Pro-Production Energy Politics: Check Your Premises

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — March 15, 2022

“This letter to Biden is a very mixed bag of legalize and subsidize. It is hardly free market; it is a testament about how some Republicans and conservative Democrats are playing the government welfare game in a time of political defensiveness.”

Classical liberalism explains and justifies voluntary transactions between consenting adults. The framework is private property rights, the rule of law, and government abstinence, or neutrality.

Applied to civilian energy, the government should not research, commercialize, subsidize, or penalize. Government should buy energy for its usage, not requisition it. Market transactions should not be subject to price controls, allocation controls, or differential taxation. Jawboning by government officials toward non-market ends should be avoided too.

This background is necessary to parse a March 10, 2022, letter to Joe Biden from two Republicans, one (Trumpian) Democrat, and one Independent. [Don Bacon (R-NE); James Baird (I-IN); Jared Golden (D-ME); Dusty Johnson (R-SD)] I offer my classical liberal, free-market comments in green.

————————–

Dear President Biden:

We are writing to urge you to use all of the tools at your disposal, including invoking the authorities granted to you under the Defense Production Act (DPA), to rapidly increase domestic oil and gas production. By making a multi-year purchasing commitment to increase supply in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve [SPR], employing DPA authorities to expedite and expand domestic oil and gas production, and convening top oil producers to identify and address other barriers to production, you can help reduce domestic energy prices and further our nation’s energy independence while blunting the impact of President Vladimir Putin’s efforts to use Russian energy exports as leverage in the face of European and American sanctions.

COMMENT: This letter invokes the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, to quickly increase oil supplies to reduce consumer prices. There are some issues here.

One, expedited authorization could invoke eminent domain that is a government intervention against landowners. (Such has a free market angle: substeading beneath the land surface to avoid surface conflicts.) Second, SPR withdrawals should be in the context of oil-out-but-not-back-in. The reserve should be emptied and/or privatized but not readied for another government day. Refilling uses tax dollars and adds to the federal deficit.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. domestic oil production fell below 11.6 million barrels per day at the end of 2021 from a record high of 12.2 million in the previous year. With domestic oil production still below pre-pandemic levels and over 9,000 approved and unused oil drilling permits as well as numerous natural gas pipelines that could be brought online, the federal government and the private sector have ample opportunity to partner together to ramp up production and increase domestic supply.

COMMENT: The “9,000” lease number is misleading as a ready-to-produce figure. But expedited certification is doable and, indeed, must be done with anti-oil and anti-natural-gas polices at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) if not elsewhere.

To that end, we write today with a three-pronged plan to achieve these production and supply goals. First, your administration should provide financial certainty to domestic oil and gas producers by making a three-year purchase commitment for domestically produced oil that can be used to ensure that our Strategic Petroleum Reserve has ample supply to address current and future energy price increases. Given the volatility of oil prices over the past several years, that kind of commitment could go a long way towards giving oil producers the confidence to make the types of longer-term capital investments to help grow America’s energy independence in the coming years.

COMMENT: This is “pro-oil” and “pro-production” government intervention. True, every energy is on the government bandwagon for more subsidy, but oil and gas need freedom, not special government favor. So no, the federal government should not make a three-year purchase commitment to fill (refill) the SPR.

Second, you should invoke the DPA, which designates energy as a “strategic and critical material” that is necessary for our national defense. Under the DPA, your administration would be authorized to provide financial incentives to the private sector at a large scale through subsidies and loans to ensure that industry is able to access the raw materials and implement refinery enhancements needed to boost production. This is particularly important given that oil and gas producers have been struggling to procure steel pipes, high-quality sand, and other essential raw materials. The DPA also allows you to make direct purchases and purchase commitments for equipment, as well as the authority to procure and install that equipment in private industrial facilities. As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, the DPA can be an effective way to dramatically increase domestic production during a very short period of time.

COMMENT: No! Ouch! This is another “pro-oil” and “pro-production” government intervention. The federal government should not purchase or order “essential raw material” manufacturing to benefit oil and gas drilling. Current price incentives are all that is needed.

