• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Romney energy plan.. Easy enough for a liberal to understand

Steve

Well-known member
On Thursday in New Mexico, Mitt Romney is unveiling his latest energy plan (pdf). It’s easy enough to summarize: He wants North America to achieve energy independence by 2020. “North America is the fastest-growing oil and gas producing region in the world,” the plan notes.
LINK: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/energy_policy_white_paper.pdf

Getting there, Romney argues, will require three big things. First, the United States will need to open up more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling.

Second, the federal government will need to give states more power to approve permits, in order to speed up the rate of drilling.

And third Romney would focus on building pipelines like Keystone XL and partnerships with Canada and Mexico to take fuller advantage of those countries’ oil resources.

The U.S. economy can add 3 million jobs by tapping oil and gas reserves in the United States, Romney repeatedly said.

"This is not some pie-in-the-sky kind of thing," he said. "This is a real, achievable objective."

Romney would open up areas off the East Coast to oil exploration, and in particular would reverse Obama's decision to suspend development off the coast of Virginia

He would establish a five-year offshore leasing plan that would open new areas for development beginning with those off the coast of Virginia and the Carolinas.

The centerpiece of Romney's energy plan is to permit individual states to manage energy development on federal lands within their borders.

the liberals seems to say the plans offered last night have no details... because the leftist media said it didn't

well here is a link to the details..

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

and it is easy to read and understand...

I really like the states rights part of the plan,.. and when liberals states saddled with huge deficits see the potential to drill their way out of the mess they are in... I bet most will get onboard..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
On Thursday in New Mexico, Mitt Romney is unveiling his latest energy plan (pdf). It’s easy enough to summarize: He wants North America to achieve energy independence by 2020. “North America is the fastest-growing oil and gas producing region in the world,” the plan notes.
LINK: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/energy_policy_white_paper.pdf

Getting there, Romney argues, will require three big things. First, the United States will need to open up more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling.

Second, the federal government will need to give states more power to approve permits, in order to speed up the rate of drilling.

And third Romney would focus on building pipelines like Keystone XL and partnerships with Canada and Mexico to take fuller advantage of those countries’ oil resources.

The U.S. economy can add 3 million jobs by tapping oil and gas reserves in the United States, Romney repeatedly said.

"This is not some pie-in-the-sky kind of thing," he said. "This is a real, achievable objective."

Romney would open up areas off the East Coast to oil exploration, and in particular would reverse Obama's decision to suspend development off the coast of Virginia

He would establish a five-year offshore leasing plan that would open new areas for development beginning with those off the coast of Virginia and the Carolinas.

The centerpiece of Romney's energy plan is to permit individual states to manage energy development on federal lands within their borders.

the liberals seems to say the plans offered last night have no details... because the leftist media said it didn't

well here is a link to the details..

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

and it is easy to read and understand...

I really like the states rights part of the plan,.. and when liberals states saddled with huge deficits see the potential to drill their way out of the mess they are in... I bet most will get onboard..

It isn't the lack of leases or permits...There are thousands of available sites up here on the Bakken- both private and government leased land... The problem is not enough drilling rigs or equipment- let alone logistic support, adequate infrastructure, and housing to handle the influx of people...

And in some cases not enough employees... A couple months ago one of the major drillers was in the paper saying he still needed 800 employees... Which is one of the reason's I've been told that Williston and other areas of the Bakken are looking like they are downtown Mexico City....
 

Larrry

Well-known member
We get it, you think Bakken is going to solve the problems. Why do you choose to ignore all the other energy reserves.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
On Thursday in New Mexico, Mitt Romney is unveiling his latest energy plan (pdf). It’s easy enough to summarize: He wants North America to achieve energy independence by 2020. “North America is the fastest-growing oil and gas producing region in the world,” the plan notes.
LINK: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/energy_policy_white_paper.pdf

Getting there, Romney argues, will require three big things. First, the United States will need to open up more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling.

Second, the federal government will need to give states more power to approve permits, in order to speed up the rate of drilling.

And third Romney would focus on building pipelines like Keystone XL and partnerships with Canada and Mexico to take fuller advantage of those countries’ oil resources.

the liberals seems to say the plans offered last night have no details... because the leftist media said it didn't

well here is a link to the details..

