The New York Times Deceptive Editorial on President Trump's Energy Policies

Guest opining by David Middleton

EDITORIAL

Trump’s Deceptive Energy Policy

“We have ended the war on American energy,” President Trump boasted in his State of the Union address, “and we have ended the war on beautiful, clean coal. We are now, very proudly, an exporter of energy to the world.”

Those two sentences were about all Mr. Trump devoted to his energy policy in his message. Brief as they were, they encapsulated nearly everything that is shallow, dishonest and just plain wrong with that policy, as well as his approach to environmental issues generally.

Here’s what’s deceptive: There has been no war on energy. American oil, gas and renewables like wind and solar flourished under President Obama. Coal was the exception, but Mr. Obama was not its enemy; the market was. “Beautiful, clean coal,” meanwhile, remains a mirage, at least for now; the affordable technology isn’t there. And the United States has always exported energy. In recent years — the Obama years — the amount of energy the country has sent abroad has begun to catch up with the energy it brings in.

[…]

All this production, however, has a dark side, rarely mentioned in the huzzahs about the 10-million-barrel milestone: the continued carbon-loading of the atmosphere… 

[…]

Such concerns are nowhere to be found in the playbook of a man who says that climate change is a hoax. Hence, full speed ahead, at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, with Mr. Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda, and with the overturning of rules that seek to balance conservation and commercial exploitation, and the opening up of nearly all of America’s offshore waters to drilling — whatever the risk, and however small the need.

The New York Times

If you’re going to lie, you may as well make it a whopper…

There has been no war on energy. American oil, gas and renewables like wind and solar flourished under President Obama.

Renewables, including hydroelectric, “flourished” from about 4 quadrillion btu (quad) in 2009 to about 7 quad in 2016.  Total U.S. annual primary energy consumption is around 96 quad [1].  And there very much was a war on energy.  At least there was a war on energy that works.  The war on coal was obvious.  Fortunately, the war on oil and natural gas was mostly limited to Federal leases.

President Obama did everything he could to impede oil & gas production. Unfortunately for him, the shale revolution took place on State and private mineral leases.

All of the increase in oil & gas production came from areas not under Federal control:

fed_gas

Figure 1. Natural gas production, Federal and non-Federal areas 2006-2015. Congressional Research Service.

fed_oil

Figure 2. Crude oil production, Federal and non-Federal areas 2006-2015. Congressional Research Service.

The Obama administration’s unlawful drilling moratorium and subsequent “permitorium,” led to the loss of over 200,000 bbl/day of oil production from 2010-2015:

gom1

Figure 3. Federal offshore Gulf of Mexico crude oil production, annotated by the author of this post. US EIA.

Oil and natural gas flourished despite President Obama.  President Trump has begun the process of undoing 8 years of regulatory assault on the oil & gas industry.

Trump Administration to open 90% of US Offshore to leasing and roll back Obama-era drilling regulations

Trump Administration to Open Oil & Gas Leasing on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)

“Offshore drilling is not a fit for Florida”… It doesn’t have to fit in Florida.

A Senate Tax Bill Energy Trifecta: Opening ANWR, Killing EV’s and Energy Dominance!

Irony can be so… Ironic – Trump’s solution to AGW: “Drill, Baby, Drill!”

While not all of these areas will be fully opened due to challenges from States like Florida, much of it will be open and available for leasing, exploration, drilling and production.

And the United States has always exported energy. In recent years — the Obama years — the amount of energy the country has sent abroad has begun to catch up with the energy it brings in.

The energy the country sends abroad mostly consists of refined petroleum products… And Obama had nothing to do with it.

Energy Exports

Figure 4. Primary US energy exports and net imports. US EIA.

The U.S. “energy trade balance” turned the corner in 2005.  If not for Obama’s war on energy, the U.S. may have actually become a net energy exporter while he was in office.  As it now stands, the U.S. is poised to become a net energy exported for the first time since the 1950’s, during President Trump’s first term in office.

Hence, full speed ahead, … opening up of nearly all of America’s offshore waters to drilling — whatever the risk, and however small the need.

Because if you wait until the nation needs the oil to open the areas up, you won’t be able to get the oil when the nation needs it.  ANWR Area 1002 is practically a step-out from Prudhoe Bay… But it will probably take at least five years to establish meaningful production after the first leases are issued.  In the meantime, “Little Oil”  is “getting busy” around ANWR…

Small bidders snatch up land near ANWR in state oil lease sale

Alex DeMarban December 30, 2017

Major oil companies did not bid Wednesday on state leases near the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as Congress moves to open the refuge’s coastal plain to drilling, but small bidding groups did.

And new North Slope prospects generated interest in the annual state lease sale that officials said was one of the biggest of the last two decades.

The state received $19.9 million in bids for the North Slope lease sale on Wednesday, making it the third-largest sale in the last two decades, said Chantal Walsh, director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Division. That was a surprise because so much of the land in the region had already been leased, she said.

The amount of leased state land on the North Slope is at historically high levels, said Mark Wiggin, deputy commissioner of the state’s Natural Resources department.

[…]

Anchorage Daily News

Somehow, I doubt that The New York Times Editorial Board reads the Anchorage Daily News.

References

[1] Annual Energy Outlook 2017. US EIA.

[2] January 2018 Monthly Energy Review. US EIA.

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “The New York Times Deceptive Editorial on President Trump's Energy Policies

  1. Funny isn’t it how all of a sudden the MSM and the eco-loons want to give Obama credit for the shale revolution.

    • Only for about a half a second any more. The duplicity of the left leaning press is a serious issue, imo. They do this with almost everything they publish, the twisting facts I mean.

