Markey: Natural gas exports, grow the economy? Pish tosh!

posted at 6:01 pm on March 13, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The other day, the New York Times published an editorial — pretty similar in substance to editorials recently penned by the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal — encouraging the Obama administration to start accelerating the almost begrudging pace at which they have been approving natural-gas export terminals and adding countries to the list to which energy companies are allowed to export that gas. The gas export debate has been a hot energy topic for going on a couple of years now, and even if quickly approving more export terminals won’t do anything to immediately mitigate the Ukrainian’s predicament, it is a good long-term strategy for generally diminishing the energy-sector influence of any one country’s sources as well as allowing United States’ producers to take full economic advantage of the more competitive prices they can fetch on the global market.

Democratic Sen. Edward Markey doth protest.

Yet the editorial doesn’t mention the devastating economic impact from exporting American gas. We have already approved five export terminals. The Energy Department has warned that if we approve one more, United States prices could increase by 54 percent, potentially translating into a de facto tax of $62 billion a year.

That export tax would cripple America’s manufacturing renaissance, crush consumers and destroy millions of potential jobs.

We should resist the calls to rush more exports as an ineffective foreign policy tool that would severely damage the American economy.

EDWARD J. MARKEY
Malden, Mass., March 10, 2014

Simply allowing exports, a de facto tax? Actually, free trade barriers like exports restrictions and import tariffs are the only real (and entirely special interest-serving) “de facto taxes” in this scenario, and the Energy Department has already long since conceded that, even if opening American-produced natural gas up to a wider, more competitive market were to raise prices, America would also subsequently reap the rewards of those higher prices. Read: That means economic growth, ya’ll. Increasing the United States’ exports is one of the platform’s of President Obama’s own economic agenda, and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about energy or agriculture or home goods or shoes or what have you: Free trade is not a zero-sum game, and reducing Russia’s energy dominion is just a long-term side bonus.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

….where are the people that say we comment on female attributes too often? …LOOK AT THIS GUY!

KOOLAID2 on March 13, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Markey is full of malarkey.

rbj on March 13, 2014 at 6:09 PM

To borrow from Benjamin Franklin from the musical “1776″…

Never was such a valuable possession so stupidly and recklessly managed, than this entire continent by the [American Left Wing]. Our industry discouraged, our resources pillaged… first of all our very character stifled.

mankai on March 13, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I can’t say it enough oil and gas expansion and exportation will save this Country!

Sven on March 13, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Thousands upon thousands of wells are shut in because the price of gas is relatively low. Markey is an idiot.

mchristian on March 13, 2014 at 6:14 PM

…when the hyenas are running the whole zoo…

Murphy9 on March 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

This guy (??) is my senator and I’m so proud .

rik on March 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Dude, increasing supply will not increase prices. If a company can get more money abroad for natural gas after transportation costs, let them do it and invest the proceeds in yet more production. Win, win.

Markey is obviously a partisan buffoon.

hillbillyjim on March 13, 2014 at 6:15 PM

Increasing the United States’ exports is one of the platform’s of President Obama’s own economic agenda, and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about energy or agriculture or home goods or shoes or what have you

Not true. Preznit Pantload is only interested in exporting buggy whips and the like. Those are the REAL moneymakers. Yessiree. And raise the minimum wage. RECOVERY!

tominsd on March 13, 2014 at 6:17 PM

It must that highly taughted Mass. education system that allows fools like this to be elected Senator.

Tater Salad on March 13, 2014 at 6:18 PM

Production of energy is the one great American asset that we have, and we do not use it. We could grow our economy and erase the deficit within a few years, but our government has the brakes on because of environmental groups.

Techster64 on March 13, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Malarky is simply pandering to his lefty base without, of course, saying so.

vnvet on March 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Markey went on to say that 1+1=POTATO, that he could count to BLUE, and his favorite color is HAM.

jukin3 on March 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Addendum: He also looks like a Monty Python character…

vnvet on March 13, 2014 at 6:27 PM

Ed Markey, another lying Democrat sack of manure.

Viator on March 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM

With Markey, it isn’t about the economy and taxes – after all, he would vote to slap a hefty carbon tax on every American. It is all about the Cult of Gaia and the lie that 97% of scientists believe in manmade global warming.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims

Resist We Much on March 13, 2014 at 6:33 PM

WTF? Is this MO-RON SJL in drag?????