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

and it is easy to read and understand...

I really like the states rights part of the plan,.. and when liberals states saddled with huge deficits see the potential to drill their way out of the mess they are in... I bet most will get onboard..

It isn't the lack of leases or permits...There are thousands of available sites up here on the Bakken- both private and government leased land... The problem is not enough drilling rigs or equipment- let alone logistic support, adequate infrastructure, and housing to handle the influx of people...

And in some cases not enough employees... A couple months ago one of the major drillers was in the paper saying he still needed 800 employees... Which is one of the reason's I've been told that Williston and other areas of the Bakken are looking like they are downtown Mexico City....

oldtimer, maybe our boom should be shared with other areas, there is a large area of our country out there that is NOT working, let's let other areas prosper too!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
On Thursday in New Mexico, Mitt Romney is unveiling his latest energy plan (pdf). It’s easy enough to summarize: He wants North America to achieve energy independence by 2020. “North America is the fastest-growing oil and gas producing region in the world,” the plan notes.
LINK: http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/energy_policy_white_paper.pdf

Getting there, Romney argues, will require three big things. First, the United States will need to open up more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling.

Second, the federal government will need to give states more power to approve permits, in order to speed up the rate of drilling.

And third Romney would focus on building pipelines like Keystone XL and partnerships with Canada and Mexico to take fuller advantage of those countries’ oil resources.

the liberals seems to say the plans offered last night have no details... because the leftist media said it didn't

well here is a link to the details..

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

and it is easy to read and understand...

I really like the states rights part of the plan,.. and when liberals states saddled with huge deficits see the potential to drill their way out of the mess they are in... I bet most will get onboard..

It isn't the lack of leases or permits...There are thousands of available sites up here on the Bakken- both private and government leased land... The problem is not enough drilling rigs or equipment- let alone logistic support, adequate infrastructure, and housing to handle the influx of people...

And in some cases not enough employees... A couple months ago one of the major drillers was in the paper saying he still needed 800 employees... Which is one of the reason's I've been told that Williston and other areas of the Bakken are looking like they are downtown Mexico City....


maybe obama's stimulus should have bought rigs and built infrastructure, instead of being payoffs to his unions buddies and such, eh?


I mentioned it in Feb 2009, but you acted as if I was a "rightwingernut", or something.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Steve said:
the liberals seems to say the plans offered last night have no details... because the leftist media said it didn't

well here is a link to the details..

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy

and it is easy to read and understand...

I really like the states rights part of the plan,.. and when liberals states saddled with huge deficits see the potential to drill their way out of the mess they are in... I bet most will get onboard..

It isn't the lack of leases or permits...There are thousands of available sites up here on the Bakken- both private and government leased land... The problem is not enough drilling rigs or equipment- let alone logistic support, adequate infrastructure, and housing to handle the influx of people...

And in some cases not enough employees... A couple months ago one of the major drillers was in the paper saying he still needed 800 employees... Which is one of the reason's I've been told that Williston and other areas of the Bakken are looking like they are downtown Mexico City....


maybe obama's stimulus should have bought rigs and built infrastructure, instead of being payoffs to his unions buddies and such, eh?


I mentioned it in Feb 2009, but you acted as if I was a "rightwingernut", or something.

I have never opposed the building of infrastructure...In fact I was happy to see John Huntsman in his interview last night give kudos to Eisenhower for being a "progressive" Republican President (instead of just saying no) and having long term vision for the country and building probably the most important piece of infrastructure this country has (next to the government backed railroads)-- the interstate highway system..

As far as buying rigs- do you really think government should get into the drilling business...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
As far as buying rigs- do you really think government should get into the drilling business...


Why not give tax breaks for creating jobs, instead of threatening to tax them more for creating jobs?

Bush/Cheney already did that with the oil industry.....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
As far as buying rigs- do you really think government should get into the drilling business...


Why not give tax breaks for creating jobs, instead of threatening to tax them more for creating jobs?

Bush/Cheney already did that with the oil industry.....


Not enough, I guess, eh? It was still more profitable to get oil in other countries.

Guess Bush wasn't the oil company "crony" you thought he was.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
By the way OT, why don't you provide evidence that Bush gave the oil companies special tax credits, for job creation in the US?


