Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Monday, August 29. 2011Presidential Hot Air Vs US Energy FactsThis video is less than 6-minutes long. The US can be virtually energy independent, and cut our trade deficits dramatically, if not even reverse them, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US. Wonder how? Listen. Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Well, never let it be said that BOH didn't know what he was saying, been advised, or can keep to the narrative. Truth, to a politician, is like sunlight or garlic to a vampire...
Talk about "garlic to a vampire ..."Wonderful film clip, Bruce. And absolutely true. I'm always stunned at how ill-informed Mr. Obama is. And I fear it is deliberate. He promised, during his Presidential campaign, that he would bankrupt the coal industry. More than half of our electricity is generated by coal fired plants, so obviously he doesn't care whether we freeze or fry in the dark. And he isn't worried about putting all those coal miners out of work.
About a year ago, The Wall Street Journal had a special section on shale oil and gas within the boundaries of the United States recoverable with already in place technology. Did this delight our President? Umm. Not exactly. He unleashed his most aggressive environmentalists to try and discover the evils of recovering shale oil and gas. They're working hard at making a case against the fact that water [good old water] is used to inject into the layers of shale. The environmentalists are busy trying to make a case that mysterious chemicals are injected into the water during the process. I'm not sure how that particular lie is going down, but I'm sure the professor in the film clip knows. Marianne Yeah, they'll probably pull out the 'evils of di-hydrogen monoxide'.... You heard it here first!
Just because I'm the curious sort and always one to check sources, who is Terry J. Lovell, and what is he a professor of?
Dr. Terry J. Lovell, Professor of Business and Economics at Yavapai College in Prescott, Arizona
Very interesting.
Anyone with half a brain knows that we have abundant untapped natural resources in this country and that environmental policy has stopped us from exploiting them. I do, however, have to quibble a point with the presentation. Just because we have the more than any other country - is not proof that we have more than 2%. He never told us what percentage of oil reserves we actually have. It's a small but important point. He fails to debunk Obama's claim by missing this salient point. jg,
He not only fails to nail Obama's misrepresentation, he also introduces his own. His opening slide is about 'fossil fuels' not oil. That obviously includes coal and natural gas, with the US being dominant in coal and very strong in nat gas. That is why the metric is in billions of barrels of oil EQUIVALENT as opposed to billions of barrels of oil. And that is why the US has the highest bar on the chart, huge amounts of coal, lots of gas, not that much oil. To your point, irrelevant to the 2% number. The bigger issues revolve around the definition of reserves used. Without a qualifier (such as probable or proven) it generally means proven and economically recoverable at current prices. The reason the US has so few reserves under that definition is that our regulatory and tax structure, combined with the US blocking development outright, make a large part of our proven reserves unrecoverable at current prices. That is why Obama's 2% is not so much a lie as a misrepresentation. The gov't made the reserves we have unrecoverable (CA coast, ANWR, east coast etc...) then laments that we only have 2% of the recoverable reserves. Terry J. Lovell, PhD.
Tenured Prof of Business and Economics, Yavapai College , Prescott, AZ. been there for 20 yrs. Yeah, I know its not "Ivy League", but then the I-L boys and girls have FUBARRED things up pretty well! Bill Buckley: first hundred names in the Boston phonebook and all that! Google! Heh - the top ten colleges/universities for actual job placement.
University of Texas at Austin University of Notre Dame Penn State - University Park Clemson University Sweet Briar College Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology Southwestern University Smith College Bryant University Cornell University Notice anything? Good post Bruce. Some of us already knew this but it is nice to have the youtube video to fwd to others.
re Animal #3. You are right. Checking credentials should always be the first thing a person does when confronted with a presentation such as this. As you raised the question it saved me the effort of having to check the professor out. #4 jg:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SO1r5XkferI/AAAAAAAAApg/wXR_loOTAfM/s1600-h/Oil+Resources-04.jpg http://www.boemre.gov/revaldiv/Maps/National.pdf The 2% number is flat wrong. As Prof. Lovell said, that number is a lie. The U.S. has more fossil fuels than any other country. But Obama and the enviro crowd block any attempt to recover the energy, which makes energy very expensive. As Obama explicitly stated: "Electricity costs will ncessarily skyrocket." The red areas are where the Obama Administration has refused to allow any oil production: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_orkXxp0bhEA/Rj_L7EFXTKI/AAAAAAAAAH0/ZqfsVI-gt5Y/s400/nozone.jpg It's intolerable that this wonderful country is hobbled by parasites who lie to gain power, and then continue to lie to retain power.
Teachers' unions are complicit in keeping Americans ignorant by teaching children how NOT to think critically. Freedom cannot survive willful ignorance. The video seems idiotic to me. First he calls Obama a liar. But then he never provides a summary to show a number other than the 2% number quoted by Obama. He just rattles off a bunch of other numbers and we are supposed to conclude this proves Obama is lieing.
If you are going to call the president of the US a liar, at least have the respect to explain clearly why. Guys like this give us non-liberals a bad name. Yes, the US has a lot of "fossil" fuels and a lot of it is now economically viable for use.
And yes, there have long been those who said otherwise: I have a jpg file of a full-page advert stating that remaining coal would only last twenty years - from 1922! It is a battle of definitions (as in, how to define "is") of probable supply {lots} vs "proven reserves" {far less} as those who are aginst using in-country resources state the latter - which is to say wells/mines which are currently producing, at least on a test basis. The cited references and video illustrate several things to me (in no special order):
1.) The US has a HUGE (define that word any way you wish) amount of energy available, whether it be in the form of oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear fissile material, hydro, wind, even solar. 2.) Various interests, including "environmentalists," the EPA, power companies, fossil fuel companies, all work to block or hinder the use of some or all of this energy by consumers. 3.) Our global climate will change, almost regardless of what humans do. Our star's variable output has more to do with the Earth's changing climate than all the "carbon spewed into the atmosphere" by industrialization. 4.) This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned with real pollution (BP); but only wealthy societies are able to afford cleaning up their environments. Witness the horrible environmental mess in the "people's socialist democracies" that only came to light after 1989. Those governments did not care about their peoples' health, only about their "5-year plans" for industrialization. 5.) Capitalism is responsible for any and all value that is placed on these energy resources, as well as for the means to recover and utilize them. The reason that the estimates for the amount that is economically recoverable keeps going up is not because the price keeps going up (it doesn't just go up, but also down), but because of technological innovation that continually increases that amount of these resources that can be recovered; for instance, the "fracking" techniques that have made so much more of these fossil fuels available for recovery in just the last ten years. 6.) The main impediment to recovering and using these resources is not only the "environmental lobby," but it's skillful use of government agencies and the MSM to block any and all use of newly recoverable resources. Recently observed a discussion between someone loaded with the facts and figures, provided from both government AND private sources, and someone with little or no information. After quoting her sources and the facts and figures, her opponent actually said the words "we are not going to discuss the facts and figures, we are going to discuss what obama WANTS to do and is being prevented from doing by racist conservatives/republicans". Once I saw that we were going to throw facts and figures out the window, I decided not to become involved in the discussion.
We are different. If I had been a 3rd party when that conversation happened, I would have mocked the one who wanted to ignore the facts.
My experience is that when I have been wrong and realized it, I could either change my mind or hunker down feeling persecuted. Pointing out the opponent's idiocy would have given him or her a chance to see that reasonable people like us won't respect someone who will cling to a lie. But then again, a lot of people dislike me for that part of my personality. Your milage may vary. |
Tracked: Aug 29, 21:37