Katfish on March 13, 2014 at 6:38 PM

The gas export debate has been a hot energy topic for going on a couple of years now, and even if quickly approving more export terminals won’t do anything to immediately mitigate the Ukrainian’s predicament…

Pooty is playing a long game, while the REB is playing to the next two-year election cycle. Approving more export terminals today won’t help Ukraine, but by the time they are ready they might help Poland, the Baltics, and whatever else Russia wants to add to their empire.

slickwillie2001 on March 13, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Oh, Whoopy! Now we can defund the Department Of Energy that Carter put together to get us off foreign oil and have failed for over thirty years, it cost the taxpayer 23.3 billion last year for this failure.

mixplix on March 13, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Production of energy is the one great American asset that we have, and we do not use it. We could grow our economy and erase the deficit within a few years, but our government has the brakes on because of environmental groups.

Techster64 on March 13, 2014 at 6:19 PM

Total US energy costs is about 1.6 trillion a year, from all sources.
Do you really expect us to believe that in a few years it will be producing multiple trillion dollar tax windfalls for the uncle sam?

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Let me see if I get this straight…
If we export our raw resources at their lowest potential value, IE not value added through making changes to it to increase its value. Driving up the cost of that resources here in the United States to those who would process it for value added. That it will drive increased prosperity through the economy?

Some one help me here, because I am at a loss as to how this works?

Because when we talk about the cost of resources rising, we pretty much conclude that; 1, it screws the workers first, as it is them paying for it to heat their homes. 2, it hurts companies which find it hard to pass on the increase costs to consumers who have already been hit with higher heating bills. 3, it screws the workers again as the companies take that increased energy cost and eventually get the price increases. 4, leaving the workers with less money to buy products.

What exactly am I missing here? Gas is magical? It comes from unicorns or something?

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 7:17 PM

What exactly am I missing here? Gas is magical? It comes from unicorns or something?

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Keeping it in the ground solves what problem, exactly?

whbates on March 13, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Increasing the United States’ exports is one of the platforms of President Obama’s own economic agenda

Disagree. There’s a difference between something being a platform of his economic agenda, and it really being a platform of his economic agenda.

Lolo on March 13, 2014 at 7:36 PM

Keeping it in the ground solves what problem, exactly?

whbates on March 13, 2014 at 7:30 PM

I dunno about you, but I got a daughter. Will have more children. They will have children, and those children more children.

Due to taxation in Europe on energy, and the prices they pay the for it they can offer double the going rate for our natural gas as what we are paying today. That means taking it out of the ground to give to the Europeans raw will cause an increase in the cost of the product for American Citizens today and later down the line as it always gets harder and harder to get the stuff out of the ground as the easy supplies are used up first.

So, again, what benefit to Americans to sell it to the Europeans?

Higher cost at home for consumers and producers who use it. Higher electricity prices for consumers and producers who use it. We could just as easily tax it, just like this guy says, and what would be the conservative people be saying? Oh, that is right, I am a conservative. We would be saying it will harm the economy and destroy jobs and hurt the poorest most.

But hey, it makes billions of dollars for big corporations, so it must be good!

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 7:39 PM


Simply allowing exports, a de facto tax?

that’s probably a long lost part of the good and plenty clause that Pocahontas wrote into the Constitution 400 years ago.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on March 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Another example that the whole free enterprise idea confounds liberals.

pgrossjr on March 13, 2014 at 7:42 PM

That means taking it out of the ground to give to the Europeans raw will cause an increase in the cost of the product for American Citizens today and later down the line as it always gets harder and harder to get the stuff out of the ground as the easy supplies are used up first.

Maybe I’m reading this wrong. Could you explain how selling a product to a customer elsewhere increase the cost of same here at home.

D-fusit on March 13, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Selling it to others will not increase the price. We burn off natural gas because we have so much of it. There is no shortage of supply.

Someone else said it below, but I too have always wondered how a state that supposedly has such a great education system can elect such uneducated people.

Ellis on March 13, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Maybe I’m reading this wrong. Could you explain how selling a product to a customer elsewhere increase the cost of same here at home.

