Posted 2 months, 19 days ago in 
Loading ...
Responding to Congressman Udall’s letter to the editor regarding energy development, I must take umbrage with several points. Mr. Udall expresses that we “need to throw the kitchen sink” at the energy crisis. I agree, however, the Gang of 10 proposal he cites isn’t exactly the “kitchen sink.”
Now, there are some good aspects of the plan. It mentions nuclear power. That’s great … if it can get past the NIMBYism.
Also, I hate to break it to Mark Udall, but we’d import most of our uranium under current circumstances, because we only have one mill in operation. Oh, and our nuclear waste depository site in Nevada is adamantly opposed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, so good luck with that.
It mentions renewables. Great! But he plans to pay for the research and development by taxing the oil and gas industry and funding renewable research with the revenues. There is something inherently wrong with the government choosing its favorite industries, and picking the pockets of others to pay for them.
Rep. Udall should stop citing the record profits. The profit margins of oil companies are average as far as industry goes. Profit vs. profit margin is Economics 101, and I’m sure Mr. Udall knows the difference. Also, the Shapiro/Pham study has dispelled the myth of the evil oil exec making off with obscene profits. Joe Lunchbucket owns most of the oil companies in his retirement account.
Finally, the plan mentions opening more drilling — in the Gulf of Mexico, which, while it has a very large oil reserve, is already almost entirely open to drilling. No West Coast, East Coast, ANWR, tar sands (12-19 billion barrels) or oil shale (1.23 trillion barrels).
Mr. Udall’s “kitchen sink” is more a handful of concessions he can make without feeling too un-green.
BRIAN MEINHART
Grand Junction
29 Responses to “Udall’s ‘kitchen sink’ is just more concessions”
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Our future is bleak unless we completely reorient our usage of energy. Making the transition into energy sources that are largely undeveloped or in the infancy of development will cost money. Where will the money come from? Taxes. Tax who? There’s the rub. Republicans have sold, and are still selling, the public on the notion that taxation is an unmentionable word and that somehow we can have everything we want and someone else, assumedly, will pay. Udall understands where we should be going and how we should get there. It will cost money. So, who is going to pay to help get us where we need to go? Will the private sector handle the problem? Is there ultimately money to be made by them? Will they do it without the need for “incentives”– i.e.government hand outs. Who finances those except taxpayers? With tax cuts to the very richest , it will be the middle class. But they are being sold a bill of goods that taxes are bad and, instead, they can have tax cuts. So, if Udall is off-base, who does have the answers? It is not through drill, drill, drill. Particularly when “incentives” seem to be “required”. Does it make sense to try to use up all of the country’s limited petroleum reserves, a finite resource, as soon as possible, and at what price? That technique seems to be the main thrust in some quarters. Why not leave some in the ground and protect the environment, which is why the areas were protected in the first place? Mr. Meinhart’s letter is all criticism which indicates he must have a better way to attck the problem. Why no mention of that better way to solve the problem that will be looked back on as the problem and transition of this century? Or is his letter merely another political attack without alternatives? Tell us the Republican answer to Udall’s Democrtatic ignorance and who will pay for it?
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The idea is more simple than made out to be. Continue to develop petroleum resources in an environmentally responsible manner. Ditto to nuclear. But instead of giving the tax breaks and incentives to the oil companies, give them to companies that develop clean renewable energy, and to business and individuals who reduce consumption and use that renewable energy.
There is a myth that the powers that be (oil profiteers) that renewable energy is decades away. No, that would be nuclear and oil shale. Renewable energy is here today. The sun is shining, the wind is blowing, the ocean tides are rising and falling. Today. No insurmountable obstacles, just glorious possibilities.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
‘Glorious possibilities’ that do not make them obscene profits, and they cannot control the supply of wind, water, and sunshine. Which is why they’re stalling, Ash.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Too true. But what is amazing is how many gullible people buy their lines and join their chants of “drill now” while pooh-pooh-ing wind and solar.
Tom Friedman said it best. It is as if they are chanting for everyone to go out and buy selectric typewriters and carbon paper.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, just like the “a 250K and up tax increase will hurt small businesses” and “Minimum wage increases will hurt small businesses”, it’s all a line of bull that makes us think, “If we just keep letting the rich get richer by gouging us and raping the planet, someday, it’ll trickle down to us.” We had an old saying in the military, about stuff coming downhill…..
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What most folks who oppose drilling do not understand is that the government receives a very large amount of income from the oil companies, through income taxes, and from royalties derived from oil found on government leases. I saw the other day an estimate that royalties derived from drilling in the outer continental shelf would result in over a trillion dollars in government revenues.
While I fully agree tha we need to proceed full steam ahead on finding other sources of energy, we are not going to fully replace oil for a very long time. So why not drill, drill, drill, in the US, in an evironmentally responsible way, instead of sending more and more money overseas?
