Energy executive chides Obama administration

[ilbob]

http://www.isa.org/Content/ContentGroups/News/2009/May38/Energy_executive_chides_Obama_administration.htm

5 May 2009
Energy executive chides Obama administration
“We drilled this core sample back when we still used carbon paper in the office to make copies of documents,” joked William Whitsitt, a Devon Energy vice president, “and I’m very excited about it today.”

Whitsitt spoke Monday at Offshore Technology Conference (OTC) on the topic of making U.S. energy policy less partisan and more productive.

The reason Whitsitt is excited is that at the time Devon took that sample, some 30 years ago, the product that was downhole didn’t meet the price point that would make it feasible to mine. Oil was too cheap. Lifting it out was too expensive.

“What if we put today’s technology to use?” he queried. “Turn us loose!”

Whitsitt decried the governmental restrictions that preclude going after this oil now. It’s off the coast of Atlantic City and in about 400 feet of water, which was deep back then.

Whitsitt pointed out public opinion polls show two-thirds of the public favor exploration and oil extraction on our outer continental shelf these days.

He also pointed to the sterling safety record of the offshore industry. There hasn’t been a significant spill in over 30 years and the technology is even better.

In meetings with an Obama administration official and upon citing all the numbers and evidence favoring new exploration, the administrator said, “I don’t doubt that your figures on the safety of the oil and gas exploration industry are true. But I’m 45 years old and by the time I’m 70, I want the use of hydrocarbons as energy to be over.”

“How can I talk to someone like that,” Whitsitt said. “My college logic teacher didn’t prepare me for this.”

Whitsitt said energy policy discussion in the U.S. has become highly polarized and partisan. Groups advocating one approach or the other regularly talk past one another.

Politicians make claims without factual basis or knowledge of energy markets.

– Nicholas Sheble

 

[longeyes]

You can't talk to them.

There, I said it.

[Werewolf]

In meetings with an Obama administration official and upon citing all the numbers and evidence favoring new exploration, the administrator said, “I don’t doubt that your figures on the safety of the oil and gas exploration industry are true. But I’m 45 years old and by the time I’m 70, I want the use of hydrocarbons as energy to be over.”

The KING has spoken!

So has it been said; so has it been written.

LET it BE SO!

[Standing Wolf]

Politicians make claims without factual basis or knowledge of energy markets.

[sincerity] Yeah, but they care about the common man. [/sincerity]

[makattak]

Yep.

"I don't like the way things are, so I'm going to force EVERYONE in this country to pay for the future I envision!"

Oh yeah, these guys have so much empathy.

[wquay]

It doesn't matter what this "administrator" wants. Budget deficits and the rising cost of oil make offshore drilling unavoidable.

In a way, this is a good thing. Delay it long enough, and they'll be selling that oil at $200/bbl instead of $30/bbl.

[makattak]

It doesn't matter what this "administrator" wants. Budget deficits and the rising cost of oil make offshore drilling unavoidable.

In a way, this is a good thing. Delay it long enough, and they'll be selling that oil at $200/bbl instead of $30/bbl.

And the government will get to scream about OBSCENE PROFITS (that they caused) AGAIN!

[longeyes]

Offshore drilling is unavoidable?

Think again.  You are applying Enlightenment thinking to Medieval times.

[tokugawa]

It's a plot.  A plot to destroy the thinking man.  These pronuncments are made so any thinking person reading them will immediately have their brain explode. 

[sanglant]

oh, its like the image picard wanted to infect the borg with

[Perd Hapley]

You are applying Enlightenment thinking to Medieval times.

Precisely. 

[wquay]

Offshore drilling is unavoidable?

Think again.  You are applying Enlightenment thinking to Medieval times.

There's an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil off the coast of CA. At $200/bbl, that's 2 trillion dollars. It might take a while, but money is the most powerful ideology in American politics.

[De Selby]

I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.

[MicroBalrog]

I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.

I want to drive four-wheel-drive cars. The oil-man wants me to drive 4WD cars. Obama wants to eliminate 4WD cars.

I want to live in a house. The oil-man wants me to live in a house. Obama thinks flats are more 'efficient'.

I want to consume more products. The oil-man wants me to consume products. Obama thinks consumption is bad for Mother Gaia.

[makattak]

I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.

I cannot speak to your interests, though I will bet Obama's and yours are more closely alligned than that of the oil man.

The oil man's interests are in providing me a good that I wish to purchase. I'd say his are more in line than Obama's which are PREVENTING me from buying a good that I wish to purchase.

But that's me. You might like living in a mud hut with good intentions for heat.  

[buzz_knox]

If you are using a computer, then the odds are that you consume electricity.  Electricity has to be produced by some means and the options are very limited as to how to do so.  You have coal, nuclear, gas, oil, hydro, solar, wind, and tidal action.