D-fusit on March 13, 2014 at 8:00 PM

The production of the resource is price sensitive. You are ignorant of this? Let me explain this then… You know how they rate our oil and gas reserves? Each packet of energy has a price point in which it will be economical to extract it for a producer. That bit out in the boonies requiring large amounts of manpower and high tech equipment to get to, well, it will be drilled when technology improves or oil hits @120 a barrel for the type of oil it is. If oil prices drop, the oil reserve will drop as well. Same applies to natural gas. This means if we are selling more, the only way to produce the more is to have prices increasing.

But that is not the only driving force. We do not buy all our oil on the world market, as most of it is produced here at home and never changes hands, but somehow the price of oil in the rest of the world drives our gasoline prices, how is that happening? It is all considered one big pool is how. It is called opportunity cost. If they could sell it on the world market for $90 a barrel at a cost of an extra 2 dollars in delivery, then the opportunity cost of that barrel to the current owner is $88 to turn it into gasoline, or actually, taking a step back $88 to extract from the ground in the first place. So long as extraction plus profit drive does not exceed $88 that barrel will be pulled from the ground and turned into gasoline priced at what it would have been if purchased at $88, whether it cost $5 to extract or $66 to extract and then add in profit drive.

Europe has a market value of $11 to $13 per MMBtu for natural gas. The United States has a market value today between $3 and $5 per MMBtu for natural gas. Once we begin working in the full market with natural gas we are suddenly looking at the opportunity cost of the natural gas of being $11 to $13 for a producer driven by European inflated prices. Suddenly American consumers and producers become stuck with European energy prices.

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 8:14 PM

A few years ago, there was a proposal to build an LNG terminal (for import) in Boston Harbor, which was nixed by the blue-green powers that be in Massa-2-sh!ts. If that terminal had been built, it would be bringing export revenues into Senator Markey’s state, and providing jobs for people who guide large ships into and out of Boston Harbor.

Since the terminal was not built, the exports are leaving via the next closest LNG terminal…in Canada, and the Canadians are reaping the profits. Instead of exporting gas, Senator Malarkey wants to continue exporting the profits.

Steve Z on March 13, 2014 at 8:40 PM

asteronii, I think you misunderstand the natural gas market. We are not leaving gas in the ground because its too expensive to extract, we are leaving it there because with the artificial restraints on the market we have no where to go with it.

There is a mind bending amount of gas under our feet. I appreciate the fact you like gas to be cheap, but selling it will create wealth, and not just for big energy corporations (whose stock dividends are paid to people like me, and the butcher and your grandmother, whose Social Security I have heard you begrudge) but also in the thousands of OTHER small companies it will foster and the thousands of jobs those companies will create.

You should spend some time researching what’s really happening in the oil patch. People hear names like Exxon and Murphy and Shell, and those names sound monolithic, but the work is actually being done by a bazillion small and medium sized companies, all of whom work some specialized segment of the energy industry. Exxon may own the leases, but they don’t own the rigs, or hire the drilling crew, or the flowback company or the wireline guys.

Wealth being created is better than resources being hoarded. Your daughter will probably appreciate a roaring economy better than inexpensive gas heat without a job to pay for it.

Pless1foEngrish on March 13, 2014 at 9:04 PM

your grandmother, whose Social Security I have heard you begrudge
Pless1foEngrish on March 13, 2014 at 9:04 PM

She is dead and she turned her Social Security checks over to her 9 children every year. I am not sure what she did while Grandpa was still alive, I was too young to know when he passed away, but I am guessing that she continued what he started. She worked for her money, almost to the day she died, just like my grandfather did.

Resources are not hoarded but carried over to the next generation to be utilized in creating wealth. You know who they are right?

Selling raw unrefined resources is what countries like those in Africa and the Middle East do. Can you name me the WEALTHY ones? We are wealthy because we take raw resources and make them more valuable. That is why we are raw material importers. This is why I am all 100% for extracting every bit of possible resources we can on our own rather than empowering nations like China, for example, from having leverage over us on items such as the rare earth magnets. But I draw the line on selling raw resources, the prime ones being energy, overseas.

Europe too has massive amounts of natural gas, but they refuse to tap it. Why on earth should we hand them ours? That mind bending amount of natural gas right now is at about 12 total years of consumption, and growing, but not infinite. The low prices spur economic development of energy intensive industries, keep many energy intensive industries profitable and thus still running and is also spurring CNG vehicles and other advancements, if you want to talk about an artificially restrained market, it is one which is forced back into high energy prices that drives the technology advancements in usage of natural gas out of the market. The United States should always be pushing for low energy costs because that is the baseline requirement for creating wealth.