    • Yes, the Leftwing MSM wants to give Obama credit for everything. For shale oil, and for the economy as a whole, as examples.
      The facts are Obama did everything in his power to stifle U.S. energy production (with the exception of windmills and solar), and the general economy.
      A president can do a lot of things to harm an economy, but very few things which will help an economy.
      The main things a president can do to promote an economy is to cut taxes and reduce regulations and get the government out of the way as much as possible. This is what Trump did. Obama did just the opposite.
      So anyone giving Obama credit for promoting the U.S. energy sector or the U.S. economy in general, please give an example or two of Obama policies that accomplished these goals. Don’t waste your time looking for any though because Obama did nothing to help the energy sector or the economy.
      All those jobs Obama claims he created? They would have been created whether Obama was president or not. The U.S. economy has a momentum of its own, and that’s what creates the jobs or cuts the jobs. Obama stunted this momentum and Trump enhances it.

      • TA, i think that Obama stumbled backward into the truth (whilst falling down!). For all his war on energy did, at the end of the day energy prices are fairly low. Just compare the end of the Bush years when energy prices were very high. Another truth that BarryO stumbled into was a long period of economic growth. This year will mark ten years since the crash in ’08. Slower growth means a longer time between recessions. If this economy lasts until the 2020 election, which Trump will need, then that will be 12 years! (that’s a long time)…

      • Yes, David, all true, but that’s beside the point. If the recovery had been faster, we would already be in our next recession by now. And if Trump is smart, he won’t step on the gas like it appears that he is doing. Don’t we want this boom to last? It ain’t gonna happen with high growth at this point, the unemployment rate is already too low. Besides, the fed isn’t going to allow high growth to happen at this point anyway. Yellen has already stated such. Powell’s the wild card, never know just what he’ll do. (be nice if they were to install him soon)…

      • “Latest forecast: 5.4 percent — February 1, 2018”
        I’m glad you included that tidbit of information. The economy is really taking off. Who says tax cuts and regulatory reform don’t work? They work every time they are tried. Tax revenues will increase, not decrease as the Democrats claim. The Democrats don’t have a clue about how an economy works. All they know is how to spend money. Other people’s money.

        • The corporate tax cuts will have a YUGE, almost immediate impact on the economy, particularly the repatriation tax relief. Up to $2.3 trillion will be injected into the economy if everyone follows Apple’s lead.

      • There were no jobs created under Obama. The longest job creation streak is a myth. I remember quite a few months where job growth was negative or just a few thousand. Then they fiddled with the birth-death model to make them look better. Then came the adjustments months later to make it look even better. Remember the double-seasonal-adjustments because there were never any cold winter months before Obama was president

      • David, again, very true. But, the unemployment rate at this point will be an indicator of the pace of economic growth. If it stalls out (or rather if the fed stalls it out) that simply means that economic growth is slow enough for a recession to kick in. Even with a stalled unemployment rate, there is still job growth for population growth (as well as people reentering the job market). As i showed you recently, the unemployment rate is the key metric for determining when the next recession hits.
        [continued in another comment, don’t want length to trip spam]

      • Hard to say exactly what Trump will do if Powell begins to get hawkish. We can’t assume that Trump actually knows what he is doing! Now, he may. (he’s got to be very poker face about what he’s doing, so it might just be hard to tell at this point) Conservatives won’t like it one bit if inflation kicks in and interest rates are not raised. If Trump does decide to can Powell for someone further left, he might get bi-partisan support, but politically it’ll get nasty. Should be interesting to see this play out, especially how low the unemployment rate will go. Could we see 3% or even 2% unemployment? If it doesn’t go that low then our next recession probably isn’t too far off. If it does, well, things could get interesting both economically and politically. (very interesting indeed)…

        • Fonz… I think you can maintain solid job growth without dropping the unemployment rate much further. There’s room to grow on the participation side,
          Whatever happens, with Trump it won’t be boring!

      • Yes, David, let’s hope for the very best and keep our eyes open (we may just learn something new)…

  2. [ All this production, however, has a dark side, ..: the continued carbon-loading of the atmosphere ]
    And, where does the carbon in organic material come from?

  3. More proof the NYT is mostly fake news.
    No war on energy? => Obama placed most offshore off limits. Ditto ANWR block 1002.
    No war on coal? => Obama CPP.
    See essay Clean Coal at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc or in ebook Blowing Smoke for further thoughts and more Obama legal outrages concerning fossil fuel energy.

    • It’s not fake news. It’s not even news. It is an editorial article, just another misguided opinion.
      Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one. It’s just that some people practice better hygiene.

      • It’s not opinion. It’s sophistry based on a lack of journalism that includes any depth in the research. Like the article says, they don’t read the Anchorage Daily News. In other words, they have their set “go-to” industry sources who have a very narrow access viewpoint and likely wear green glasses.