You obviously know something we don't.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Why not give tax breaks for creating jobs, instead of threatening to tax them more for creating jobs?

Bush/Cheney already did that with the oil industry.....


Not enough, I guess, eh? It was still more profitable to get oil in other countries.

Guess Bush wasn't the oil company "crony" you thought he was.

The oil companies don't want to see oil prices go lower... How could they then make their every year increasing record profits... :???: Too bad they didn't use some of those record profits and subsidies to buy more drilling equipment... But then if they find/recover too much oil- the price drops and they no longer make their record profits... A perfect catch-22 for them..

General economic theory holds that companies will produce more of a good if its price is higher, or if it receives subsidies. Funny that these rules didn’t seem to apply to Big Oil in 2011, when the highest oil price since 1864 and $2 billion in subsidies to the five largest oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell—yielded lower oil production than in 2010. But these five oil companies combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011—up 75 percent from 2010—and have made more than $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011. This exceeds the previous record of $136 billion in profits in 2008.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
It isn't the lack of leases or permits...There are thousands of available sites up here on the Bakken- both private and government leased land... The problem is not enough drilling rigs or equipment- let alone logistic support, adequate infrastructure, and housing to handle the influx of people...

And in some cases not enough employees... A couple months ago one of the major drillers was in the paper saying he still needed 800 employees... Which is one of the reason's I've been told that Williston and other areas of the Bakken are looking like they are downtown Mexico City....

Logistics.. infrastructure.. housing,.. employees

yes, they could be solved by opening up closed leases..


as explained before... the closed leases are not in Williston... they are in Utah, Ohio, Pa, and around the country... spreading out the jobs.. and actually taking pressure off Williston..

and not all are fracking rigs.. some are offshore as in Virginia..

but if the administration opened up more and encouraged more. the private sector would build it.. :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
maybe our boom should be shared with other areas, there is a large area of our country out there that is NOT working, let's let other areas prosper too!

Amen.. and by the looks of the reports out over the last few years,.. we have plenty of natural gas,..]


With about two-thirds of U.S. states thought to hold natural gas reserves, many take President Barack Obama seriously when he calls the United States the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas."

The government's new estimate for total U.S. natural gas resources—2,214 trillion cubic feet (tcf)—is a third higher than its 2008 estimate,

But with other geologists convinced that EIA's new numbers are too conservative, it is certain that there will be plenty of debate ahead on the size of the energy windfall from shale gas.

Gas now seems so abundant that the United States, which only a few years ago was contemplating major imports to address a perceived shortfall, now is contemplating new expensive port facilities to chill and liquefy gas to export it by tanker overseas. (The EIA now projects U.S. liquefied natural gas exports starting in 2016.)

The U.S. chemical industry, which depends on natural gas as a feedstock, was fleeing offshore amid high prices only a decade ago; now it is contemplating new factories in the heart of shale country.

Even with much of the Gulf of Mexico’s energy production shut down as Hurricane Isaac approached the region earlier this week, the natural-gas market barely blinked — and that’s exactly what analysts said would happen.

“Natural gas did not react like it has in previous storms because, with the rapid development of shale gas over the last several years, the Gulf is increasingly less important to overall gas supply,” said Kim Pacanovsky, managing director and senior research analyst for oil and gas at MLV & Co. in New York.

As of Thursday, about 72.5% of the current daily natural-gas production in the Gulf was shut-in because of Isaac, according to U.S. government data.

Price action in natural-gas market over the past few days, however, indicates just how little concern the market has for the production disruption.

On Wednesday, after Isaac made landfall as a Category 1 hurricane, natural-gas futures prices climbed 2%. That’s not much of a move considering that when Hurricane Katrina made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 hurricane on August 29, 2005, prices for the commodity rallied nearly 14%.

all we need now is a market..

imagine how far ahead we would be today if we had invested in Natural gas instead of failed solar and wind companies?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Bush/Cheney already did that with the oil industry.....


Not enough, I guess, eh? It was still more profitable to get oil in other countries.

Guess Bush wasn't the oil company "crony" you thought he was.

The oil companies don't want to see oil prices go lower... How could they then make their every year increasing record profits... :???: Too bad they didn't use some of those record profits and subsidies to buy more drilling equipment... But then if they find/recover too much oil- the price drops and they no longer make their record profits... A perfect catch-22 for them..