Lastly, you should use the power of the presidency to convene a summit at the White House with the top executives of our key oil and gas companies and their investors to identify and address the current challenges to raising output. Rather than suggesting that these companies may begin to engage in price gouging, you should appeal to their sense of patriotism in this heightened moment of international conflict and use your bully pulpit to encourage them to step up in support of American energy independence and security. Doing so would make clear that the federal government is serious about making long-term investments in domestic energy to reduce costs for consumers and protect producers in a volatile global market.

COMMENT: This request forthrightly tells President Biden to lay off and shape up. Support natural gas. Support oil. Such a “Nixon goes to China” moment would muddle the Green New Deal and Paris Climate Accord, but why not? Consumers, citizen-voters, have priority over speculative, long-term climate scenarios.

You could also use this opportunity with top producers to emphasize that the federal government’s partnership in increasing production must be accompanied by a renewed commitment from the private sector to investing in carbon capture, energy storage, and other technologies that will put our country on the path of long-term, responsible energy independence and development.

COMMENT: This tit-for-tat of government support for “a renewed commitment from the private sector to investing in carbon capture, energy storage, and other technologies that will put our country on the path of long-term, responsible energy independence and development” is political speak for federal subsidies for oil and gas companies to get their slice of the Green Pie. This is pandering to the enemy and defeatist for a sustainable oil and gas policy.

With the national average of the price of gas exceeding four dollars per gallon, it is clear that Americans need immediate relief from high gas and energy prices. We urge you to use the authorities currently at your disposal to expand and expedite domestic energy production and protect American consumers from future harm resulting from strong sanctions against Russia.

Doing so will help maximize domestic production now and minimize our dependence on foreign energy into the future. Should you need congressional action to facilitate these efforts, we stand ready to work with you to lower gas prices and build toward energy independence….

Final Comment

The above letter is a very mixed bag of legalize and subsidize. It is hardly free market; it is a testament about how some Republicans and conservative Democrats are playing the government welfare game in a time of political defensiveness. Tomorrow, a true classical liberal energy program will be shared with another letter to Joe Biden, this one from Americans for Prosperity.

4.4 9 votes
Article Rating
61 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 15, 2022 10:53 pm

I find the whole not drilling for oil premise astounding on its face. If Biden and Co really believe that not drilling for oil will prevent people from using it, why bother? Why not simply order people to stop using oil?

The backlash would be enormous of course, that’s why. But to drive the point home, that’s the question we should be asking every time the useful idiots assert that not drilling for oil will somehow stop consumption. If they want people to stop using oil, why aren’t they ordering them to stop?

Allan MacRae
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 16, 2022 12:11 am

Idiot dilettante politicians do what they do best – foolish dabbling with important systems that they do not understand and can only make worse and more expensive. High-fives all ’round!

Last edited 2 months ago by Allan MacRae
Thomas
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 16, 2022 1:29 pm

“Idiot dilettante politicians do what they do best – foolish dabbling with important systems which is whatever their lobbyists pay them to do.”

Fixed.

Spetzer86
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 16, 2022 5:06 am

When the bills come in late in 2022 for growing and shipping food products, people are going to start asking questions. When 2023 comes and so many farmers are being foreclosed because they couldn’t pay the 2022 bills, just asking questions is going to be too late.

CoRev
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 16, 2022 5:29 am

David asks: “If Biden and Co really believe that not drilling for oil will prevent people from using it, why bother?” Biden and the greens obviously do not believe this. If they did, they would not ask for increased production from outside US producers. It is GREEN VIRTUE SIGNALLING allowing for future claims that under Biden’s watch US CO2 production went down due to reduced oil production while world-wide CO2 production continued to increase.

How much longer must the world be held hostage by a virtue signalling minority?

MarkW
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 16, 2022 6:44 am

By making it more difficult to produce oil, they use market forces to make the now scarce oil more expensive.
This way they can place all the blame for expensive oil on the greedy oil companies.
If they ordered people to stop using oil, they would have to take the heat for their policies.

Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2022 7:21 am

That’s my point, yes. What I am saying is we need to call out the issue when speaking to libtards. Ask THEM the question. Why stop drilling, why not just order people to stop using oil? I tried this once already and the response was “you can’t do that, I need my car” to which I replied, well fine then, you need to support drilling then.

The cognitive dissonance was apparent.