    • – 2012 – Mitt Romney morphed into a traveling salesman here Thursday as he gave his best pitch for an energy plan that’s big on loosening environmental regulations and expanding domestic oil drilling and coal production. To those who might doubt Romney’s projection that his plan would make North America energy independent by 2020, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had a simple message: “It is achievable.” “This is not some pie-in-the-sky kind of thing,” Romney told a modest crowd outside a truck warehouse in New Mexico. “This is a real, achievable objective, and I have a chart that’s still, despite the wind, still holding up up here.” While Romney stressed the idea of independence, the plan relies heavily on imports from Canada and Mexico, two of the world’s biggest oil producers. Hence the use of the phrase “North American” before energy independence. “The net-net of all this, as you can see, is by 2020, we’re able to produce somewhere between 23 million and 28 million barrels per day of oil, and we won’t need to buy any oil from the Middle East or Venezuela or anywhere else where we don’t want to,” Romney said.
      “This isn’t a recipe for energy independence,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Liz Smith said in a statement. “It’s just another irresponsible scheme to help line the pockets of big oil while allowing the U.S. to fall behind and cede the clean energy sector to China.” In a conference call with reporters, the Obama campaign criticized Romney’s energy proposal, casting it as an attempt to cater the oil industry. “One thing is clear that we should take away from today. Mitt Romney’s energy plan is simply doing the bidding of big oil,” said Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter. – –
      That was from the Washington Post. I mean seriously – Romney predicted this, all of it, and Obama and the dems made silly jokes about how stupid his ideas were. Now…what? he was right, waaaaay back in 2012. And to their very last day in office, Obama and the items insisted they were wrong.

  4. When taking into account all the CO2 put into the atmosphere (natural causes & mankind’s activities) our activities, don’t they only comprise about 2 – 3 % of the CO2 released into the atmosphere?
    If so, sure seems a tempest in a teapot….

  5. The NYT is a top-down organization. They don’t read the Anchorage Daily News. The Anchorage Daily News is obligated to read the NYT and then know what to print. That’s how it’s supposed to work in MSM-Land.
    quem deus vult perdere prius dementat: Whom a god would destroy, he first drives insane.

  6. This Year alone, the New York Times could win the BookBrowse Awards, Pulitzer Prize for Letters, Drama and Music, Man Booker Prize,The John Newbery Medal, Edgar Awards, National Book Critics Circle Award, National Book Awards, Nobel Prize in Literature, Costa Book Awards, Neustadt International Prize for Literature, Hugo Award, and the Grauniad First Book Award for major contributions to Fiction Production..

    • Ntesdorf, was your comment sarcasm? The only prize you list that the NYT might win is the Pulitzer. All the rest are awards given to authors or publishers.
      It is hard imagine how the editors of the NYT keep a straight face when they write that there was no war on energy (Keystone Pipeline, anyone?) from the Obama administration. I bet most of the comments by the NYT’s readers are in total agreement.


  7. It’s coming, Clean Coal is possible, but it’s not just about taking the CO2 out of combusted coal exhaust, it’s taking a waste product and creating jobs and product, turning this CO2 into money. It’s good for the economy, and if good for the environment, that’s a bonus.

    • In talking about clean coal, you must also consider extraction. W. Virginia and Kentucky have some of the highest rates of cancer in the country, especially in those counties near mines.

      • Yawnnnn….. Zzzzzzzz……..
        Coal haters are so boring.
        No such thing as clean coal…… stop with the propaganda nonsense!

      • Oh no cancer!
        cancer = fear mongering
        The people who use cancer to fear mongering never tell you what the actually tell you what the rates are and what kind of cancer is higher.
        ‘In talking about clean coal, you must also consider’ that living near a coal mine you are living in a beautiful area. If the NYT is your local paper you are living in a concrete cesspool.
        I understand why city dwellers worry about the environment. Thanks to the interstate systems, Americans living in big cities can drive from NYC to LA and never see America.

      • @MarkW
        Mostly because there is a very good correlation between poverty level and smoking. It’s no coincidence that states on the lower end of the economic spectrum show higher rates of smoking.

  8. You missed one ☝️
    “Beautiful, clean coal,” meanwhile, remains a mirage, at least for now; the affordable technology isn’t there.”
    This is the left’s constant sleight of hand- always assuming that when you say “clean coal” you mean CO2 free when you simply mean very much reduced/scrubbed sulphur and NOX.
    Because of the EPA directive that designated CO2 as a pollutant, they feel they can include CO2 in the definition of clean coal and of course we all know that carbon capture is too costly. That’s why the NYT said “the affordable technology isn’t there” and helpfully confirmed in the process that one of their pet technologies is a dud. But none of this is out in the open and stated definitively as involving the inclusion of CO2. This allows them to say there’s no such thing as clean coal.
    So long as they don’t mention it, they can talk at cross purposes with you while smugly thinking they’re calling you out on your clean coal assertion.
    Now add in a related sleight of hand: “carbon pollution”. Shouldn’t that mean soot from chimneys? No, it’s their shorthand for CO2 but they don’t tell you that’s what they mean. Then they’ll show power station chimneys spewing soot and you think “well, yes, that does look like carbon pollution I suppose”. And then they add the obligatory cooling towers to enhance the effect.
    This wilful talking at cross purposes on CO2 “pollution” and “carbon pollution” while being coy about hiding behind the EPA directive, will totally confuse students and hard working voters. They’re duped into thinking power stations are much dirtier than they really are.
    Here’s an example of three sceptics including me, confusing each other when they’re all in agreement but getting tripped up by this crazy leftist trick:
    https://twitter.com/rogtallbloke/status/949574036216008704

    • I definitely should have given a shout out to coal. I’ve written quite a few posts on the reality of “beautiful, clean coal.”