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 9:35 PM

But hey, it makes billions of dollars for big corporations, so it must be good!

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Boy, you’re a piece of work. I have kids that work in several fields that are tremendously helped by a general increase in industrial production. Which the gas/oil exploration helps. I have relatives that work on the gulf coast in towns that have a refinery that is an expanding LNG port (has been for several years), I have a son that is an engineer in the electrical field and has interned for electrical utilities and hopes to find permanent work in the oil/gas field. I have another son that works is a IT systems administrator that works in the plastic recycling area which seems to be booming largely because of the uptick in the oil/gas area.

You sound like a Democrat, so it’s your party that has forced utilities all over the country to shutter cost effective coal plants and build gas plants as replacements, all the while, subsidizing ineffective solar and wind plants. This will eventually cause utilities to shut down Nuclear plants as well, because they have successfully created a regulatory environment that prevent cost effective operations in an artificially depressed market because of the utter mismanagement and meddling of liberals in government. Yes with or without the extra LNG exports you and your kid power bills are going to sky rocket but you can only blame Obama and I guess yourself as you sound like you probably voted for him.

You are apparently like Markey and only like the fat cats that produce nothing.

whbates on March 13, 2014 at 9:49 PM

By the way, those who are arguing that natural gas prices are too low…

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3A.htm

Basically the prices are still higher than they nominally would have been with baseline projecting. Only during the mid to late 2000s did the price spike, along with that of oil.

This is why there is a glut out there, because between 2004 and 2008 the price nearly tripled and this caused a bunch of companies to spend huge amounts of money to extract the gas out at those high prices. They did so greedily and without thought about the consequences of pouring too much product into the market in a short period of time. Now they want American consumers, American Energy intensive industries and the American Government to bail them out. They want to keep getting those high prices, that is why they capped a bunch of the wells. They want an artificially inflated market to continue for them. That is why they want Americans to be forced to bid against Asia and Europe for their over priced natural gas.

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 9:59 PM

whbates on March 13, 2014 at 9:49 PM

The bad side of the Republican party is its ties to corporate America. Where it allows big donors to determine legislation. Feel free to try and deny it.

Our platform. Not to drive the cost of energy higher. Not energy production for the sake of energy production. But to lower the cost and reduce our dependence on other countries.

Conservative
Oil, gas and coal are all good sources of energy and are abundant in the U.S. Oil drilling should be increased both on land and at sea. Increased domestic production creates lower prices and less dependence on other countries for oil. Support increased production of nuclear energy. Wind and solar sources will never provide plentiful, affordable sources of power. Support private ownership of gas and electric industries.

Low energy prices will drive a huge boon in manufacturing in the country and give far more people jobs than the gas industry will. And that increased cost of energy that is for the gas companies, it comes with the reduction of manufacturing in this nation. Energy drives production, low cost energy drives it faster and further. That is why when fuel prices goes up, the economy staggers.

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 10:09 PM

The bad side of the Republican party is its ties to corporate America. Where it allows big donors to determine legislation. Feel free to try and deny it
…………………………………………….

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 10:09 PM

You’re Joking right? Beyond the actual historical fallacy of what you claim you must have been in a coma for the last 7 years (since the Democrats took the congress and the won the executive). I’m not a Republican but I will never, ever vote for a Democrat again largely because of their ties to big business.

You know who financed the Democrat Convention in Charlotte don’t you? To who’s benefit do you think all of the crazy banking regulation was for and who actually backed it. Who’s policies actually created the housing collapse. They certainly had help for entrenched Republicans but the party of big government, big labor, inherited money, and big business has (in my lifetime anyway) always been Democrats.

whbates on March 13, 2014 at 10:50 PM

You’re Joking right? Beyond the actual historical fallacy of what you claim you must have been in a coma for the last 7 years (since the Democrats took the congress and the won the executive). I’m not a Republican but I will never, ever vote for a Democrat again largely because of their ties to big business.

You know who financed the Democrat Convention in Charlotte don’t you? To who’s benefit do you think all of the crazy banking regulation was for and who actually backed it. Who’s policies actually created the housing collapse. They certainly had help for entrenched Republicans but the party of big government, big labor, inherited money, and big business has (in my lifetime anyway) always been Democrats.

whbates on March 13, 2014 at 10:50 PM

Wow, a whole 7 years… the 7 that republicans have been minority…

Tell me again, why are they pushing Amnesty? Go ahead, make that argument for them that does not include because big companies want cheap labor that is not made up of American citizens. Oh, darn it, that is the only argument for pushing Amnesty for the Republicans isn’t it!?! Well, feel free to lie.

Here is a cute one…
The ransom Republicans are getting this time is that big companies will be allowed to skip payments into their employee pension plans.
Happy happy joy joy…
As a Conservative, I tend to figure that we expect companies to do what they say they do. You know, if they tell an employee they are putting part of their negotiated earnings into a pension plan for them that they are actually doing it. But here the Republicans are enabling them to skip that responsibility. I am sure it is for the good of the nation. Right?

Oh, and…

There is another kind of subsidy. Government subsidizing crop insurance.

Damn! who put that in there? Free markets!!! Well, except when I own a farm and I get huge donations from farmers.

Republicans Support Harmful Ethanol Subsidies for the Sake of Votes
Democrats do as well, I know… but we are the free market group… right? By the way, do you really think that it is about votes that they support it or do you think perhaps is might be the campaign financing that the ethanol producers kick back?

Lest we forget, Bush was the one that signed into law TARP… He also pushed the housing market stratospheric, he paid off the drug companies with Medicare Part D, … You get the idea.

If the party held to its roots it would be a better party. The grass roots needs to donate more than the business sector can so they have leverage over the congress critters, on the other hand, no Republican congressman should need the grass roots holding leverage over them, they should naturally be conservative and instead of doing work for businesses which can take care of themselves, they should clean up the laws.

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 11:30 PM

Bush caused the Housing Collapse.
As the Cheif Executive Officer of the federal government he had the responsibility to do what was needed to reign in an over heating market. Instead he implemented the low interest environment and the banking regulations that made government securities and Mortgage Backed Securities the most leveragable and thus profitable holdings anyone could have in their portfolios. Thus driving the market to extremes as big investors pushed loan agencies to push more and more mortgages to them.

He knew there was a problem in 2003, he asked for changes, even with a house and senate in republican hands, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were protected. Did I say even with? LOL silly me, the Republicans have had an incestuous relationship with that big business for a very long time… Hence, why the push for reform which might have cut the bubble off before it even got inflated ended and the bubble pushed on for 4 more years, the last years of which is where most of the inflation of the bubble occurred of course…

Do not get me started on the Goldman Saks level of payoff that TARP ended up being. Of course, you do know that Henry Paulson was a big corporate guy, right? You know, Bush’s man? The one who blew the entire economy up with $700 billion dollar just made up request? The guy who bailed out one company causing moral hazard to only turn around drive another company out of business just to show the market that there was not going to be moral hazard under him to then turn around and bailout the entire world’s banking sector with upwards of 6 trillion dollars of behind the scenes loans?

You are going to blame that on who exactly? Jimmay Carter? Bill Clinton? Barney Fwank? Seriously man? Jimmay Carter has been out of office for decades, and we controlled the HOUSE, the SENATE and the Presidency all at the same time. No reason anything him or Clinton had done could not have been undone. NONE AT ALL. Back in 2003 when Bush first saw the problem.

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 11:43 PM

And another thing on Bush, he was the one who allowed the NINJA loans to happen, why? Probably because it was the easiest way to get illegal alien minorities into homes. No Income? No Job? Approved! That was from Bush, not Jimmay Carter, Not Clinton, Not Bawny Fwank. It happened under Bush’s watch, all because minority home ownership was ONLY 51% while national was 69%.

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 11:54 PM

Looks like you won the internet today astonerii. If only other conservative activists were not self defeating. Too many people who vote in primaries don’t understand the lessons from the Bush administration.

Like you point out, until that tipping point where grassroots contribute more than special interests to the GOP is reached it is hard to see anything changing. This points to a need to draw up campaign financing rules within Republican primaries to kill off big business leverage in representative selection.

At the very least you need to be added to the green room for more editorial contrast on HA.

FrankT on March 14, 2014 at 2:49 AM

At the very least you need to be added to the green room for more editorial contrast on HA.