Duker
March 15, 2022 11:16 pm

Where is Biden stopping increased oil production?
It’s already a market driven system which closed down production when demand fell for covid , now the demand hasnt risen as much as prices , which suits the producers just fine

michael hart
Reply to  Duker
March 16, 2022 1:30 am

And we would probably regret the return of Standard Oil Corporation.
Too little regulation can be as bad as too much once a monopoly is established.
Our main problem today is Left Coast big-tech.

Derg
Reply to  michael hart
March 16, 2022 3:12 am

Probably not.

MarkW
Reply to  michael hart
March 16, 2022 6:46 am

Standard Oil was never a monopoly and was already losing market share to it’s competitors long before it was broken up by the government.
Monopolies are impossible without the help of government.

michael hart
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2022 8:09 am

Maybe. Maybe not.
What does Google, Facebook, or Microsoft do when feeling threatened?
They buy their competitors.

TonyG
Reply to  michael hart
March 16, 2022 10:47 am

DeBeers?

MarkW
Reply to  TonyG
March 16, 2022 6:06 pm

Not a monopoly. World’s largest supplier, but not a monopoly.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
March 17, 2022 8:15 am

World’s largest supplier mostly due to their ownership of the world’s largest source of diamonds.

MarkW
Reply to  michael hart
March 16, 2022 2:02 pm

The first thing they do is buy congressmen and get laws passed to make competing with them more difficult.

Last edited 2 months ago by MarkW
Drake
Reply to  MarkW
March 17, 2022 10:12 am

Too big to fail sound familiar?

Don Perry
Reply to  Duker
March 16, 2022 4:21 am

When you close down pipeline construction and shut down oil leases, you send a strong message of what the intent is. Are you not aware of futures trading?

OweninGA
Reply to  Don Perry
March 16, 2022 5:27 am

Not to mention the bank regulators being told to de-platform oil exploration as a matter of policy. The SEC is also requiring publically traded companies in oil exploration to list all sorts of imaginary costs of climate change as risk to profitability. You don’t have to send a single regulator to an oil well to completely shut down an industry.

TonyG
Reply to  Don Perry
March 16, 2022 10:50 am

you send a strong message of what the intent is.

Apparently the “free market” doesn’t react to outside forces…

jeffery p
Reply to  Duker
March 16, 2022 5:30 am

Since Brandon took office, every department and agency has added fighting climate change to its core mandate. Deregulation is out. Prices are driven by supply and demand.

OweninGA
Reply to  jeffery p
March 16, 2022 6:27 am

I don’t know who down-voted this correct statement. The Biden White House has definitively added climate change fantasies to every regulatory agencys’ core missions. Thus oil and gas will be regulated to the maximum extent enforceable in the courts. Deregulation is a thing of the past. Clearly this is going to negatively impact supply which will signal higher pricing in a free market. Jeffery just said it in fewer words.

MarkW
Reply to  OweninGA
March 16, 2022 6:48 am

We have a fair number of trolls who are convinced that government is the solution to every problem. To them any criticism of government action is a sin that must be opposed.

DonM
Reply to  OweninGA
March 16, 2022 10:12 am

There are also people that would like to see comments & articles without ‘brandon’ type statements included.

(I believe that brandon, and those like them, get away with the crap they get away with is because they are given undeserved courtesy. If everyone let him (and those like him) know what they think of him every time they spoke to him (or of him) it would make a difference.

jeffery p
Reply to  OweninGA
March 16, 2022 11:22 am

Probably the guy I replied to.

MarkW
Reply to  Duker
March 16, 2022 6:45 am

Anticipated demand is as big a factor as current demand.

Allan MacRae
March 15, 2022 11:59 pm

Thoughts from a decade ago:

To understand the big picture, understand this:
If you live in the developed world and you suddenly lose access to cheap reliable energy, you and your family will probably not survive. When idiot politicians fool around with energy policy and try to pick winners and losers, they are playing a very dangerous game. When they base their energy policy decisions on fraudulent global warming “settled science”, they are playing a fool’s game. Either way, you lose.
– Allan MacRae, 19March2012

Thoughts from two decades ago:

In 2002 my co-authors and I published:
1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
I published on September 1, 2002:
3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

Last edited 2 months ago by Allan MacRae
Burl Henry
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 16, 2022 7:13 am

Allan MacRae

Your points 1 and 2 are are correct.