    • Scute
      You pretty much nailed that one. I don’t see a problem collecting the heavy valuable metals from the coal for other applications. SO2 is a fertiliser in appropriate quantities. NO and NO2 are pollutants because they are PM precursors. They need management, unless there can be shown some commercial use of it. CO2 is being put back where it belongs in the air.
      If we learn from history, it is that not long ago the planet came perilously close to losing its biomass foundation for the food chain. Can we really affect it? Let’s see.
      Two more points: coal mining and human health, then the numbers employed in ‘renewable vs coal’.
      First, coal mining is highly suited to the use of industrial robots but that high tech transition is not yet started. The management of the environment around the mines is a challenge for us and future mining engineers. Estimates should be based on what can be learned, not what was done by scallywags.
      For employment, I hear frequently the stat that more people are employed in ‘renewables’ than coal. If true, it merely shows how inefficient renewables are at generating power. But with that claim should be clarification about deaths on the job per GWH of output. Wind and solar are dangerous. The renewables hardware industry spreads it’s pollution and impacts over large areas of land often in overseas countries.
      Effective management of the environment and the energy supply remains a perpetual challenge whether we live in caves or castles. There is nothing wrong with consulting honestly about it. I am an admirer of all energy. I have never met a Watt I didn’t like.

  9. The NYT Editorial Board, reporters, writers, staff and owner live in the castles of vapor that Al Gore imagines in his alarmist sociopath mind.

    • Where do they live, how do they travel, and what is their carbon (sic) footprint (c.f.) ?
      I dare anyone of them to compare their “c.f.” to mine.

  10. ” In recent years — the Obama years — the amount of energy the country has sent abroad has begun to catch up with the energy it brings in.”
    Trust me. That statement actually has the merit of being true. Every time Air Force One, or two, instead of a broom stick, spirited Michelle (whoever dressed that woman?) and the lil’ ones to vacations in the Bahamas, Mexico, and other spots it was bringing energy abroad.
    And, since these trips certainly separated Michelle from the high-end WH chef we can assume Air Force One, or Two, slurped up less energy bringing her back in since it had less poundage to contend with on the return.
    Now, I know what I’ve just written could not possibly pass any standards of professional, factual journalism. Maybe (but probably not) the NYT could recognize that.

  11. Let’s not forget that many of the most unpleasant regimes in the world are also supported by oil revenues. There is something to said for not having to pay lots of money to your sworn enemies.
    Putin’s Russia needs oil revenues. The 9-11 attacks on the USA were by religious fundamentalists bankrolled by a Saudi with more money than he knew what to do with. There may well be others. US wars in the Middle-East have been fought primarily because that is where the geo-political oil was. No one gives a toss about most of Africa because……same reason. We all know why China is getting so territorially belligerent about the Spratly Islands, and it is the most likely trigger for World War III.
    Not needing to be so polite to oil producers in the Middle-East and elsewhere ought to allow America to start living up to its principles in the foreign-policy arena. And shared frackable gas deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean could, potentially, oil the wheels of a peace-outbreak between Israel and its neighbors. If it happens in the next decade, the NYT and Obama may recognise it in thirty years time. And claim credit for knowing it all along.
    It’s incredible, isn’t it, that green mouthpieces say all that oil and gas is going to be left in the ground by wind mills and a smattering of solar panels? Yet the value of petroleum products is still determining the future of world peace and the living standards of 7+ billion people. And it will continue to do so, long after the BBC luvvies have forgotten carbon dioxide and plastics.

  12. The WUWT editorial ignores all factors like global markets, automation and methods in coal mining, the rise of natural gas, environmental costs, etc in the “evidence” that the Obama administration was at war with the FF industry. One thing Obama did was to simply enforce regulations that were on the books from earlier administrations.
    The coal mining industry has been suffering since long before Obama; new regulations had an impact but it was small compared to other factors. Mining and burning are sources of costs to human health that aren’t factored in when looking at its role in the economy.
    But all that is irrelevant to the main question, which comes down to motive. Wanting to ameliorate negative effects of FF extraction, transport, refinement and use on humans, economy and environment is not the same as declaring war on an industry. Why would any president want to destroy an industry, especially one that is important to the economy? It’s a baseless accusation.

    • Ha ha ha,
      it clear you suffer from Ocular partisan disease, since David exposed the deception by showing that Obama DID NOT support Oil and NG production since he tried to shut them down on “Federal” lands. It was on STATE lands that the OIL and NG boom occurred on.
      The NYT claimed,
      “There has been no war on energy. American oil, gas ”
      Suuuure if you are a partisan lemming.

    • Obama did a lot more than just enforce existing regulations, which by the way were already being enforced.
      He created entire books of new regulations, and when that wasn’t enough, just created new laws with a stroke of his pen.
      Obama declared during the campaign that he was going to bankrupt the coal industry, and as soon as he took office, he started to make good on that promise.

    • Ms. Silber, do you get paid by the word to lie on WUWT?
      If the link works, you can watch ex-POTUS Obama say that,
      “So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
      https://youtu.be/4aTf5gjvNvo
      Directly quoting a Democrat President = baseless accusation to the troll.

    • The Obama war on oil & gas was very real…

      Obama’s quiet war on oil
      The oil and gas industry is in the crosshairs of the administration’s eco-agenda, even if Shell gets its Arctic drilling permit.