FrankT on March 14, 2014 at 2:49 AM

You can’t be serious.

Murphy9 on March 14, 2014 at 6:05 AM

And another thing on Bush, he was the one who allowed the NINJA loans to happen, why?

FrankT on March 14, 2014 at 2:49 AM

No some people have real jobs to get to early in the morning. Especially when you form the facts and stories to your beliefs

whbates on March 14, 2014 at 7:11 AM

He knew there was a problem in 2003, he asked for changes, even with a house and senate in republican hands, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were protected. Did I say even with?

You know which party treated Freddie and Fannie as their private
farm team right (and have for 30 years)? Where the hell did Rahm make all of that money he has? How about Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines? Does sound like you have even been following the entire housing issue and how we got there. I never attempted to defend the Republicans attempts to be Democrat light. But the Democrats are the party that institutionalized corruption. How do you think that the bureaucracy has become so solidly and politically corrupt.

whbates on March 14, 2014 at 7:31 AM

Wow, a whole 7 years… the 7 that republicans have been minority….

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 11:30 PM

I said historically it wasn’t true, but that, even a moron could see the last seven years as an example. I guess I was mistaken.

whbates on March 14, 2014 at 7:37 AM

You know which party treated Freddie and Fannie as their private
farm team right (and have for 30 years)? Where the hell did Rahm make all of that money he has? How about Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines? Does sound like you have even been following the entire housing issue and how we got there. I never attempted to defend the Republicans attempts to be Democrat light. But the Democrats are the party that institutionalized corruption. How do you think that the bureaucracy has become so solidly and politically corrupt.

whbates on March 14, 2014 at 7:31 AM

Both parties have used Fannie and Freddy. One treats democrats ‘needs’ and the other Republican ones. Been that way the whole time. Lest you forget the horror of Newt having worked for one… Hence the reason why the Republicans did not go to the mat to reform them. Who wants to be the congressman that will not be given a cushy no work job high paying ‘job’ once they are out of office either by the ballot or retirement?

Here you admit that it is corrupt an in bed with big business, but attack me because I said it. Just because the Democrats do something does not give the Republicans freedom to do so. We hold our politicians to a higher standard, or at least we should. That is what gives conservatism value.

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 9:11 AM

astonerii sounds like a watermelon troll.

There is a lot of hydrocarbons in North America. No one knows how much, even you. But one thing is certain, right now every time informed people make an estimate it is quickly shown to be too low.

The technology is too new, too rapidly changing,and just engaging with economies of scale for anyone to know exactly how huge this hydrocarbon windfall it in total.

Further, the technology of exploration is also rapidly changing. Most of the world has not had a modern geologic analysis done.

Beyond that there are vast reservoirs of hydrocarbons which haven’t ever been tapped, like methane hydrates.

Maybe we should let markets, spontaneous order, absolute and comparative advantage, price discovery, and technological progress have a hand in the fate of resource instead of dictates from the smartest people in the world who mostly turn out not to have been very smart at all.

Viator on March 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Bush caused the Housing Collapse.
As the Cheif Executive Officer of the federal government he had the responsibility to do what was needed to reign in an over heating market.

astonerii on March 13, 2014 at 11:43 PM

Sorry, when bush was President we didn’t have the rule that the President could change any law he wanted on a whim and alter everything he wanted with no checks, balances, or restraint.

But it clearly can’t be blamed on Congress from 2006-2008… that was Democrats, and they had nothing to do with anything for two years.

Obama has the Senate but not the House? He can’t do anything.

Bush had neither the House NOR the Senate? He could have done EVERYTHING.

Now I’d agree Bush was a better leader than Obama as your claim clearly shows; but I think you’re being a bit too harsh on Obama. I mean sure he’s an incompetent, but do you really think Bush was so much better a leader that full opposition in Congress was not a problem at all?

Wow, I didn’t realize you thought so much of Bush, and so little of Obama.

gekkobear on March 14, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Maybe we should let markets, spontaneous order, absolute and comparative advantage, price discovery, and technological progress have a hand in the fate of resource instead of dictates from the smartest people in the world who mostly turn out not to have been very smart at all.

Viator on March 14, 2014 at 12:29 PM

So you contend they are unlimited? I do not deny that they are vast. But you cannot state they are unlimited. Thus, selling raw natural resources overseas has to lower the limit of available resources we bequeath to our children. No?
We conservatives take great umbrage when the regressives argue that we do not care for the environment. When in fact it is regressives who set up the destruction of the environment through pushing perpetual poverty. Prosperity grants societies the necessary excess to be able to demand a clean environment and easily pay for it.

We currently have markets working just fine in the Natural Gas arena in the United States of America. The market has shown that the massive ramp up in production by the companies was excessive and the price has adjusted properly to that signal. Or are you arguing that the markets in Asia and Europe are freer than those here in the USA? Europe and Asia are dysfunctional markets for energy.

The market here in the USA is taking the low cost of natural gas and figuring out how best to leverage that low cost. Ford is building a CNG pickup truck. Heavy Industry is creating CNG heavy machinery. Power generation plants are being built as natural gas or converted to natural gas. Increasing the need here at home for the Natural gas over the long haul. What happens when the less than open markets of Europe and Asia drive natural gas prices here in the USA to double the current price? What happens to this innovation Renaissance in the usage of Natural gas as the price doubles? It will be cut. That is what will happen.

Why exactly do you hate low price energy? That, THAT! is the position of the watermelons. My position is to keep cost of energy low in the USA, which makes the USA more friendly to high energy demanding industries that create solid products and vast amounts of wealth.

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 12:55 PM

Sorry, when bush was President we didn’t have the rule that the President could change any law he wanted on a whim and alter everything he wanted with no checks, balances, or restraint.

But it clearly can’t be blamed on Congress from 2006-2008… that was Democrats, and they had nothing to do with anything for two years.

Obama has the Senate but not the House? He can’t do anything.

Bush had neither the House NOR the Senate? He could have done EVERYTHING.

Now I’d agree Bush was a better leader than Obama as your claim clearly shows; but I think you’re being a bit too harsh on Obama. I mean sure he’s an incompetent, but do you really think Bush was so much better a leader that full opposition in Congress was not a problem at all?

Wow, I didn’t realize you thought so much of Bush, and so little of Obama.

gekkobear on March 14, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I am sorry, but when Bush was president he had what we call the bully pulpit where he could stand up in front of a podium and give direct speeches to the people and work to bring their views around such that they pressure the Congress into acting. He knew the housing crisis was building, he knew starting in 2003. Where was his speeches trying to reign it in?

Oh here he is in 2002, 2002! mind. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/700658/posts Pushing minority home ownership, working to push the private sector into increasing minority home ownership…

Here is another one from 2004
On the same day that Democrat John Kerry unveiled his economic plan for America, President Bush was in Albuquerque, N.M., pushing for homeownership for low-income families.

But, Bush said, there’s still a gap that exists in minority homeownership. “I set a good goal, which is adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners in America by the end of the decade. When we talk about homeownership, we’re talking about for everybody.”

One of the hurdles to home ownership, he said, is the downpayment. “There are citizens in our country that simply cannot afford a downpayment. They may be able to afford the mortgage over time,” but they may not have the cash to make the downpayment.

To his right was a sign apparently manufactured by the White House that read, “A home of your own.” Aides also issued a news release titled “Dismantling The Barriers To Homeownership” to further underscore the message of the day.

Change the 2006 to 2008 to 2007 to 2009 because congress does not take office at the beginning of the election year… Everything up until that point was pretty much Republican Rule.

Still want to deny that Bush was not pushing the housing bubble and riding high on the hog?

He had the choice of either confronting the American people with the bully Pulpit or lying to them and hoping the bubble burst happened after he left office in 2009. He chose the lie and Henry Paulson, Bush’s Goldman Sak’s man made him eat the thing whole.

astonerii on March 14, 2014 at 1:10 PM

Maybe we should let markets, spontaneous order, absolute and comparative advantage, price discovery, and technological progress have a hand in the fate of resource instead of dictates from the smartest people in the world who mostly turn out not to have been very smart at all.

Maybe we should let the EUropeans frac their own natural gas at market prices rather than shrink the market by regulation and export to Europeans who refuse to mine their own gas?

Get this through your dense thick skull. Any policy that adds to the cost of living to working middle class Americans will hurt Republican electoral prospects come election time. Don’t be ideological. Be for honest working people who don’t live off of foodstamps or corporate welfare.

FrankT on March 14, 2014 at 10:09 PM