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As far as taxes are concerned. Obama wants to tax folks who make over $250,000 and then give that money to folks who make less. He says is going to cut taxes for 95% of the population. But 40% of the population pays ZERO income taxes now. So what Obama really means is that he is going to send checks to 40% of the population by taxing the rich. This is income redistribution. From what I can tell. little of the money raised from taxing the rich is going to go towards government programs.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, I think your position is reasonable, but the last two statements illustrate my problem with the industry:
The only reason we’re not going to replace oil for a very long time is that they (and the politicians they own) won’t let us, because the alternatives won’t make them the profits they make now. We’ve had the technology for decades.
And, “environmentally responsible” is not a high priority where money is concerned. The companies are only concerned about it when there are people around to complain.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And bullish, no one opposes drilling. Some people just want it done in a better way.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm, replacing oil as a transportaion fuel is not going to happen with wind power or solar power. The most likely replacement over the long term is, in my opinion, electric cars. Yes, you can build electric cars and GM will be doing that soon. But batteries are not yet technologically available to do this on a mass scale. And when the day comes when it can be done on a large scale, you are going to have to build a lot of new power generating capacity. The oil companies are not stopping anyone from doing this. This is a conspiracy theory I just do not buy.
On your second point, the fact is that drilling offshore in an environmentlaly responsible way has been going on for many years.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I have to strongly disagree with you that no one opposes drilling. The vast majority of Democrats in the congress totally oppose drilling in the outer continental shelf. It was only in recent weeks, after the polls turned sharply against them, that they started talking about allowing a small amount of drilling with tons of rstrictions. And, let me suggest, that Republicans have made a lot of progress closing the gap with Democrats in the polls, in large part because of Democratic oppositon to drilling while oil was rushing towards $145/barrel.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish;
Your point about transportation fuel is well taken.
But, as to GM-
And, GM already built and electric vehicle, the EV1, in the 1990’s. It was built to satisfy the ZEV (Zero Emmissions Vehicle - I think) mandate, passed by the California Air Resources Emissions Board. After the EV1 was built, the CASB dropped the mandate, and all the EV1 models were pulled (even when owners offered to buy out the leases); the models were shredded, and the head of the CASB was given a job at the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Institute.
No shadowy conspiracy there. They did it all out in the open.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why did the CASB drop the mandate?
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“CARB”, my mistake. Basically, the car makers made a huge fuss, and to be fair, it was too high a bar for them to set. I think making it a “mandate” was a mistake. But the fact of the matter remains. GM built the car, and pulled it and basically erased it from existence as soon as the mandate was lifted. Now, you tell me, bullish; you’re a reasonable man; Why would they do that?
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry bullish, I meant no one participating in this conversation (to my knowledge) opposes drilling in general, and no politician I know of opposes ALL drilling either.
Yes many do (or have) opposed OCS and ANWR drilling whether out of a true sense of concern for the environment or more commonly out of trying to appease environmentalist / NIMBY constituents (which is why the Republican governor of California has opposed OCS drilling of course).
Thinking people do not oppose every single oil well; neither do they mindlessly chant “drill here, drill now!”
For example offshore drilling. Expanding it for natural gas makes sense right now. For crude, maybe not so much because the refineries are already at full capacity and the environmental risks are worse. Not that both options shouldn’t be looked at, but it is only natural gas that will give Americans ecomonic relief in the short term, and it is more politically expedient.
Of course, any benefit when we are talking about petroleum is temporary.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, the oil wells supplying oil to refineries today will be mostly depleted by the time the oil from the outer continental shelf comes on stream. A lot of the new oil produced 10-20 years from now will replace a lot of current production.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That is something to consider. But also is the fact that 10-20 years from now if we have done what we must, our need for that oil will be hugely reduced. Yes we will always need some, but it should be a tiny fraction of what we are using today.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think that’s the point, Ash -
Oil is a finite resource. There is only a certain amount of money the oil companies can get out of it before it runs out. Therefore, to maximize profits, they have to get every dollar out of it that they can before the need drops below an acceptable level.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Excellent point.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
We are currently producing a tiny fraction of what we consume. Anyone who is serious about energy independence, will not turn down the opportunity to produce more of what we consume. It is unrealistic to believe that oil consumption 10 years from now will be a tiny fraction of what we consmue today. Even Barak doesn’t believe that.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
There are hundreds of rigs drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. There are rigs drilling in the Rockies, rigs drilling in North Dakota for oil, Pennsylvania for gas, Alaska for gas and oil. The old oil fields in Illinois and Indiana are being rejuvenated. There are NO idle rigs.
The McCain/Big Oil machine has devised a masterful plan to convince the American public of a lie. There are just over 1,600 drilling rigs operating in the U.S. and they are drilling and drilling and drilling. The oil industry is sitting on 68,000,000 acres of leases they can’t get to even though every rig in this country is working non-stop.