      By ELANA SCHOR 08/14/2015
      […]
      The limits on toxic air emissions from refineries that EPA proposed last year could cost more than $20 billion to implement, according to industry estimates, though the American Petroleum Institute said on Thursday that it hopes to see the final version significantly scaled back. EPA’s projected price tag was much smaller, at $239 million in total costs for the new emissions standards.
      The National Association of Manufacturers has offered an even more gargantuan cost estimate for the ozone rule that EPA proposed in November, warning it could wipe out $3.4 trillion in economic output and 2.9 million jobs by 2040. The agency disagrees, saying the costs would amount to no more than $16.6 billion a decade from now, compared with as much as $42.1 billion in benefits such as reductions in deaths and illnesses.
      The updated ozone rule “will be based on the law and an exhaustive, open and transparent review of a large body of science, along with advice from an independent panel of leading air quality and health experts,” EPA spokeswoman Laura Allen said Thursday. The rule, required to become final by Oct. 1, would set the standard at between 65 and 70 parts per billion, down from a George W. Bush-era standard of 75 parts per billion.
      Allen said the agency’s regulations on methane pollution from oil and gas drilling, set for release before the summer’s end, will make room for both current industry practices and “emerging innovations” and will be aimed at cutting emissions while “oil and gas production and operations continue to grow.”
      The political battle is complicated by the fact that the oil and gas rules are moving through EPA and the Interior Department with far less public fanfare than the Obama-touted plan to push down power plant pollution. And the president continues to praise the economic power of the domestic oil and gas boom while risking greens’ ire with moves to open up parts of the nation’s coasts to offshore drilling.
      […]
      “Anybody who thought getting rid of coal was going to be the end of concern about climate regulations’ impact on the fossil fuel sector” now sees “that’s a questionable assumption,” said Salo Zelermyer, a top Energy Department official under George W. Bush who now advises industry clients at Bracewell & Giuliani.
      In addition to EPA’s methane regulations, which are expected to affect existing emissions sources narrowly if at all, Interior’s Bureau of Land Management is preparing to open a White House budget office review as soon as this month on rules for drillers’ releases of the greenhouse gas on public lands. A separate BLM fracking regulation unveiled in March is stuck in legal limbo thanks to a challenge by two regional oil and gas groups but could go forward next month.
      […]

      https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/oil-gas-obama-environment-agenda-121347

      Murkowski Concludes Obama Aims to Kill Alaska’s Pipeline
      By Liz Ruskin, Alaska Public Media – February 18, 2015
      […]
      Murkowski says she’s not normally an alarmist, but she says President Obama’s actions in the Arctic show he’s trying to starve the trans-Alaska Pipeline of new oil.
      “I just can’t come to a different conclusion: It looks like the goal is to shut down the pipeline,” she said. “Now, they’re not saying that. But when you’re working against those initiatives that would allow us to fill it up, how can you conclude otherwise?”
      And, Murkowski says, if the pipeline is done and dismantled, the effect on the state would be huge.
      “Really, the Alaska that we know, I don’t think it exists anymore,” she said. “That’s not a future that I’m prepared for, and I don’t think that’s a future that any of us want.”
      Murkowski gave her annual address to the Alaska Legislature as a rallying cry — to the extent that her deliberative personal style allows. She urged Alaska leaders to storm ramparts – politically, anyway. She’s asking them to reach out to their contacts Outside to make Alaska’s case, and to make their views known to the federal government through the public process.
      She recited the issues that have inflamed Alaska’s leaders for weeks: Obama’s request for wilderness designation in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a decision to withdraw offshore areas from Arctic leasing, and restrictions in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
      Legislators applauded an idea she floated to put part of ANWR under state control, either by buying it, or through a land trade. Congress has been unable to pass a bill to open it to drilling. Murkowski didn’t explain why a land trade or sale would be any more popular, but she vowed to fight at every legislative opportunity.
      […]
      https://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/02/18/murkowski-concludes-obama-aims-to-kill-alaskas-pipeline/

      Industry responds to final well control rule
      12/15/2016
      The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) published its final drilling safety rule earlier this year to address a range of systems and equipment related to well control operations. The rule is designed to improve the reliability of offshore equipment and systems and to reduce the potential for another event like the Deepwater Horizon.
      However, the new offshore drilling regulations designed to improve the reliability of equipment may bring more downtime, increased costs, and significantly more operator requirements for training and inspections. Industry experts also predict a potential loss of up to 190,000 jobs as a result of decreases in exploration and production.
      While the BSEE said it has incorporated more than 176 public comments and suggestions from the proposed rule into the final rule, and the full set of regulations will be phased in over a few years, many industry experts feel it is still too prescriptive and challenging to implement – not to mention too expensive – especially for an industry mired in the worst economic downturn in decades.
      Can the industry implement the new rule by the deadline and will the regulations have the desired effect? In reviewing the more than 500 pages of regulations, here are seven key takeaways about the final rule.
      […]
      Drilling margins
      One of the most contentious points of the final rule establishes mandatory drilling margins to “reduce the likelihood of a major well control event.” The original proposed rule had requirements for the drilling margin that operators must maintain to ensure that the pressure exerted by drilling fluids does not fracture the formation. The rule defined 0.5 pounds per gallon (ppg) as a safe drilling margin between the weight of drilling fluids and the amount of pressure a formation can withstand before fracturing.
      However, the API and other industry commenters asserted that this definition was both arbitrary and economically infeasible. They contended that this “one size fits all” approach would lead to operational problems from limiting the selection of drilling fluids or limiting the casing strings or production casing sizes. Some operators were also concerned that the new standard would restrict them from exploring certain reservoirs due to the decreased production from smaller hole sizes.
      For the final rule, BSEE kept 0.5 ppg as a default requirement, but allows the use of an alternative if the operator receives approval based on adequate justification and documentation, including supplemental data, submitted with its application for permit to drill.
      There is likely to be some potential flexibility here as discussions continue. Further clarification is needed, for example, about the exact process, timeframe, and criteria needed to gain approval of an exception. One operator that was interviewed was unclear about the documentation specifics and the supplemental judgment criteria being used to grant exceptions. In addition, it is possible that the BSEE may exempt or “grandfather in” wells that are in progress or already permitted.
      […]
      Estimate of financial impact
      BSEE’s regulatory impact analysis predicts that the overall cost of the rule implementation would be $165 million in the first year alone, with $77-$99 million for each of the following nine years. Even in its best estimates, the bureau even admitted that the rule implementation would have a “significant impact on a substantial number of smaller entities.”
      The industry as a whole has strongly criticized both the proposed and final rule and BSEE’s cost estimate. Specifically, many industry experts, the API, and some members of Congress criticize it as being overly prescriptive and suggest it could impede rather than enhance safety.
      Several operator and industry groups have weighed in and estimate that the final rule could cost a total of $25 billion over 10 years and render development and production of many offshore discoveries uneconomical. It could even potentially end development in the US outer continental shelf (OCS) and the Gulf of Mexico.
      Several integrated operators have openly stated that the bureau did not adequately account for the indirect costs associated with the rule, such as job losses resulting from contraction of offshore development.
      Some experts predict doom-and-gloom scenarios, including:

      Decrease exploration drilling by up to 35-40%
      Reduce Gulf of Mexico and OCS production by as much as 35% by the year 2030
      Potential reduction in workforce and layoffs of up to 100,000-150,000 jobs by 2030; this may include jobs beyond the energy industry; most notably, 80% of these jobs could be in Louisiana and Texas.

      With its focus on blowout prevention equipment, monitoring, maintenance and training, the final drilling rule is certain to have an impact on the offshore oil and gas industry. But at what cost? Are the current industry standards in API 53 sufficient to safeguard against disasters? And what criteria will be used when evaluating requests to use “other” procedures?
      […]

      http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-76/issue-12/regulatory-update/industry-responds-to-final-well-control-rule.html
      While the final Well Control Rule was not as bad as Obama’s first version, it was totally pointless, increased drilling costs and made no measureable difference in well control.

      • Regulatory Relief: The Untold Story of 2017
        DEC 18, 2017 – 9:00AM
        THOMAS J. DONOHUE
        President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
        After coming into office on the heels of a relentless regulatory onslaught from the Obama administration, President Trump and leaders in Congress worked diligently throughout 2017 to rein in the regulatory state. These actions didn’t always make big headlines, but their results certainly have. Soaring business confidence, a robust stock rally, and consecutive quarters with growth rates of 3% tell the story of an economy finally feeling relief from overregulation.
        President Trump started quickly upon entering office, promptly halting all pending regulations and signing executive orders to ensure that new rules were issued only if old ones were eliminated. Congress also took bold action early to seize a narrow window of opportunity to invalidate regulations using the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
        Under the CRA, Congress reversed 14 midnight regulations issued in the waning days of the Obama administration. One example was the Federal Contracts Blacklisting Rule, a devastating regulation that could have barred businesses from federal contracts for mere allegations of labor violations. Congress more recently used the CRA process to rescind the anti-arbitration rule, which would have effectively banned arbitration clauses in consumer contracts and forced all disputes to be dealt with in court. It would have amounted to an enormous gift to the trial bar.
        The Environmental Protection Agency was another bright spot for rule reversals. It took action to repeal harmful regulations like the sweeping Waters of the U.S. rule, which broadly expanded the definition of federally regulated bodies of water, and the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which sought to regulate large swaths of the economy.
        Harmful labor regulations were also rescinded…
        […]
        U.S. Chamber of Commerce

        https://www.uschamber.com/series/your-corner/regulatory-relief-the-untold-story-2017
        https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/annual_cost_of_new_regulations_reviewed_by_oira_each_fiscal_year.jpg

        The Trump Administration’s Historic Year in Deregulation
        DEC 18, 2017 – 12:30PM
        JOE JOHNSON
        Executive Director, Federal Regulatory Process Review and Analysis
        One of President Donald Trump’s first actions after entering the White House was beginning the process of rolling back the regulatory onslaught of his predecessor. As 2017 comes to a close, he should be pleased with the good start.
        […]
        Each year OIRA reviews “significant regulations” as defined by Executive Order 12,866 totaling on average a few hundred per year. Of those, a substantially smaller number of regulations are economically significant, meaning they carry costs greater than $100 million per year. OIRA catalogs these most costly rules each year in an annual report to Congress, in which it reports the estimated costs and benefits of the rules.
        Since 2009, that has meant about 14 new major regulations each year, with estimated costs totaling about $12 billion annually. In comparison, in fiscal year 2017, there were only three new regulations put on the books while 67 deregulatory actions were completed, and the total annualized cost of new regulations was negative $570.4 million.
        Thus, instead of adding 14 big new rules and adding another $12 billion to the cumulative burden of regulations, this year the federal government, on net, reduced the number of new rules and reduced the cumulative burden of regulations. This is the first time since OIRA began reporting that the number of new rules has been so small and that the annualized change in the regulatory burden has been negative.
        U.S. Chamber of Commerce

        https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/the-trump-administration-s-historic-year-deregulation

  13. “One thing Obama did was to simply enforce regulations that were on the books from earlier administrations.”
    Complete nonsense.

  14. The Aussies seem anti-coal and anti-CO2….but…when they advertise for global tourism they never show them arriving by sail boat……………

  15. With friends like Obama, nuclear did not need enemies.
    The first thing Obama did was install an anti-nuke to run the NRC and stop review of Yucca Mountain.

    • Harry Reid was probably an even bigger obstacle to Yucca Mountain… The most suitable geological repository for nuclear waste in these United States.

