but it doesn't solve the oil problem. It's not sufficient to "get out of the way". Solve it!

By solving it, you mean subsidizing or funding the development of it, correct? I just don't thing that's the proper role of the federal government nor do I think it is effective nor do I think it is an efficient use of tax revenues. We've tried that with ethanol, solar panels and countless other green ideas, and it's mostly been a big waste of taxpayer dollars. JMO of course.

I still think that domestically-produced and refined oil is the most efficient source of energy we will have to power transportation for a generation.

 

[dcsnomo]

By solving it, you mean subsidizing or funding the development of it, correct? I just don't thing that's the proper role of the federal government nor do I think it is effective nor do I think it is an efficient use of tax revenues. We've tried that with ethanol, solar panels and countless other green ideas, and it's mostly been a big waste of taxpayer dollars. JMO of course.

I still think that domestically-produced and refined oil is the most efficient source of energy we will have to power transportation for a generation.

What if it could create jobs?

 

[Hoosier]

What if it could create jobs?

Alternative energy will eventually create jobs; however, I think the market will do a better job of picking the right technologies to invest in than the govt ever could. By better, I mean more efficient and effective. Investors do a better job of investing their own money than the govt does investing other people's money.

In the end, though, this won't get solved on message boards like this. I post on these kinds of threads all the time, but I'd rather get back to talking about sleds and trails.

 

[bearrassler]

There are some interesting discussions here, Moose, oil is a worldwide commodity, but so are most other things, including corn, wheat, sugar, and Natural Gas. Right now Brent Crude is bringing over $27.00 more than crude in the US so oil is cheaper here than many other places in the world. Even if we don't pay any less for the crude oil it is a lot better to produce it here, with good paying American jobs, tax revenue to the US and the producing states, and less depdendance on oil from the Middle East, or Venzuala. The US has vast reserves of crude oil, much of it I am sure is undiscovered at this time. If we would drill in Alaska, the Gulf coast, and in areas like Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, etc, I think we could lessen our dependance on foreign oil, would the price drop? maybe not but the US would be a safer place because of it. The press doesn't cover what is happening in North Dakota much because most people don't care about a small state in the middle of nowhere but CNBC was out here a couple of weeks ago.

video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000041360

www.cnbc.com/id/44255518

 

[frosty]

Gentlemen and Ladies, oil, cng, or any fossil burning fuel is going to be obsolete in 10 yrs. Toyota, yes the people who invent and build stuff and is also in debt up to their eyeballs, like us, have a hydrogen fuel cell car that works. Imagine that, the same company that brought us hybrids, is building and figuring out how to mass produce hydrogen cars. In 20 yrs, sleds will be running on water, along with everything else. So then the next problem will be, drinking water. Huge shortages!

My .02

 

[anonomoose]

Alternative energy will eventually create jobs; however, I think the market will do a better job of picking the right technologies to invest in than the govt ever could. By better, I mean more efficient and effective. Investors do a better job of investing their own money than the govt does investing other people's money.

In the end, though, this won't get solved on message boards like this. I post on these kinds of threads all the time, but I'd rather get back to talking about sleds and trails.

Of course this is a sledding board, and that is always a preferred topic, but in the absence of snow, these discussions are thought provoking and provide view points that aren't canned and spewed by radio and tv talking heads and so called pundents who are far from impartial.

At point here is the question WILL more drilling solve the price problem of fuels for Americans.

If we could keep the oil that is produced domestically, DOMESTIC, and away from world markets, then I suspect that it surely would have an impact on price.

But that question is acidemic....oil is NOT priced domestically; it is priced globally.

As long as that is true, then countries that think a good target price for oil is $90 to $100 a barrel, will do everything possible to keep the price there.

Our own domestic oil companies have not collectively gotten together and denounced this price support policy, and why would they? They gain by those price supports....and make more money when oil is high. At the same time, why would the oil companies want to drill more oil creating a glut, and crash the price of the stuff that they produce? It would make no sense at all.

We are at a unique place in history. We are completely dependent upon oil....much the same as we depend upon electric....but electric is not a global commodity, is not traded around in the same manner as oil and is therefore much more stable in price.

The whole point of any Government is to work for the good of the whole of people....so backing production of alternative energy sources would benefit everyone, and the cost develop would be shared by everyone. What is wrong with that?

If you want to see oil come down....change the long term dependence of oil by creating alternatives which do the same job .

On the idea that we already have oil and why change, all I can say is that we absolutely need to be able to pick and chose based upon price.....and like when you have 6 gas stations in town, or one....the price is always better when there is some competition to keep the others aligned and where they should be.