However, solar activity is NOT the main driver of surface temperatures, the Control Knob for Earth’s temperatures is the amount of reflective SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere, primarily of volcanic origin.

Consequently, you can make NO predictions about future temperatures, it all depends upon the size and numbers of future eruptions.

The attached image shows the correlations between volcanic eruptions and temperature changes, for the period 1955-2018- An eruption causes temperatures to decease (usually forming a La Nina), and, when their SO2 aerosols settle out, usually forming an El Nino, due to the cleansed air.

Scan_20211208.jpeg
Allan MacRae
Reply to  Burl Henry
March 16, 2022 10:27 pm

I disagree – volcanoes are second to solar activity.
Solar activity and oceanic oscillations drive the Nino34 SST’s.

This formula works reasonably well back to 1982, which is the limit of my data availability. The Sato index is a function of century-scale volcanoes.
I doubt that the recent Hunga Tonga eruption is big enough to affect global temperatures – but it certainly blew high enough.

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
[excerpts]

5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:

UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)

6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).

Note: Atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales. The future cannot cause the past. (MacRae, January 2008).

Inputs:
comment image
Nino34 Index below -0.5 indicates a la Nina condition.
file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg

comment image
Note the cold blue across the Pacific equator. That is the region of the Nino34 area.This formula works reasonably well back to 1982, which is the limit of my data availability. The Sato index is a function of century-scale volcanoes.
I doubt that the recent Hunga Tonga eruption is big enough to affect global temperatures – but it certainly blew high enough.

CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/15/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-2/
[excerpts]

5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:

UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)

6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).

Note: Atmospheric CO2 changes LAG temperature changes at all measured time scales. The future cannot cause the past. (MacRae, January 2008).

Last edited 2 months ago by Allan MacRae
Drake
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 17, 2022 10:18 am

Don’t be silly Alan.

If the sun had ANY effect, the temperatures at night, when the sun isn’t shining would be, in general, much cooler than during the day, when the sun IS shining.

Since that is not the case, you know, the temperature is the same day and night, sun shining or clouds, etc. then your premise that the sun can effect the earth’s climate is ridiculous.

/s

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Drake
March 17, 2022 9:30 pm

Your hypo is utterly false.
In low humidity areas such as deserts, there is a huge difference between day and night temperatures.

See CorrectPredictions.ca
Excerpt:

OTHER GLOBAL COOLING FORECASTS:

THE NEW LITTLE ICE AGE HAS STARTED
H. I. Abdussamatov 2016
“The quasi-centennial epoch of the new Little Ice Age has started at the end 2015 after the maximum phase of solar cycle 24. The start of a solar grand minimum is anticipated in solar cycle 27 ± 1 “in 2043 ± 11 and the beginning of phase of deep cooling in the new Little Ice Age in 2060 ± 11.”

PROFESSOR VALENTINA ZHARKOVA: “WE ENTERED THE ‘MODERN’ GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM ON JUNE 8, 2020”
August 30, 2020 Cap Allon
A new editorial paper has landed from Professor Valentina Zharkova, entitled: “Modern Grand Solar Minimum will Lead to Terrestrial Cooling“. Published on August 4, 2020, Zharkova’s latest analysis suggests that June 8, 2020 was the date on which we entered the Modern (Eddy) Grand Solar Minimum.

The opening paragraph reads:
In this editorial I will demonstrate with newly discovered solar activity proxy-magnetic field that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of solar magnetic field and activity like during Maunder minimum leading to noticeable reduction of terrestrial temperature.

Dr Zharkova’s co-author Dr Yelena Popova was interviewed about their 2015 paper predicting global cooling, starting circa 2020.

DOES MACHINE LEARNING RECONSTRUCT MISSING SUNSPOTS AND FORECAST A NEW SOLAR MINIMUM?
V.M. Velasco Herrera, W. Soon, D.R. Legates, August 1, 2021
[excerpt]
In addition, our ML model forecasts a new phase of extended solar minima that began prior to Sunspot Cycle 24 (ca. 2008–2019) and will persist until Sunspot Cycle 27 (ca. 2050 or so). 
Herrera, Soon and Legates in 2021 used a novel analysis and reached a similar conclusion, for cooling from ~2008 to ~2050.
I published that there was a period of global cooling that started in ~2008 at the end of Solar Cycle 23, and this cooling ended circa 2013.

