The Energy Industry and the recovery

According to Yahoo and Gallup the Oil and Gas industry is now the #1 most hated entity in the US. The.negative rating:is 61%.

To quote the article -

“Nearly two-thirds of Americans have a negative overall view of the oil and gas industry, falling below the U.S. government in the eyes of the public. In 2011, ACSI gave gas stations a score of 74, which placed it 11th from the bottom out of 48 industries. At the time of the 2012 Gallup survey, gasoline prices were on the rise. Plus, as Newport pointed out, people have to deal with the oil and gas industry every day when they put gas in their car “and they see prices inexplicably zoom up, and they’re not sure why.” Increasingly high revenues and government tax breaks may be one explanation for the oil and gas industry’s poor public image. The Gallup report also suggests that some Americans believe the industry has a poor environmental record, which is not always confined to events off-shore, or abroad. A fire broke out at one of Chevron’s oil refinery in Richmond, California last week, resulting in thousands of emergency room visits and potentially harmful exposure to toxic fumes. Accidents like than can only harm the industry’s image.”

This strikes me as a product, not of direct impact, but rather one of negativity of the LSM. Anyone who has their eyes open can see that the industry is more proactive in energy generation than any other and that the proper moniker these days should be 'the Energy Industry'. An example is BP's wind operations in Hawaii where such options make much more sense. Conventional power generation on the islands is very expensive due to having to haul everything in whereas with wind (or solar) local generation only needs transmission lines. BP, in conjunction with Sempra US already has over 1000 MW capacity operating or under construction. The new plant on Maui will supply a total of 21 MW, enough for about 10000 homes.

To this end Gov Romney's announcement this week of his energy policy is reason enough to vote for him with absolutely no other incentives. I have heard but not evaluated for myself the claim that his plan is based on a Citigroup work.

For me one thing immediately gets my attention: Jobs – The San Antonio Eagle Ford shale development is building jobs to last decades. The Romney plan can only make that better.

On top of that the spending records are driving much more than a couple of counties worth of interest. Texas gained, 2012 is setting records and 2013 will see another 13% increase with the lions share coming in the US.

Are things starting to improve? Don't bet on it. Read Bob Arnett's exposure of what the LSM won't tell you.

“How many of you are aware Sunoco, ConocoPhillips and The HESS Corp are all closing US oil refineries? Not many, as the media refuses to give this HUGE story coverage. My guess is that if Americans understood the complete truth to how we are being sold out, and enslaved there just might be the much needed revolution to turn this country around.”

But..... things could be looking up a lot and soon if we can get the public to apy attention.

People don't realize how much taxes add to the cost of a gallon of fuel, it is taxed several times before the final state and federal taxes at the pump.

I don't have a lot of respect for Loren Steffy. he's one of those "ready, fire, aim" kind of guys but like any blind hog, sometimes he finds an acorn.

America’s 5-year-old ethanol dream may be running out of gas.

The drought ravaging the Midwest is driving corn prices to record highs – rising 50 percent in the past six weeks – and sparking a renewed debate over federal mandates that require the blending of corn-based ethanol in gasoline.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the ethanol mandate, has begun weighing requests from governors of some states to waive the requirement.

Gov. Rick Perry requested a similar waiver a few years ago, but the EPA rejected the request because he couldn’t prove it caused direct economic harm to Texas. On Friday, he asked again for a waiver.

Farm groups argue the mandate is hurting meat and dairy producers by driving up feed costs and that it will ultimately lead to higher food prices worldwide. The United Nations’ top food and agriculture expert agrees, recently joining a growing global chorus calling on the U.S. to suspend the mandate.

So far, the government estimates food prices will climb by no more than 4 percent this year, but those forecasts are likely to be revised upward.

Ethanol has also contributed, modestly, to surging gasoline prices. In the past month, prices for regular unleaded rose nationally an average of about 7 percent – to $3.72 a gallon from $3.48, according to the American Automobile Association – but ethanol’s contribution to that, if any, has been no more than 6 cents a gallon, according to a recent study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Ultimately, refiners have to pass on higher ethanol costs or absorb them.

The combined threat of higher food and fuel prices draws long-overdue scrutiny to the underlying legislative fantasy that spawned the ethanol mandate.

Five years ago, President George W. Bush championed and Congress adopted the Renewable Fuels Standard, which requires that 10 percent of gasoline stock comes from ethanol. The mandate is set to rise to 15 percent in a few years.