On the idea that producing oil creates jobs.....all I can say is that alternatives would produce jobs too...perhaps more than those producing oil. Only time will tell on that one.

This issue is way too big to leave to chance or someone building a better mouse trap. We are way past that now. We need to design and engineer some alternatives and then we need the full force of OUR government to back it so that it will be guaranteed a success. Once the thing gets going...whether CNG, electric, or hydrogen...or a combination of these....is the very day that oil will no longer have a strangle hold on this country, and your kids future will look a whole lot brighter knowing that we aren't so beholding to countries that want us dead.

 

[lenny]

moose, you bring up some good points! Do you think consumption of oil has lessened as the price increased. I know it has for me and I would say by a significant %. I see it all the time on this board that many have changed habits of driving and sledding. If the price were to decrease, the fear and confidence of the average American would change to a more favorable attitude. Producing more domestic oil would impact the national market. One good point you mention is that you think we would sell the oil and not consume. I don't understand that and not sure if it's true. I see it as a quantity thing. We produce more supply because the demand is there but stifled by fear and low confidence, we all have tightened up. You see lower consumer spending and less consumer income. More quantity of oil would supply a demand, a demand that is temporary disabled. It's like a revolving door, uncertainty creates fear and fear lowers confidence. We are hesitant to take a risk for fear of loosing. The average american is strongly impacted by this energy crisis. Bringing the price back down to a reasonable number would impact the attitude of most of us. Americans need confidence and certainty. When a person is happy they are optimistc. Optimism breads ingenuity. When we are discouraged we slow and ponder. Americans are discourage and a kick in the pants to drop the expense of gas would be greatly encouraging. We are not ready to embrace alternate energy as aggressively as we are currently attempting. The premise of alternative energy is very good but to do so at a time of crises add to the depth of the crisis. This alternative energy will come as the private sector (we the people) drive it. You don't kick a guy in the nads while he is trying to get up from a beating which is exactly how I feel right now. I'm telling you my real life experience, not fabricating a lie to promote a political or worldview agenda.

We have oil, let us Americans extract it, refine it and consume it. It is possible but with regulation so tight and lefties bent on saving the world, we are stuck in a quagmire of slop, drudged down in the muck. We need out and the Pres cannot seem to go back to the basics. Why is it that in crisis we experiment. We have a history and can draw from that history of things that work.

History shows that as technology develops, individuals produce, not the gov. As a demand increases many want a piece of the action (competition). As the comp increases the price is a means to attract buyers thus the cycle breads businesses to perform at an increased level. It's just simple common sense, tried and true. Why deviate from a path of stability to a path of ruin?

 

[Hoosier]

Of course this is a sledding board, and that is always a preferred topic, but in the absence of snow, these discussions are thought provoking and provide view points that aren't canned and spewed by radio and tv talking heads and so called pundents who are far from impartial.

The whole point of any Government is to work for the good of the whole of people....so backing production of alternative energy sources would benefit everyone, and the cost develop would be shared by everyone. What is wrong with that?

If you want to see oil come down....change the long term dependence of oil by creating alternatives which do the same job .


This issue is way too big to leave to chance or someone building a better mouse trap. We are way past that now. We need to design and engineer some alternatives and then we need the full force of OUR government to back it so that it will be guaranteed a success. Once the thing gets going...whether CNG, electric, or hydrogen...or a combination of these....is the very day that oil will no longer have a strangle hold on this country, and your kids future will look a whole lot brighter knowing that we aren't so beholding to countries that want us dead.

I cherry-picked a few of your paragraphs above. I hope by doing so I didn't take anything out of context. Just a few points:

1. I do enjoy the off-topic discussions on this board, and I am not suggesting they stop. I was just stating I'd rather talk sledding. But here I am again posting, lol. I do learn from reading other viewpoints.
2. "The whole point of govt is to work for the good of the people." That kind of thinking scares me. I prefer to think it was to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to choose the preferred source of energy. Again, let the markets decide. Innovation comes from invested capital, that is invested based on the expected returns from the investment. The private sector is much better at choosing where to invest than the govt.
3. "If you want to bring oil down, create alternatives." What you are talking about here is reducing the price of oil by reducing quantity demanded via introducing an alternative, hence moving the price down the curve. I would argue you can do the same thing to the price by increasing supply of oil, and that this would be an efficient investment, as we know oil is an effective energy source, unlike whatever the flavor of the month energy is in the green circles.
4. "the full force of the govt to back it so it is a guaranteed success." The only thing more scary than the govt choosing where to invest is the govt predefining what technology will be successful. That sounds like soviet-style planning to me.