MORE EVIDENCE OF COOLING

Global cooling started circa February 2020, driven not by CO2 but by low solar activity at the end of SC24. See electroverse.net for extreme-cold events  and crop losses.

Severe flooding in China in 2019, 2020 and 2021 has destroyed crops and caused major concerns about food supply.
Expert meteorologist Joe D’Aleo and MacRae co-authored this paper about the huge crop failures across the Great Plains of North America in 2019.

THE REAL CLIMATE CRISIS IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING, IT IS COOLING, AND IT MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019
[excerpt]
It is notable that crop planting has occurred one month later-than-usual in the North-central growing areas of North America in both 2018 and 2019. While warm summer weather saved the 2018 crop, in 2019 the Northern corn and soybean harvests were devastated by a cold summer and early cold weather. In 2019, there were many more record U.S. all-time daily low temperatures than record highs. 

ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 19, 2022 2:03 pm

Wow, Alan, you need to cool down. Drake was obviously being sarcastic. Re-read the second and third paragraphs!

Thomas Gasloli
March 16, 2022 12:08 am

Everything that is wrong with the markets (stock, commodity, real estate, etc) is caused by the government and the misallocation of resources due to its actions to select winners & losers through a combination of subsidies & targeted regulations.

Unfortunately, politicians get elected by promising to interfere and select winners & losers.

Any actions by the government to interfere in the oil & gas market will have negative impacts.

If government wants to help it needs to get out of the way & just let the markets work.

Derg
Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
March 16, 2022 3:15 am

Yep, the goal should be to have the least amount of government for everything.

Sadly, fiat currency enables bigger government.

Paul Buckingham
March 16, 2022 2:15 am

Basic scenario: all anyone needs to do is ensure that they own the land they are drilling on, then either supply based on the human right to earn a living, or simply provide supply and say they are not (i.e. play the politics game – which comes with the added benefit of none of taxation because ‘they’re not doing it’).

In terms of eminent domain, that would be a ridiculous attempt, as the process to enforce that can be defeated very easily.

jeffery p
Reply to  Paul Buckingham
March 16, 2022 5:34 am

Just because you (or a company) owns land, doesn’t mean you can do what they want with it. Just ask around.

MarkW
Reply to  Paul Buckingham
March 16, 2022 6:49 am

The other problem is that various governments own a huge percentage of the country. Especially out west.

Ron Long
March 16, 2022 3:12 am

Big oil-producing companies are not in the business for anything other than “maximize shareholder wealth”. Sure, for several reasons, they have increased levels of social awareness, environmental impact, and political intrigue (reasons which include general cultural changes and professional employees having good intentions as environmental stewards, for instance). So, as regards the issue of un-used drilling permits, this is a corporate choice that could be simple, ie, initial drill testing did not provide the expected results and a pause ensues to study the project, or the current political intentions are working against the prospects of a viable future economic environment, or (one of my favorites) drilling on another project meets with such great success that monetary resources are shifted to drill more there. Complex issues require significant review and study and are not likely to have socialist political solutions.

OweninGA
Reply to  Ron Long
March 16, 2022 5:28 am

The political/regulatory environment is the driver right now. If you don’t have confidence your banking and finance will be allowed, you don’t make the initial investment.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
Reply to  Ron Long
March 16, 2022 5:38 am

Operators with large Federal lease positions in New Mexico and Wyoming, like EOG and Devon, stockpiled about 4 years worth of drilling permits after the 2020 election because Brandon said he was going to halt all new permitting. That’s the origin of the “9,000 approved and unused oil drilling permits” canard.

Tom Abbott
March 16, 2022 3:58 am

What should be done to increase fossil fuel production, and reduce prices, is to do what Trump did. Open up the market. Stop suppressing the financing of oil and gas wells. Get the government out of the way.

Of course, this is not going to fly with Biden. He insists on destroying the fossil fuel industry because he has the delusional idea that CO2 is dangerous to humans and the planet, even though there is not one shred of evidence to support such a position.

