America’s energy boom: To be, or not to be?
posted at 2:31 pm on December 8, 2012 by Erika Johnsen
I’ve spent a good bit of time pondering this since the election, and it’s definitely going to be, er — interesting? — to see where President Obama decides to take us with the wildly promising possibilities of our energy-production future.
On the one hand, it’s going to start getting real uncomfortable, real quick when his continued big-government policymaking somehow miraculously fails to whip the economy into shape, and the four years that for some reason weren’t enough to “get the job done” start to melt into eight. The Energy Information Administration released part of their annual energy outlook this week, and despite all of the greenie gloom-and-doom naysayers, our energy future is dazzlingly bright. We have oil and gas reserves available in remarkable abundance, and employment in these industries is the highest it’s been since 1988:
Since Fracking began opening up “tight” oil deposits in North Dakota’ Bakken Shale in 2005, domestic oil production has reversed a decline that began in the 1970s… Imports also fell below 40 percent in October for the time since 1992. But most encouraging has been the rise in employment in the oil and gas industry. An average of 70 new jobs per day has been added over the last two years, bringing total employment to 195,000, the highest level since 1988.
Currently the oil-and-gas sectors are going gangbusters, not because of Obama, but in spite of him. Much of the development that’s occurred in the past few years has gone down on state and private land, while Interior, et al continue with their meager, “you will take what we give you, and you will like it” permitting pace. If the federal government would speed up and expand their permitting allowances, we could see even more economic growth and development. The kind of jobs, wealth, and revenue that would come from such a boom would go a very long way in covering up the terribleness of Obama’s many other policy shortcomings.
On the other hand, President Obama is very much beholden to the interests of the Left: The globalists, the climate radicals, the green lobbies, and even the casually uninformed-but-oh-so-hip eco-trendy young folk that make up so much of his base. Joel Kotkin breaks it down:
The ideological stakes for the green movement are tremendous. Greatly expanded American fossil-fuel production violates the “peak oil” mantra that has underpinned environmental thinking for decades and undermines some of the core rationale for subsidizing expensive renewables such as solar and wind.
Geography also may play a major role here. Outside of Colorado, the industrial Midwest, and western Pennsylvania, where the shale boom is widely seen as boosting local economies, the vast majority of energy-producing states tilt strongly to the GOP. In contrast, Obama’s strongest support comes from green-oriented coastal residents whose familiarity with energy production starts and ends with turning on a light or switching on an iPad.
Obama’s financial base—in contrast to that enjoyed by the Republicans—relies little on the energy industry. The president’s corporate support comes largely from the entertainment, media, and software industries. Many of Obama’s strongest business backers, particularly in Silicon Valley, have become entangled financially with “renewable energy” schemes, many of which can only survive with massive subsidies in the form of tax credits, loans, and surcharges on energy consumers.
It’ll be a difficult decision to make — the green lobby is particularly well-monied and influential, and then there are the pushy eco-radicals like the ones who just spent two weeks at a United Nations conference trying to convince developed countries to quixotically move backwards into self-inflicted poverty. President Obama at least understands, however, that Americans generally don’t take too well to “necessarily skyrocketing energy prices,” which is why his campaign-self repeatedly tried to take credit for the energy boom currently going on while at the same time touting an “all of the above” plan that included renewables — heck, it’s the best of both worlds, right? But now, he’s going to have to start choosing: Strangle out hydrocarbon energies via regulation and pour more money into the green-energy black hole, or step back and allow the efficiency and innovation of the private sector to take it away?
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
KOOLAID2
angrymike on May 23, 2013 at 8:44 PM
Well, that money is going somewhere. Just re-direct to the poor, and Shangrila.
BobMbx on May 23, 2013 at 8:44 PM
Just think what our prices would be going down to if the statists running our country weren’t dedicated to killing coal for electricity generation.
karenhasfreedom on May 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM
Wind Powah!
Del Dolemonte on May 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM
And Japan’s energy cost hike is due to loss of nuclear capacity due to natural disaster — and the need to import energy otherwise. That is a worst case scenario — and Europe is still off the charts with respect to Japan.
65droptop on May 23, 2013 at 8:55 PM
Why in the hell would I care what a low-grade bank clerk thinks about energy production?
(Google “Low grade bank clerk”)…
JohnGalt23 on May 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM
France is not opposed REALLY for “environmental” reasons. They are opposed because they sell nuclear electricity to everyone else. If Germany and the UK develop shale gas, they will not buy as much French nuclear generated electricity.
crosspatch on May 23, 2013 at 9:03 PM
Or save time and search “Nigel Farage” on youtube.
65droptop on May 23, 2013 at 9:08 PM
Good, let the Europeans squander their wealth in boondoggle “green” tech.
When the muslems take over, they’ll be conquering a continent with very little usable infrastructure.
Rebar on May 23, 2013 at 9:10 PM
The problem with these ‘renewables’ are that they are anything but. The capital costs of the windmills is enormous while the windmills themselves have never even lasted through the depreciation schedule without recapitalization. Even when manufactured in China. Likewise solar. Solar costs 4 times the kilowatt hour without subsidies, but the panels lose 50% of their electrical generation by years 6-7. Likewise battery storage technology.The infrastructure cost is far more substantial than is generally recognized with transformers necessary to handle the surge load and wear and tear on generators that must maintain a 100% backup capacity.
The only renewable technologies that are proving themselves have done so because they actually work.
Solar Hot Water Heaters
Waste Heat Pumps and Cogeneration
Agriculture waste incineration
Hydroelectric
Nuclear.
Only the latter two lend themselves to grid generation.
pat on May 23, 2013 at 9:18 PM
What a bunch of dumbasses.
forest on May 23, 2013 at 9:24 PM
Dear EU,
Sue Michael Mann, name the DNC and Obama as co-conspirtors.