At the time, the strategy was to reduce American dependence on foreign oil by developing a vibrant domestic biofuels industry.

The Obama administration embraced the policy, which fit with its own strategy of promoting alternative energy.

Ethanol has been a fuel under fire for the better part of a century. As far back as the 1920s, its development was opposed by oil companies trying to keep the farm lobby out of the energy business, even as members of Congress fretted about ethanol’s effect on food prices.

Despite the current international pressure to ease off the mandate, it isn’t likely to go away, especially in an election year. Democrats aren’t likely to abandon such a visible alternative fuels program months before a national election, and Republicans from farm states aren’t likely to push for a repeal or temporary waiver, either.

Congress already allowed tax credits for ethanol production to expire last year.

“The mandate is all that’s left protecting ethanol,” said Stephen Arbogast, a University of Houston finance professor who has studied biofuel development. “It’s a back-door price support for the farm lobby.”

Large-scale ethanol production hasn’t been profitable without government support for more than 30 years, and promises that developing corn ethanol would lead to new technology such as ethanol from switchgrass or other non-food plants haven’t materialized. By now, so-called cellulosic ethanol was supposed to be ramping up to large-scale production. The technology remains mired at the developmental phase.

In other words, Congress adopted legislative incentives, betting on a nonexistent technology.

Given all the ethanol infrastructure that was built in the mandate’s wake, it’s unlikely the government is going to change course. Far more likely: raising the blending threshold to 15 percent will be postponed or abandoned.

The rise of natural gas reserves from shale deposits has largely undermined the call for boosting ethanol content. Converting trucks and fleet vehicles to run on natural gas, for example, is much easier than developing economically viable biofuels, Arbogast said.

“Forcing more ethanol into the diminishing gasoline pool may not be a great idea,” he said. “Ethanol may have gone about as far as we want it to go.”

Rising food prices may finally be the catalyst that gets Congress to wake up from its ethanol dream.

Loren Steffy, 8/24/12

Taxes and also regulation. That's partly why Cali is more expensive than for example Michigan. Because they have so many wacky regulations that hike the price.

We keep our outlandish taxes more for booze and cigarettes.

The Institute of Energy Research recently published Hard Facts, an energy primer that seeks to correct myths that shroud current debate surrounding energy.

Domestically, the United States has enough of fossil fuels to last for centuries.

** In 2011, the United States produced 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, making it the world's top producer.
** In the same year, the United States produced 5.67 million barrels of oil per day, becoming a third largest oil producer.
** Proved worldwide reserves of conventional oil doubled from 642 billion barrels in 1980 to 1.3 trillion barrels in 2009.
** The United States has 261 billion tons of coal in proved reserves, making it the most in the world and over 27 percent of the world's proved coal reserves.
** In addition, the United States has 486 billion tons of coal in demonstrated reserve base, enough to last domestically for 485 years.

Renewable sources of energy get increasing amounts of subsidies despite their relatively small use as sources of energy.

** Wind power produced 1.2 percent of the energy used in the United States in 2011.
** Solar power only produced 0.1 percent of the energy used in the United States in 2011.
** Federal subsidies in fiscal year 2010 for solar-generated energy were $775.64 per megawatt hour and $56.29 per megawatt hour for wind.
** This is in contrast to the $3.14 per megawatt hour for nuclear energy, $0.64 for conventional coal, and $0.64 for natural gas and petroleum liquids.

The environmental impacts of traditional sources of energy have also been exaggerated.

** Since 1970, the six criteria pollutants have declined by 63 percent.
** This is in the face of the 180 percent increase of electricity generation from coal-fired plants, overall energy consumption increase of 40 percent, and the miles traveled by vehicles increasing by 168 percent.
** Energy use per person in the United States fell from 359 million British thermal units (BTUs) to 317 million BTUs between 1979 and 2010.
** The United States emitted only 17 percent of the global total of carbon dioxide emissions, compared to China's 24 percent.
** Furthermore, China's carbon dioxide emissions rose 167 percent from 1999 to 2009, whereas U.S. emissions decreased by 4.4 percent.

Institute for Energy Research
August 29, 2012

Watch this video and imagine the number of jobs that would be created if we doubled our nuclear fleet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wASEN...feature=relmfu