The United States has a delusional leader who is leading us down the road to ruin. Biden should be impeached and removed from office in January 2023, for dereliction of duty. Let’s hope Republicans get enough votes this November to accomplish this nation-saving goal.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
jeffery p
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 16, 2022 5:37 am

Brandon doesn’t have any ideas, never did, never will. Same with principles.

What Brandon knows is where the money is. The big donors all want to pay homage to the environmental movement and all want to feel better by stopping climate change. (As if.) If the money switched sides, so would Brandon.

OweninGA
Reply to  jeffery p
March 16, 2022 6:30 am

As long as “the big guy” still gets his 10%, all is well.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 16, 2022 6:57 am

There are two types of Democrats.
The first actually do believe that CO2 is dangerous.
The second know that he whole CO2 thing is a scam, but are convinced that government is the solution to every problem. They are convinced that government is so wonderful, that once government has full control over everything, that they will easily be able to repair whatever damage might be done by the CO2 scam. So they are willing to ride the scam in order to gain the government power they want.

BobM
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 16, 2022 8:24 am

Impeachment by the House is one thing, conviction and removal from office by the Senate requires a 2/3 vote and will never happen. Not only that, but Biden has protected his flank with the other idiot, Kamala Harris, as his Vice-President. Nobody, literally nobody, wants her to be President.

Michael Nagy
March 16, 2022 4:28 am

This letter to Biden is a waste of time. He will never relent, no matter what happens to the country or its citizens. He is right now blaming Putin for his own folly.

OweninGA
Reply to  Michael Nagy
March 16, 2022 6:31 am

The very worst part of the whole thing is he and his inner circle seem to actually believe their spin. That is very dangerous.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael Nagy
March 16, 2022 6:58 am

Pelosi has been claiming that more government spending actually reduces the deficit.

She’s been asked to explain how that works, but hasn’t seen fit to explain the connection.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
March 16, 2022 2:07 pm

Reminds me of the debate over ObamaCare, when asked to explain how ObamaCare was justified under the constitution Pelosi’s response was “Are you kidding?”

Observer
Reply to  Michael Nagy
March 16, 2022 8:34 am

You nailed it. This letter might make those who wrote it feel like they’re doing something, and that’s not at all bad. But other than that, it’s pointless.

Biden (well probably not really Biden, cuz many including myself don’t think he’s calling the shots) is doing this on purpose. The plan is to get the price of oil so high that the free market will select solar/wind instead of fossil fuels. Don’t expect relief anytime soon, Biden (or whomever) wants to make this permanent.

Russia vs Ukraine is another disaster they’re not letting go to waste — trying to blame Putin for gas prices…but that may be a bridge too far as most folks I know see right through that one.

Tom Halla
March 16, 2022 5:02 am

Announcing that ESG policies by companies such as Blackrock discouraging the funding of fossil fuel development will be regarded as violating fiduciary duties to the customers would help.

jeffery p
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 16, 2022 6:31 am

There oughta be a class action lawsuit.

jeffery p
March 16, 2022 5:26 am

Well, geez, if the government doesn’t intervene, how are the politicians going to get credit for “doing something?” Remember, the voters love it when the government “does something.” Anytime there’s a problem, there’s a bunch of near-hysterical citizens demanding the government to “do something.”

Sarcasm aside, what we need is less interference in the market, less mandates, subsidies and set-asides and lighter regulation. Trump showed us what we can do when the government gets out of the way.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
March 16, 2022 5:32 am

“This letter to Biden is a very mixed bag of legalize and subsidize. It is hardly free market; it is a testament about how some Republicans and conservative Democrats are playing the government welfare game in a time of political defensiveness.”

As a 41-year veteran of the oil & gas industry, I would like to thank the “some Republicans and conservative Democrats” for their sentiments. What you laid out is a helluva lot better than the daily schist sandwiches being doled out by the Doddering Fool in Chief.

However, how about just telling Brandon and his ilk to GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR WAY!!!