  16. Fortunately, Obama was not well versed in the law of unintended consequences. As a result of what he did other options were found. Now that Trump is in, not only are those other options going strong, but he can now undo the damage that Obama did (thus adding to those other options). AND we’re gonna need it. Did any of y’all notice the stock market today? Inflation jitters. Cheap energy is going to have to be a big part of the Trump Boom going forward. It can go a long way toward keeping inflation in check. (in fact we’re already in very good shape wrt cheap energy thanx to Obama’s unintended consequences, but it must get even better) And this is imperative because once inflation sets in for real it’s adios economy. The federal reserve sits poised to shut this economy down, as it’s always been one to do, once inflation sets in…

    • The federal reserves job is to protect the value of the currency.
      If you think high inflation is a joke, perhaps you should review the days of the Wiemar republic.
      The federal reserve only has two levers to control the money supply. The first is by either buying or selling t-bills which directly impacts interest rates.
      Or by adjusting the reserve requirements of all banks. This reduces the supply of money and causes banks to stop lending while they build their reserves to the new levels.

      • Well, if it isn’t Little MarkoW spewing his usual monetary nonsense…
        Folks, the way that the federal reserve protects the value of the currency (as mark so eloquently put it) is by undermining the value of labor. Yes, they do keep prices lower, but at the greater expense of buying power. Which is better? To have higher prices that more people can afford or lower prices that fewer people can afford? If inflation does kick in soon, the fed will bring the economy to a stand still. They’ll do this to keep fewer people employed and to keep wages lower for those who are employed. The net result is less economic activity— less buying and selling of goods and services. (all in the name of curbing inflation)…

      • Why do you leftists get so upset when faced with reality.
        When inflation hits, the only people who do well are those who own real assets. Mostly the rich.
        The poor are killed by inflation because the stuff they need to buy is going up in price much faster than their wages are.
        It would be nice if you actually learned something about economics instead of spouting third rate marxism over and over again.

      • Why doesn’t Little MarkoW get on the phone and tell Big Don what a commie he is for suggesting that poor people should have more jobs and better wages?

    • re the stock market plunge: Interest rates are going up so some people are moving a little money from stocks into bonds.
      And then there is program trading. A normal drop of a couple of hundred points becomes a big drop of 1,000 points when you have the robots doing the trading.
      And the stock market has climed steadily for 8,000 points so it was due for a pull back.
      But the fundamentals of the economy are strong and getting stronger so the stock market is going to go higher.
      Now might be a good time to buy in.

      • Hi TA, always nice to read your comments…
        Yes, the fundamentals of the economy are strong, but that’s not the issue here. The by-product of a robustly growing economy is inflation. So what the federal reserve does is make sure that the economy is less than robust by raising interest rates (which is what drove investors’ actions today). The unemployment rate stands now at 4.1%, the lowest the fed has let it go in nearly fifty years save briefly at the end of clinton’s term. If inflation kicks in, the fed will shut down the economy, period! So it’s only a good time to buy in if inflation doesn’t show up. The only wild card here is Jerome Powell, Trumps pick for the fed chair. This guy, being what they call a dove, is probably about as liberal as any fed chair that we’ve seen in a long time. Hard to say exactly what he’ll do in the face of inflation pressures. (all depends on him and cheap energy as to whether our next recession shows up before or after the 2020 election)…

      • afonzarelli wrote “The by-product of a robustly growing economy is inflation.
        Thanks for this insight. I’ve been trying to understand the high inflation rate of Venezuela.

      • +1 John F. Hultquist
        Inflation through out the whole XIX century, time of the most robust long term growth, was ZERO. Even the civil war only affected “greenback” value, but currency (silver and gold coins) were unaffected.
        A dollar could buy just the very same thing from ~1800 to ~1900. Now you need ~25 of those dollar to get it

      • Guys, that a robustly growing economy causes inflation is the cornerstone of federal reserve monetary policy. That’s why they raise (and are currently raising) interest rates, to slow the economy down. There are differing reasons that inflation can happen. (what i’m referring to here is known specifically as demand inflation)…

      • What causes inflation is the money supply growing faster than the supply of goods.
        P@ranoia may be cute, but it’s an awful economic policy.

      • A number of things can cause inflation. Yes, growing money supply is one. But there is also higher energy prices, higher wages and higher demand, etc. The fed treats them all the same. They raise interest rates to curb economic growth which reduces demand inflation (and wage inflation)…

        • Also… Remember that the stock market often reacts to indications of things to come.
          The best wage growth in a decade, spiked bond yields, which tanked the stock market on fears that the Fed would raise interest rates more quickly than expected… The Fed didn’t actually do anything or even say anything.

  17. “There has been no war on energy.” Right. Hillary never talked about putting coal miners out of business, and the Climate Mafia never invoke the evils of fossil fuels, the evil of fossil fuel companies, and/or the evil of fossil fuel employees. Apparently progressivism means never having to say you’re sorry.

  18. Let’s see now, Obama helps bankroll Al Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange then once in the President chair
    pushes policy (cap and trade ) that would directly benefit his pals at the Chicago Climate Exchange . No conflict there .
    How much unauthorized money disappeared from USA tax payers as Obama got set to collect his pension ? $ Half a billion plus all that to rent seekers .
    President Trump will eventually get around to it’s recovery and hopefully criminal charges .