Coal is plentiful and our best chance of getting free of foreign energy dependence in the immediate future.  Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has declared open war on the industry.

Nuclear is our best chance for energy independence for the long-term.  Unfortunately, various interest groups in the US are at war with nuclear power and they hold sway with the administration.  Which is funny, since as a world citizen, you'd think Obama would accept nuclear power since the rest of the world typically has few issues with the concept and since they didn't try to abort their programs in their infancy, they actually have few operational issues.

Gas?  Somewhat plentiful but expensive because Clinton/Gore blocked pipeline production.  Since it's a fossil fuel, it is automatically evil and many want it blocked.

Oil?  Same as coal if a bit less plentiful.

Hydro?  Great, but dams hurt the fishies (not really but who cares about honesty) so they need to go.

Wind?  Wonderful.  Clean, quiet, . . . and amazingly inefficient on any significant scale.  Besides, turbines cause visual pollution and thus must be banned (it's funny when enviro nuts block the same wind power they push for).

Solar?  Same as wind, with same results.  Enviros love it until they find out that to get the power their own neo-Luddite life style (with computers and lights for all and private jets for the wealthy enviros) demands, you'll have to cover massive areas with panels.

Tidal action?  It's got a chance to produce good results (although not massive amounts of power) but anyone think the enviros are going to accept the visual pollution of the required facilities?  Besides, where tides produce the most power is also where the surfing is best.  When personal interests interfere with societal goods, even the enviros go for their own.

All in all, if you are a consumer of electricity, you are probably going to align more with the energy execs than with the people who want to effectively castrate electricity production.  Improving efficiency and promoting conservation is great, but the best models say that even with such measures, the demand for electricity is continuing to grow and will continue to grow.  We need to be focused on generating more electricity at the same time we promote environmental/societal measures, not working to undermine electricity production and increase costs.  Unfortunately, this administration is dedicated to the latter and not the former.

[longeyes]

A world without power is best, especially a world also without annoying humans.  Isn't that the unspoken creed?

[El Tejon]

So, no hydrocarbons?  Back to the unicorns pedaling bicycles to turn turbines for heat and light?

[El Tejon]

If only they could spin a turbine with my telephone.  I could power Lafayette all year.

[roo_ster]

I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.

Given that the oil-man must convince others to consume his wares as opposed to not spending any money or buying someone else's wares, while BHO is a policritter who has never held a legitimate job and uses the threat of violence to have his way...that assumption is likely to turn out correct.

[buzz_knox]

A world without power is best, especially a world also without annoying humans.  Isn't that the unspoken creed?

There are some groups advocating just that.  They promote mass suicide, with a few left behind to continue spreading the message.  Hopefully, many other of the nuttier branches will take up the cry.  That will leave the rest of us free to actually solve the problem.

[Monkeyleg]

Unfortunately, various interest groups in the US are at war with nuclear power and they hold sway with the administration.

What if there was an announcement made that construction was going to begin on a new reactor, people were urged to show up and demonstrate against it, and when they were all there, the area was nuked?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I love that unspoken presumption that everything the oil man says is true, and that my interests align with his more than Obama's align with mine.

Of course my interests align more with the oil man.  The oil man wants to sell me something I want to buy. 

The only thing Obama and I have in common is my money.  I have it, he wants it.

As for what either say are true, I don't trust either of them.  I rely upon what I know.  What I know is that there is far more oil in the ground here in the US than there is potential for environmental catastrophe.

[dm1333]

There's an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil off the coast of CA. At $200/bbl, that's 2 trillion dollars. It might take a while, but money is the most powerful ideology in American politics.

According to this link, we used 7.5 billion barrels in 2007. 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp

I'd rather depend on some other form of energy that we produce here in the US.

[roo_ster]

According to this link, we used 7.5 billion barrels in 2007. 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp

I'd rather depend on some other form of energy that we produce here in the US.

If it took them 25 years to suck that oil field dry, it would provide ~5+% of the USA's oil consumption per year it was active.

Contrast that to wind & solar, which produce (drumroll, please) less than 2% of the country's electricity usage per year.  Which get roughly 75-200 times the subsidy per KW/hr produced than oil & nat gas used for electricity.  Without that subsidy, the percentage of electricity produced by wind & solar would be very close to zero.

That oil field is looking pretty good, right about now.

Then, of course, there is the oil shale in the Rockies and the tar sands up in Canada, each of which has more exploitable oil reserves than Saudi Arabia.  If oil goes back to the $150/bbl range for a while, expect these to come online and when up & running, to knock that market cost per bbl WAY back down, as the cost to produce a BBL of that oil gets to be in the $35/BBL range to produce ($2/BBL for oil from Saudi).