This drill, drill, drill, mantra is a political ploy to open up more leases so the oil and gas companies can get even richer than they are. It is the same criminals that have created the financial market meltdown that are setting us up for another rip-off. This is the McCain/Palin promise: more profits for the big money corporate thieves that will come out of the pockets of working Americans. I am getting very angry about this. My family and my countrymen are suffering at the hands of a bunch of greedy bastards who are laughing all the way to their off-shore banks while Americans are spiraling into third world status.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hmmm, dc’s post sounds about right to me. Greedy bastards, that’s for sure.
Bullish, I am not sure the extent to which Obama feels we can reduce our dependence on oil (not just foreign oil, but all of it) within 10-20 years. What he thinks isn’t really the issue anyway. It is what is possible.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
Great. Don’t reply. The people who are paying attention are learning the truth with each passing day.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 6:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, I’m late to the party as I’ve been watching my meager retirement investments going down the toilet. Back around #14 there was talk of GM’s electric cars. They were only leased, not sold, because GM and lesees knew they would be taken back. They were a response to California’s air quality restrictions and an experiment with electric cars under actual use over time. The cost per unit GM had invested was far more than they recouped in leases or could possibly sell them for. They came back because GM knew it couldn’t support them in the future nor could they learn anything further from them. When they went back they were old technology and there was nothing more to be learned.If GM sold them to those that wanted to keep them they were in no position to support vehicles using limited-production, old technology. Would you buy a car that the manufacturer couldn’t nor wouldn’t support? They would be bigger orphans than Studebakers. At least those were made in quantity and there are parts out there. Nobody made parts for the GM electric cars because of the small quantities produced and the fact that GM took care of everything while they were out on lease. There was no “conspiracy” and the movie about them was decptive to the max. How do I know? I spent my entire career working for auto manufacturers and dealing with these kinds of issues. Everything a manufacturer does takes into account what it’s actions do to it’s reputation. No major manufacturer knowingly does things like making a car and abandoning supporting it in the cars likely lifetime, not to mention killing it’s resale value.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 6:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks John. That was an excellent summary.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 7:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, thank you. We don’t seem to often agree on much so maybe we can agree on this minor occurrence. You are very correct about battery technology. I lived in the Detroit area in ‘68 and ‘69 and my neighbor was a scientist working for Ford on battery technology. It is a very difficult subject and hasn’t advanced much, from a general usability standpoint, for the forty years since I was discussing it with him. That’s why Honda is looking at hydrogen, among other things, and others already have test units on natural gas and all seem to be looking at plug-in electric technology wich is pretty well along but still limited by battery capacity. Everybody says electicity is cheap and available. How about when/if millions of cars are using it? Many hundreds of more coal powered generating plants? Clean coal? Will we still have an abundance of natural gas if there are millions of cars and trucks using it, and at what price? How about if that’s the way electricity is generated using natural gas? T. Boone doesn’t discuss those things. We’re a long way from solving our transportation propulsion conumdrum.
Posted September 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
John, that is why I believe the future is electric cars and nuclear power generation.
Posted September 16th, 2008 at 5:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I believe that the future of transportation, at least intercity and interstate, lies in Maglev technology. Maglev technology has been around for a long time but has recently made some giant leaps toward viability. One, the price per mile has been halved from around $20 million a mile to around $10 million per mile and 2, track switching technology is no longer accomplished by slow moving hydraulic parts since a plan has been devised to use magnetic fields. The reason that this technology will ultimately win out is both from the standpoint of energy savings and congestion reduction. Maglev technology, at present, allows us to travel coast to coast or city to city at speeds similar to a jet, ~300 mph, while using around 1/100th the energy of a car or truck. Electronic or magnetic track switching technology allows vehicles from exit stations to move seamlessly on or off the highspeed track without any disruption of the high speed flow of traffic. This eliminates congestion. Please check out a couple of American companies in the industry at http://american-maglev.com/ and http://www.maglev2000.com/ Our political theater wreaks of industrial/political collusion when alternatives such as these are not even heard of.
Posted September 16th, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Glad to see my letter has generated so much discussion. I’d like to clarify some things. Printed letters are limited in space, so it’s difficult to expound on any side points- you just have to stick to your main arugment. First, let me state that I am very much in favor of renewable energy technology. It is the future, and I recognize that. I just have a very big problem with the government offering preferential treatment in the marketplace, so I don’t agree one bit with any plans to take tax revenue from oil and gas and using it to fund renewables. That said, I believe that renewable energy industries should receive every bit the tax break that oil and gas does. Lower taxes all around suits me just fine. I am also very supportive of nuclear power, but as I pointed out, insufferable NIMBYism has a tendency to kill any progress on it. Renewable projects, like wind farms or solar panel fields suffer from it as well. Everyone is a cheerleader so long as they don’t have to look at it. The whole spectrum of solutions and suggestions is needed. Udall’s plan is simply not the “kitchen sink” that he would have us believe, and that is the point I was trying to drive home.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.