  19. The US is losing out on the renewable energy revolution owing to Trump’s misguided energy policies. Renewables are steaming ahead in Europe and ROW and the Trump-led focus on the dying coal industry means that America is LOSING OUT FINANCIALLY on these fast-growing industries that are creating revenue and jobs around the planet. Countries like the UK and China are capitalising on this market weakness:
    https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/02/06/uk-built-half-of-europes-offshore-wind-power-in-2017/

  20. @ivan,
    you quoted no source for your claims, so I guess your dog could have come up with these. Did it?
    I think not. No dog is clever enough to state such nonsenses.
    You seem very proud of UK of having $9 per Watt offshore wind ( https://www.statoil.com/en/news/hywindscotland.html ; note that they also claim a “60-70 percent cost reduction per MW”, meaning the thing they compare costed like $25~30 per W)
    You seem to believe that the more expensive the thing, the more jobs are created. Well, your believing such nonsense is fully coherent with all your other nonsensical beliefs

    • Offshore wind… Half as reliable as coal *with* CCS *and* more expensive…
      https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/lcoe2017.png
      https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
      How can companies like Dong bid £57.5/MWh (~$80/MWh) for offshore wind contracts when the LCOE is $157/MWh? By getting a pile of taxpayer-funded cash up front…

      UPDATE – Dong to build Hornsea 2 after CfD win at GBP 57.5/MWh
      Sep 11 (Renewables Now) – Denmark’s Dong Energy A/S said today it has taken a final investment decision on the 1,386-MW Hornsea Project Two offshore wind farm after being awarded a contract for difference (CfD) at a record low price for the UK of GBP 57.50 (USD 76/EUR 63.3) per MWh.
      A total of three offshore wind projects representing about 3.2 GW of capacity were successful in the UK government’s CfD auction. The results, unveiled today, showed a hefty 50% fall in offshore wind costs compared to the previous tender in 2015. In the UK, the construction of grid connections is included in the project scope, unlike recent tenders in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. These assets are later sold to an offshore transmission licensee.
      Hornsea Project Two will be located 89 km (55 miles) from the Yorkshire coast and will become the world’s biggest offshore wind farm, leapfrogging the 1,200-MW Hornsea Project One that Dong Energy is currently constructing. It is due to be operational from 2022.
      The UK government granted development consent for Hornsea Project Two, with a capacity of up to 1.8 GW, last summer.
      […]

      https://renewablesnow.com/news/update-dong-to-build-hornsea-2-after-cfd-win-at-gbp-575mwh-582912/
      The lower the £/MWh bid, the bigger the pot of corporate welfare…

      The UK’s offshore wind sector could power a £17.5bn investment in the UK economy over the next four years after faster than expected cost-cutting slashed subsidies for the technology by half.
      The Government’s latest auction for support contracts, released on Monday, shows that offshore wind costs have halved in recent years to under £58 for every megawatt-hour of electricity produced, even lower than the estimates given by experts in the run-up to the results.
      The lower costs mean more wind farms will be able to apply for the £294m funding pot, bringing an investment surge of £17.5bn into the UK. The boom is even greater than the £11bn predicted by Renewable UK as recently as last week.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/11/ministers-fire-starting-gun-2019-renewable-energy-boom/
      £294 million is about $410 million. Dong will get a big chunk of that $410 million up front.
      This is the sort of idiocy that President Trump rejects…

      Introduction
      While the world absorbed the outcome of the US presidential election on November 9, 2016, the UK Government finally published plans for the second allocation round (AR2) for Contracts for Difference (CfD) which is now planned to start in April 2017.
      Consistent with announcements made in the Budget in March 2016, the Government has allocated £290m of funding for projects using “less established” technologies (so-called “Pot 2” technologies) commissioning in the 2021/22 and 2022/23 delivery years. Successful projects will be awarded a 15 year CfD.
      To be eligible to participate in AR2, all projects must have a target commissioning date falling between April 1, 2021 and March 31, 2023. For offshore wind projects building in phases, they will be permitted to commission up to two years later. Further details relating to eligibility and the auction round mechanics will be published in the Allocation Framework document in due course.
      It is important to recall that CfDs will be allocated to the cheapest projects first, regardless of their start date, provided that they fit within the budget profile. Also the strike price awarded to projects in an auction will be the highest strike price bid accepted for each delivery year (regardless of technology type), capped at the applicable technology specific administrative strike price.

      http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/144614/contract-for-difference-in-great-britain-the-offshore-wind-round#autofootnote2
      If you’re going to subsidize electricity generation, you should subsidize the generation sources that actually work: “Beautiful, clean coal” and nuclear power.
      http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-if-you-want-more-of-something-subsidize-it-if-you-want-less-of-something-tax-it-ronald-reagan-113-67-25.jpg

      • At the time of the announcement there was coverage here at WUWT re Dong Energy’s bid. I can’t find my post, but I did some digging on the back numbers, and the RET’s and feed in tariff’s were going to cost the consumer some $0.30/kW-hr for all that nice clean energy. That’s how they were reducing the upfront costs.

        • I think they go through a similar permitting process as offshore oil & gas platforms do. Although, if whales were actually being harmed by marine airguns, offshore wind power would have been banned long ago.

  21. “Not that we need a repository. Just reprocess the stuff like the rest of the world does.”
    MarkW does not have a clue.
    Reprocessing does not reduce the the amount of fission products. It only separates potential fuel from spent fuel rods. So you still need to store the fission products someplace for about 300 years until the level of radiation decreases.

  22. “But don’t let facts get in the way of your preconceived biases.”
    First of no facts were presented about cancer rates. Second when facts are presented and I check the facts, always, always it is fear mongering.
    Here is a verifiable fact. We all die. Age is the most significant factor. Anyone who thinks they can change that is a fool.
    People are afraid of dying and fear mongers take advatage of it.
    While I am a nonsmoker and I was glad that I did not have sit next to someone smoking at work; fear mongering about smoking and everything else gets old.

Comments are closed.