  • Resume holding and honoring the results of Federal oil & gas lease sales – as you are required by law to do.
  • Stop babbling about shutting down permitting.
  • Reverse the recent trend of slow-walking permits.
  • Stop nominating @$$holes who are hell-bent on defunding the oil & gas industry.
  • Restore the ANWR leases that you lawlessly revoked.
  • Fully open up ANWR & NPRA in Alaska and the entire Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to exploration & production.
  • Reverse your moronic decision to rescind the permits for the Keystone XL pipeline.
  • Stop putting up roadblocks to new pipelines and LNG export facilities.
  • Shut the frack up about climate emergencies, catastrophes and crises… At worst, it is a minor long-term problem that could easily be dealt with, if it was treated as such.
Robert Bradley
Reply to  David Middleton
March 16, 2022 6:38 am

I can dig this ….

MarkW
Reply to  Robert Bradley
March 16, 2022 2:08 pm

But can you drill it?

c1ue
March 16, 2022 6:40 am

Please explain the comment involving eminent domain. What is the type of problem this is intended to address? In general, I am personally very uncomfortable with such actions.

jeffery p
Reply to  c1ue
March 16, 2022 8:37 am

I believe they’re claiming eminent domain is necessary because it’s a national emergency. While the latter is true, the former is not.

Our national security and economic security depend in great part upon a ready supply of affordable fossil fuels. Energy independence is key to both of these.

To quote BHO – no one can dispute that.

Gary Pearse
March 16, 2022 7:37 am

Robert, it’s always hard to pick a fault in your contributions. The deliberate harm done to the industry does need some form of antidote. The high prices are not in themselves an incentive. They got there because of the success of deluded leaders in damaging the financing, production, transport, punitive regulations on all aspects, favoritism to energy not capable of competing in a fair marketplace, policies for a future without oil and gas, and destruction of the image of the industry and its workforce.

Why should they not bleed the consumer dry with high prices and maximize returns to capital already invested if there is a deadline for shutting down the industry. Why should the industry trust that government is not only looking for a way out of a tight spot for the next election.

Maybe industry tightening the screws more is the best way to break the back of the green lunacy. The poor? The middle class? This will smarten up voting in the next elections for a couple or more generations.

jeffery p
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 16, 2022 8:42 am

My cynical experience makes me believe that if gasoline, natural gas and electricity become unaffordable, it’s just an excuse for expanded government. There’s nothing a misguided government program can screw up that another misguided government program can’t be created to address those problems. It’s an infinite loop.

If it moves, tax it. If it stops moving, subsidize it is how things seem to work for Democrats and establishment Republicans alike.

David Middleton(@debunkhouse)
Editor
March 16, 2022 9:15 am

In the early days of WWII, about 100 oil tankers were sunk in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico by Nazi U-boats. These tankers were transporting crude oil to refineries in the northeast US, from which diesel and gasoline would be shipped to Great Britain. FDR invoked powers akin to the DPA to coordinate the efforts of the US government and the oil industry.

In 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt appointed Harold Ickes, the Secretary of the Interior, as the Petroleum Coordinator for War. His role was to coordinate the efforts of federal and state agencies, as well as industry, to ensure adequate supplies for military operations as well as domestic needs. This required increasing oil production to meet the needs of the US and Britain, as well as solving the problem of transporting crude oil from Texas and Louisiana to New York and Delaware. The effort resulted in increased exploration and production, as well as pipeline construction to transport the oil overland, safe from the U Boat attacks. US oil production from 3.7 million barrels a day in 1940 to 4.7 million barrels a day in 1945, sufficient to meet the needs of the country and provide the needed fuel for the war. New fields were discovered across the country, including Texas, Louisiana, Michigan, and Florida. The discovery of the Sunniland Field in south Florida, which plays a prominent role in my novel Sunniland, had the additional benefit of access to the Intracoastal Waterway along the East coast of the US, protected from the U Boat threat.

https://www.stephenosears.com/post/u-boats-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-torpedoed-tankers-and-the-oil-supply-during-wwii

https://www.nist.gov/blogs/taking-measure/big-inch-fueling-americas-wwii-war-effort

Of course, back then, we were on the same side in WWII. Since the November 2020 coup only the oil industry has been on the US side. The Brandon maladministration is clearly on the other side in this war… 😉

Last edited 2 months ago by David Middleton
%d bloggers like this: