Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy

a reply to: Phage

Yeah, that's pretty much what I got out of it too. Just got done reading the whole thing.

It just mentions that our policy should be about encouraging clean air and water and stuff. But then the actual orders that follow are to review all policy related to Oil, Coal and Nuclear Energy. While also revoking or rescinding a whole bunch of other climate regulations and policies of that kind.

He's just pulling out more stops and more environmental protections that we have in place to allow for more drilling, mining, scraping, sucking and f*cking of our planet basically.

Hmmmmm.......

I get the concept of a self sufficient USA in terms of energy. It would be fantastic to give the entire Middle East the bird and abandon it, leaving them to their own fun.

However, surely he can think outside the square and look to future energies too. Like Thorium - develop that for way safer nuclear powered electricity plants. Like new battery technologies that will allow storage over excess energy for peak demand times.

It's time the USA and other nations looked beyond just looking for more oil and to the next phase to satisfy demand.

a reply to: markosity1973

We're going to have to switch eventually anyway. It's inevitable that as the cost per energy output increases, sooner or later it just won't be cost effective to go after fossil fuels anyway and we'll need to go renewable.

We still need oil and we will still need it for a while, so we shouldn't be racing to use up even more of it now because we want an economic energy boom. That is just going to screw us down the road. We need to use this time now while we have it to come up with and develop alternatives.

The economic rewards can be found there too, but we seem to want the quick and easy but temporary reward that will cost us dearly later rather than plan for the future and future rewards.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: markosity1973

The economic rewards can be found there too, but we seem to want the quick and easy but temporary reward that will cost us dearly later rather than plan for the future and future rewards.

Trust me, If I were a billionaire I'd be putting a lot of money into Thorium salt reactor development. Where I live there are closed down mines for it, so we have the natural resources. We just need to get the old research off the shelf, dust it off and keep working on it to perfect it.

I'll be curious how this shapes up. I'm for a most of the above energy plan, the only thing I'm really against is coal. Drilling, fracking, natural gas, solar, geothermal, wind, nuclear, tidal, I like all of that. I just see coal as an outdated technology.

When it comes to coal specifically, I find it funny that the focus is on Appalachia which is full of a bunch of very poor, low skilled individuals. All of Appalachia only contributes 11% of the nations coal generation. Wyoming, with a far smaller population does 40% on it's own. These environmental regulations to get West Virginia back to work don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Those jobs are gone, and they won't be coming back. Better educated people are doing the same job, better, at a lower cost, in other areas of the country.

I read all the whining and teeth knashing here realizing 99.9% of those complaining about increased energy production are flat-out dependent for almost everything in their lives, including their life on cheap widely available energy.

You'd have to be living as Amish do in order to not be a total hypocrite making an argument against energy production in its various forms.

In general,

How do you think food is produced.
How do you think food is delivered.
How do you think food is refrigerated or frozen.
How do you think water is treated and delivered.

In the city,

How do you think A/C and heat is powered.
How do you think lighting is made.
How do you think your sewage is treated.
How do you think even most mundane convenience is delivered or powered.

There's huge list beyond mention that can be added.

What I hear is "I've got mine, but I don't want you to have yours" type of thinking going on with this subject.

Of course that line of thinking is always camouflaged in nice polite terms by intellectual navel contemplators that are liberally accepted by the very people who are enabled what was considered a life of leisure not long ago in human history.

Sell the car, turn power off, pump own water and grow your own food and livestock - yes that means no Internet either - lest you be hypocritical in deed.



Now that hypocritical self serving luddites that are completely technology dependent are dealt with,

It makes sense to use ALL available sources of energy such as supplemental use of solar rather than building new power plants for peak-load demand, subsidies mske good sense in that role.

As technology allows other sources can be brought online, but they cannot be forced with uneconomical policy which will fail.

Thorium powered nuclear makes sense and should be regulated in more sensible way than traditional nuclear. Be good for environmental movement to get out of way about yucca flats so we're not all endangered with spent fuel rod pools all over the place.

We have no viable cheap, efficient and widely available energy replacement for oil, gas and coal but we do have huge geopolitical reason to produce what's needed here as much as possible - Middle East and more specifically Saudi Arabia which exports Islamic radicalism with money made from west. Want less war? there you go!

Personally I have moved to rural area where I grow some food, some livestock, pump my own water, treat my water and use septic disposal. My home is RV and cabin that use about $100 month in grid power as I build main house off grid using solar, battery and occasional generator.

I have done what's practical to reduce grid power load and need, what's practical to reduce my need for JIT groceries and goods and overall dependence on society in general.

I have put my money where my mouth is, as the old saying goes.

IMHO, if city or town dweller, you can just shut up already and go back to your couch, tv and internet-o-tainment and leave running things to the adults.

originally posted by: Phoenix
I read all the whining and teeth knashing here realizing 99.9% of those complaining about increased energy production are flat-out dependent for almost everything in their lives, including their life on cheap widely available energy.

Actually, no.

What we are growling about is:
* rollback of regulations on safety for workers and equipment
* rollback of drilling areas in ecologically fragile areas, including wild farming areas.

As to "cheap energy", Germany was faced with rising fuel costs. Instead of importing more oil/drilling, Germany pursued other forms of energy and now it accounts for over half of their energy production. Non-renewable resource energy (coal, oil) is now less than half their energy production. All of Europe is doing this, to reduce dependence on oil.

Saudi Arabia is looking into solar power.

Compare this to the US where 3/4ths of our power comes from fossil fuels and they're proposing to lift restrictions on areas where we can drill (as well as worker safety, and if you think I hammer on about this, some of our family are (and were) oilfield workers here in Texas.)

We're saying that rather than "wreck the land" (don't know if you've lived in the oilfields, but we lived out near the oilfields of Midland, Texas, and those things produce a lot of pollution... as do the processing plants) that we should keep the regulations tight and start pushing for the move into these other forms of renewable energy that are easier on the environment.

If all we do is consume oil and coal, we'll forever be the market of those who can produce oil and coal and at the mercy of their prices.

Don't you think it's time we got loose from that noose?

Sending us more oil isn't going to do it.

a reply to: Byrd

Actually yes,

Worker safety is NOT energy policy but it makes one sound "concerned"

You know as well as I that modern multi-directional drilling from single platforms does not result in "devil may care" practices of last century used around Midland - Byrd, that's heart tugging scare tactics caused by methods no longer used and no longer used in energy production.

Wild farming areas? Such as ANWR or do you mean like the entire Atlantic Coast or what, define that so's it's not a catch-all term like ecologically fragile, really I can come up with a reason that any area could be defined thus. Especially with an agenda on my mind.

Next you're to tell me Germany went solar lol. Nah they and France are Nuclear which as designed is dangerous due spent rod issue. Germany switched what they could after some cold winters when Russians held nat gas back. That was more than economic reasons for that switch.

I have no problems with thorium except our regulatory process puts off something like that by decades and makes costs rediculous.

Seriously show me any modern (this century) energy exploration in North America that has "wrecked the land" as a normal part of that exploration or doing business. I ain't talking about accidents which are not the norm - again no tugging heartstrings. Cite some normal production sites as normal part of that business day to day if you can.

I have no qualms about utilizing new technologies as they present themselves, I have huge problem when government steps in with regulation, taxes and inventing reasons to put public lands off limits to force an aberration in markets to favor uncompetitive technologies as a sop to environmental or political lobbies.

If new tech is competitive or has compelling reason to use by end user - not forced. Then yeah bring it on!

As an example my new home utilizes solar/battery system at 4KW with generator backup for higher loads or long periods of cloudy days, not grid connected at all.

The expense of that system far exceeds what I may have saved in utility costs over a lengthy period.

I have other compelling reasons for installing solar, much like Germany had getting away from nat gas and oil.

I still say those living in cities and towns who have benefited for decades in lifestyle and accouterments are blowing smoke out their arse.

When you make a real meaningful change in lifestyle that has major impact on your footprint then come talk to me about it.

Other than that you are actually adversely affecting others economic ability to accomplish what I have done by stealing their means to do so if they desire.

That last paragraph should make progressives think about OPM.

a reply to: Phoenix

If it was up to the democrat EPA EVERYWHERE would be called Fragile.

a reply to: Phoenix

From what I can tell there isn't any reports from any source that show Energy Independence is even possible from more offshore drilling though. In fact all reports show a steady decline in oil production levels from the fact that peak oil production has already passed. We are on the downhill slope for oil and no known way for that to change.

Trying for energy independence from oil production is long gone. If we wanted to do that the time for it was during peak oil availability and production, the uphill side, not the downhill side. Meaning even if we decided to go balls out and drill everything we could, it wouldn't be enough at this point even if the data was accurate and everything went smooth in the extraction and processing. We just consume too much compared to what we can extract now to be cost effective.

Even the other forms of oil production from sources like oil sands is becoming less cost effective because of the refining or dirtier and dirtier sources from which to extract from. I can't find any source that shows any treasure trove of cheap cost effective oil being available to us anymore.

We have to transition. It's something we just have to do at this point whether we want to or not and the sooner the better. We are still dependent on oil and will be for some time. Other countries know this too and are doing what they can to get ahead of it as soon as possible. We are still focused on the old way of doing business when we need to plan ahead and implement changes now or we're going to be stuck later on trying to catch up.

It's not just that this admin is focused on doing business the old way either. It's all the funding cuts and regulations being cut that go to helping new technologies and policies at the same time. It's like a double sided attack in favor or old methods and ignoring new alternatives which is troubling.

a reply to: Phage

Trump is adding on and by doing so ABORAGATING the old rules in them,and THAt is legal.

a reply to: mOjOm

50-70 years is what I come up with on oil reserves.
Something like 400 billion bbls has been added new discoveries past year, most of it North American.

The problem I have is the use of artifice in regulation, taxation, coercion and use of very questionable reasons for limiting exploration and recovery on public lands.

Modifying market to accommodate uncompetitive technology has not exactly had steller history except to line pockets of political cronys, beauracracy and investors such as Berkshire Hathaway (trains vs pipeline) etc.

As oil discoveries and recovery slackens against growing demand markets will respond with better technology naturally and in order which folks can respond to. Artificially penalizing then not right.

a reply to: Phoenix

I agree that restricting progress or business for the wrong reasons isn't good. As is promoting failing technologies and businesses as well.

We still see massive subsidizing of Big Oil though and we're cutting funding to alternative sources. That seems to me like a very politicized and biased way of curbing progress and promoting failing technology.

The truth is that the it's not a level playing field at all. There is a lot of crony capitalism and "good buddy deals" going on which can hinder development to benefit a small but powerful group who currently has control. That comes with a much higher cost to us all in the long run but to those in control it's worth it.

These new technologies and ways of energy production are gaining ground all the time as they are still developing new and better techniques. While the old ways have been declining overall and struggling to maintain their value with no exciting boosts in the foreseeable future. Investing more in the old ways at this point just seems like investing in the horse and buggy when the automobile has just hit the market. Not a smart choice.