 

[matti]

Gentlemen and Ladies, oil, cng, or any fossil burning fuel is going to be obsolete in 10 yrs. Toyota, yes the people who invent and build stuff and is also in debt up to their eyeballs, like us, have a hydrogen fuel cell car that works. Imagine that, the same company that brought us hybrids, is building and figuring out how to mass produce hydrogen cars. In 20 yrs, sleds will be running on water, along with everything else. So then the next problem will be, drinking water. Huge shortages!

My .02

You bring to mind a presentation I sat in on from some industry guy several years ago (I forgot who it was). His opinion was that in the next few decades, the world will figure out energy. The real problem, in his eyes, is water and precious metals. He believes that large-scale wars will be fought over these two "commodities" before the century is over. That's just one man's opinion, of course, but I found his discussion quite interesting.

 

[dcsnomo]

The only thing more scary than the govt choosing where to invest is the govt predefining what technology will be successful. That sounds like soviet-style planning to me.

The government already invests to influence industry that is beneficial to the nation. You remember that mortgage interest deduction on your taxes? It's there to encourage people to build and buy homes. You know those ag subsidies to ensure my brother-in-law the grain farmer gets a minimum price for his crops? It's there to encourage people to plant grain, so we can have an abundant supply of cheap food.

The government investing in the nation is really pretty far from anything Soviet, where the government just ran everything. I fact, what our government does is uniquely capitalistic..tax credit here, business grows, people make a profit, repeat. Can you imagine the billions of dollars in private sector profit made and the jobs created from the developments of the space program?

No, this is capitalism. And capitalism could solve the energy problem. Putting a man on the moon is too big for a company to do. But the government can make that happen using tax dollars so that private companies make profits and people get employed.

Solving the energy problem is simply too big for a company to do. But a government could solve it, and billions of private sector profit could be made, and jobs created. Instead, we continue to meander down the path of a century old technology that is bringing our economy to its knees.

It will really suck if the Chinese solve this first.

 

[snoluver1]

GM invested 10 billion in hydrogen research around 8-10 years ago. They have made a lot of progress in their r&d over in Germany. The automotive industry imploded, and now the government has a monetary interest in GM. Coincidence????? The things that make ya go hummm?

 

[anonomoose]

I cherry-picked a few of your paragraphs above. I hope by doing so I didn't take anything out of context. Just a few points:

1. I do enjoy the off-topic discussions on this board, and I am not suggesting they stop. I was just stating I'd rather talk sledding. But here I am again posting, lol. I do learn from reading other viewpoints.
2. "The whole point of govt is to work for the good of the people." That kind of thinking scares me. I prefer to think it was to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not to choose the preferred source of energy. Again, let the markets decide. Innovation comes from invested capital, that is invested based on the expected returns from the investment. The private sector is much better at choosing where to invest than the govt.
3. "If you want to bring oil down, create alternatives." What you are talking about here is reducing the price of oil by reducing quantity demanded via introducing an alternative, hence moving the price down the curve. I would argue you can do the same thing to the price by increasing supply of oil, and that this would be an efficient investment, as we know oil is an effective energy source, unlike whatever the flavor of the month energy is in the green circles.
4. "the full force of the govt to back it so it is a guaranteed success." The only thing more scary than the govt choosing where to invest is the govt predefining what technology will be successful. That sounds like soviet-style planning to me.

Hoosier, WE are government...we elect representatives who go to congress and enact laws and smooth the path for some of the things we need combining as a society. Education, state legislature, National defense, the whole deal is designed to do what -one man, one town, and one state can't do by itself.

If our government can protect us, provide a means to support an alternative energy then we don't really need that government.

It is very popular to beat up on any form of government right now....but it is the best system in the world. It has it's flaws, but it is the best by far. (If you don't like government, change the representation you have to someone who is better at it)

As far as picking the alternatives goes, to put pressure on the monopolistic strangle hold oil has on us all, we only need to do it. Once it happens, then just like buying peanut butter, the other companies will see that high prices will DRIVE everyone to alternatives, and that is the first day of the end of our troubles.

Conversely, producing more oil won't remove the above, will have only short term impacts, and kicks the can down the road where the prices will increase even more dramatically. More oil --- is always a temporary term. Alternative energy is choice....it means we watch oil go up and we move over to the alternative(s). As in any other market if you have the whole ball game you suck it up and take the hit...but if you are not the only kid on the block, then you can take all your marbles and go play elsewhere.