It was/is fraud easy to win. http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
APACHEWHOKNOWS on May 23, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Sanity pops its head out in EU doesn’t like what it sees.
Slowburn on May 23, 2013 at 9:34 PM
Yes, but it’s not just this.
The statist also allow electric and gas companies to charge us more because they’re required to purchase expensive “green” energy.
So, EU prices would look terrible if it was being compared to US prices that weren’t also being artificially increased.
blink on May 23, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Why are you doing all of that math and writing about depreciation and stuff? Liberals don’t understand any of that. They just KNOW that anything labeled renewable or green is good (and they claim that they’re educated for “knowing” this). What more do you want from them?
blink on May 23, 2013 at 9:54 PM
But how much of this “success” is because the US’ terrible regulatory policies have been chasing away CO2 intensive industries?
blink on May 23, 2013 at 9:55 PM
So have the Germans shut down all their nuclear power plants yet? Didn’t Merkel vow to accelerate the phase-out after Japan?
I can’t begin to imagine paying those sorts of prices. Between the high tax rates, gas prices and the costs of electricity – I’m surprised more people aren’t living in cardboard boxes.
Hill60 on May 23, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Europe is such a weird place. All the labor laws that people can’t be fired, and there’s no mobility in the workforce, and they just can’t figure out how to be competitive. It’s not a dynamic place, reading about the travails of the tire factories in France, etc. No wonder the people are so blasé about their professions. They get stuck in the same job for 40 years. I can’t imagine anything worse. They really need to open up and be more dynamic and competitive.
Allahs vulva on May 23, 2013 at 10:14 PM
Who gives a damn about carbon emissions? They have nothing to do with anything about the climate. Stop playing the lefty lines. Carbon emissions are BULLSH!T. Don’t even bother talking about them. It’s bad enought hat Barky and his retard junta are still trying to strangle us with the global warming mumbo jumbo.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 23, 2013 at 10:28 PM
What the Europeans really expected was that the US and Japan would follow them down the yellow brick road and raise our energy prices too. That way they wouldn’t have had any competitive disadvantage.
Steven Den Beste on May 23, 2013 at 10:59 PM
They were DESPERATELY hoping we’d agree to the madness that’s Cap-And-Trade, along with the Kyoto stupidity.
Interestingly, and not reported at all, is that we’re down to 1992 emission levels. NOT because of forcing industry to conform, but by the natural movement by the market to natural gas.
Europe’s only hope is in Eastern Europe, where a Poland or another country doesn’t sign off on this and has shale deposits to develop.
Other than that, they can simply keep complaining.
itsspideyman on May 23, 2013 at 11:02 PM
Them and us.
The liberals have a strict economic view of man when it suits them to show inequality.
The idea that producing more or living in a nation with a budget limit scares them.
The fact that we are hurting our people with DHS and TSA and thousands of agents and soldiers to waste both national and taxpayer treasure is the REAL inconvenient truth for us today. WW II cured Europe of desire for big war plans.
However, Europe never did master cost/benefit analysis but they are about to learn. We know better but keep electing the math and engineering challenged.
Detroit rots, kids are aborted, educations and research projects never finished while both we and Europe mess around on defense with a 14th century culture and shove electric mechanisms into cars before the technology has reasonable environmental benefits.
Europe will get very interesting when they discover they can’t afford to live on engineering which is easily stolen and energy plans which don’t make sense. We have that problem also but have an escape hatch with fossil fuels.
IlikedAUH2O on May 23, 2013 at 11:24 PM
Europe: Well-educated, risk-averse, no ideas.
virgo on May 24, 2013 at 1:50 AM
Cheap energy is what allowed this country to become a superpower. It is hard to believe that the libtards cannot see that cheap engergy = prosperity.
brtex on May 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM
IlikedAUH2O on May 23, 2013 at 11:24 PM
+1
The intellectuals in the western world came to believe they could survive on intellectual property. The Chinese and Koreans have put a big stick in the spokes of that idea.
brtex on May 24, 2013 at 9:25 AM
How much do they pay on average per kilowatt-hour over there, anyway? Consumers, and businesses? The latest deal I signed up for a couple of months ago is 8.1 cents per kWh.
Ward Cleaver on May 24, 2013 at 10:03 AM
What is so freaking irritating is that the US could be in the middle of a massive economic BOOM, instead of the stagnation we’re currently caught in!
So here we have evidence that European countries are looking at the US as a cheaper place to do business because of energy costs. And if it weren’t for the avalanche of rules, regulations and taxes… they would be seriously considering moving here! We could be to Europe what China is to us!
But no… government needs to control every aspect of every aspect and will not untie our hands to compete, and compete well, against the world. Clueless, power-hungry politicians…
dominigan on May 24, 2013 at 10:25 AM
Europe is the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 rule) fully exposed.
80% of the people on the planet are MORONS.
They are in control of the European Union…and many other governments.
They inhabit the UN.
The other 20% are busy learning, inventing and producing to support the 80%.
It won’t last much longer.
The US Government is now completely corrupted…and we know it.
We’re at risk, but so are they.
III/0317
dirtengineer on May 24, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Actually that’s the problem.
Slowburn on May 24, 2013 at 2:51 PM
My dad got a ground source heat pump… but to be fair to him when I asked:
I think his ROI would be break even in about 100 years. But it’s his money.*
From what I read it might be a worthwhile investment IF you do it BEFORE the house is built (over the lifetime of the house). Otherwise it’s a costly toy.
*Mostly. I think he got a tax credit for some of it; so the green energy policy means some of it was your money.
gekkobear on May 24, 2013 at 4:36 PM