General economic theory holds that companies will produce more of a good if its price is higher, or if it receives subsidies. Funny that these rules didn’t seem to apply to Big Oil in 2011, when the highest oil price since 1864 and $2 billion in subsidies to the five largest oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell—yielded lower oil production than in 2010. But these five oil companies combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011—up 75 percent from 2010—and have made more than $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011. This exceeds the previous record of $136 billion in profits in 2008.


funny thing is, that their profits are "record", but not that much more than when oil was $50

What special tax credits did Bush give the oil companies to create jobs?

Why are record profits up since 2008, if Bush treated them better than any other President?
 

Larrry

Well-known member
So the oil companies have record profits ....as opposed to the middle having record profits. Don't know bout you but I would rather see the money in the US.
 

Steve

Well-known member
the theme of the Obama campaign is forward.. yet he and his supporters are still running against Bush. :? :???:

you guys are talking about big oil... mostly offshore expensive rigs is their focus..

and since the Obama moratoriums those rigs are not as needed..

the fracking style rigs are used by all sizes of companies.. large and small...

they need stability and a outlook for the future to build large infrastructure and buy more rigs.. Obama never provided that...

by opening up Ohio, alone would give the rustbelt a shot in the arm.. and I would bet it wouldn't take long for them to get into the rig building business.. nothing like fierce competition to drive bu sines demands..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Not enough, I guess, eh? It was still more profitable to get oil in other countries.

Guess Bush wasn't the oil company "crony" you thought he was.

The oil companies don't want to see oil prices go lower... How could they then make their every year increasing record profits... :???: Too bad they didn't use some of those record profits and subsidies to buy more drilling equipment... But then if they find/recover too much oil- the price drops and they no longer make their record profits... A perfect catch-22 for them..

General economic theory holds that companies will produce more of a good if its price is higher, or if it receives subsidies. Funny that these rules didn’t seem to apply to Big Oil in 2011, when the highest oil price since 1864 and $2 billion in subsidies to the five largest oil companies—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Royal Dutch Shell—yielded lower oil production than in 2010. But these five oil companies combined made a record-high $137 billion in profits in 2011—up 75 percent from 2010—and have made more than $1 trillion in profits from 2001 through 2011. This exceeds the previous record of $136 billion in profits in 2008.


funny thing is, that their profits are "record", but not that much more than when oil was $50

What special tax credits did Bush give the oil companies to create jobs?

Why are record profits up since 2008, if Bush treated them better than any other President?



Republicans Block Repeal of Oil-Company Tax Breaks Obama Sought


By Jim Snyder - Mar 29, 2012 2:27 PM MT .Facebook Share LinkedIn Google +1 3 Comments
Print QUEUEQ..Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill to repeal about $24 billion in U.S. tax breaks for the nation’s biggest oil companies, three days after agreeing to advance the measure as a way to debate energy.

President Barack Obama, speaking at the White House before today’s vote, had urged lawmakers to pass the legislation. Republicans opposed repealing the tax breaks and blamed Obama’s energy policies for the rise in gasoline costs.


.High prices at the pump “are having a negative impact on Americans’ daily lives,” Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said during the debate. “So we think the American people are entitled to this debate.”

Republicans said the bill, introduced by Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, would keep raising gasoline prices. They criticized Obama for blocking TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline, restricting offshore production, and supporting solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, a solar panel maker that went bankrupt two years after winning a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee.

Obama said the top three oil companies operating in the U.S. made more than $80 billion in profit last year, with Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) collecting almost $4.7 million an hour.

“It’s not as if these companies can’t stand on their own,”
Obama said.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Larrry said:
So the oil companies have record profits ....as opposed to the middle having record profits. Don't know bout you but I would rather see the money in the US.

we have two easy choices... drill here ... or send money to the middle east by the tanker-load.. and our military to protect them as well...

If we went after just what is legally allowed and recoverable as of 2009 .. we would have 53 years worth of natural gas and oil.,... and we now have a third more then that estimate..


if more areas are opened up and more is discovered. .. east coast,.. west coast, Florida. who knows? as they are not counted yet..
 
Top