So do you really want to increase production, and smother any chance for alternatives? This is a bitter pill we need to swallow, but it is one we need to take and then move away from single choice energies.

Lenny, you are spot on....imagine if the government announced that gasoline prices can not exceed 2 bucks a gallon. That would free up a bunch of money and more people would feel better, about spending because they would not have to dump hundreds into the tank....and I also agree that the economy took a hit as the prices shot up, and they have not come back down to soften the blow and get people to feel good again. Of course, we are NOT in control of the price...it is global, and far more countries are competing for the stuff, so we are not likely to EVER see that happen...which is just another reason we need alternatives NOW.....

And yes, I am like you, and have cut back on using fuels....because it is not much fun to fill my 34 gallon tank.....particularly when I head to Ontario where the price is $5 a gallon. It flat out hurts.....

 

[pistons]

Nothing but oil will power autos till it is all gone. If ANY technology begins to make any kind of a real statement, the oil guys will drop the price till the new tech. goes broke.

 

[xcr440]

You make good points Anonomoose.

I guess I would just like to see our government help US, WE as you say, and open up the ability to produce more oil domestically. WE need more jobs, WE need more oil, and WE need a better price. I wouldn't mind OUR government being involved in ensuring WE get that better price.

All things that would help OUR economy in the long run, even if the sheiks cut production because of it being a world commodity.

Another question for the price of gas around the Twin Cities: Has anyone else noticed how the price fluxuates so much from day to day and week to week in the Twin Cities metro area? WHY?!? I want to know WHY, on Tuesday the price is 3.69, Thursday the price is 3.89, by Saturday, the price is 3.79, Monday the price is 3.65, Wednesday the price is 3.94, Friday the price is 3.84 and on and on, while in Stevens Point WI, over that same 10 day period, the price is a FLAT 3.74, never changes. Not to mention WI Gas tax is 15 cents higher than MN.

Does it do this in other metro areas?

 

[anonomoose]

Which is EXACTLY why, the government needs to back it so it is not possible to squeeze it out...we already do that for milk, ethanol, sugar, and a list way too long to post.

 

[Hoosier]

....imagine if the government announced that gasoline prices can not exceed 2 bucks a gallon. That would free up a bunch of money and more people would feel better, about spending because they would not have to dump hundreds into the tank....and I also agree that the economy took a hit as the prices shot up, and they have not come back down to soften the blow and get people to feel good again. Of course, we are NOT in control of the price...it is global, and far more countries are competing for the stuff, so we are not likely to EVER see that happen...which is just another reason we need alternatives NOW.....

.....

Didn't we try price caps when Carter was President? I think the result was textbook econ 101 - shortages.

Anyway, I understand your points that the govt has some useful and necessary functions such as national defense and space exploration, however I just don't see that development of alternative energy is one of them. One reason I think so is our recent experiences with Solyndra. Although this hasn't gotten much press, this was one of the alternative energy companies funded by the last round of "stimulus." It is now bankrupt and is the subject of an FBI investigation. Costs to taxpayers: $500 million. The govt just doesn't do a good job of evaluating investment opportunities and identifying which technologies are most likely to be worth pursuing.

I think your argument is that alternative energy is something so big and important that only the govt can pursue and develop (perhaps a useful example for your argument would be the development of the internet, which I can't imagine being developed privately). My opinion is that the identification and development of alternative energy technologies is better left to the private sector and the best role of the govt in the meantime would be to do what it can to allow for more development of the oil and natural gas resources that we have available to us.

 

[anonomoose]

I think we have a symantical problem here.

I would not want the government to "get into" anything. They can fund development thru private enterprises, grants, studies and so forth, then when something promising comes along pour more money into it, and finally if it evolves give it the full backing it would need to get going.

That's a tall order really, since in order to use fuel you have to work with the manufacturers for them to build to those specs....not an easy thing for the makers to do...spend that money unless it works and can be sustainable. The sustainability is the key issue. Without government support, it can't happen...even if it scored 100 on a scale of one to one hundred.

Still we must do that....and frankly going back to CNG, we have that fuel, know it works, is cleaner and competitively priced...it is in my view one of the best alternatives we have which, so far has been ignored by our government.

 

[Hoosier]

....and frankly going back to CNG, we have that fuel, know it works, is cleaner and competitively priced...it is in my view one of the best alternatives we have which, so far has been ignored by our government.

Agree 100% about CNG.