"Drill, baby, drill"

[gowlerk 1,901]

Well, that's fine then. But it's really just a platitude. It is merely vague criticism and no substance. Which is fine for a forum like this. There are no rules. But I find that when I do engage you, and others as well on an issue, it quickly spins out of control and into unrelated side issues. Like an out of the blue vague concern about hungry children, and overpaid executives.

The topic in this thread is how we will source our energy in the future. You want to keep burning fossil fuels in larger and larger amounts as long as possible. I think that would be an error, and possibly a recipe for disaster.

Tax breaks for Tesla and ADM are a red herring. As are tax breaks for Exxon and no bid contracts for Kellogg Brown Root and Halliburton. And favorable leases on federal land for resource extraction.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 383]

gowlerk

The topic in this thread is how we will source our energy in the future.

Tax breaks for Tesla and ADM are a red herring. As are tax breaks for Exxon and no bid contracts for Kellogg Brown Root and Halliburton. And favorable leases on federal land for resource extraction.

Everything you characterize as a red herring, the government would call energy policy.
BTW the topic of this thread is how the fracking industry is a victim of its own sucess.

[brenthutch 383]

gowlerk

Well, that's fine then. But it's really just a platitude. It is merely vague criticism and no substance. Which is fine for a forum like this. There are no rules. But I find that when I do engage you, and others as well on an issue, it quickly spins out of control and into unrelated side issues. Like an out of the blue vague concern about hungry children, and overpaid executives.

Or
"Apollo, the internet, biotech, genetics, ARPANET, Sport skydiving and
the Interstate system".

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

Our energy supply system is a very large ship to turn around. Many utilities are still publicly owned. It's a massive endeavor, it needs a massive organization.

Is that an issue ?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[gowlerk 1,901]

Quote

BTW the topic of this thread is how the fracking industry is a victim of its own sucess.

Yes, the industry is cyclical and has always been so. But this time the bust was spectacular. That's because the boom was even more so. The cure for low oil prices is low oil prices. The price will rebound.

Expensive high tech methods of extraction will remain available if needed. The amount of recoverable reserves is now much higher than it was, but it's also very difficult to calculate. Even the experts say they can't tell.

I recently bought oil stocks. I intend to hold them long term and I expect that they will pay good dividends. I like to buy things that are on sale. I bought BP after their disaster when everyone else was selling. I bought XOM this year because it's a quality company and it will ride out the storm safely.

This story somewhat sums up what is going to happen medium term

http://www.crudeoiljobs.com/heres-oil-bust-will-turn-massive-oil-boom/

The coal industry is not going to go totally away. But it's time has come and gone. The newer gas extraction methods will give us enough supply till we reach the era of mostly renewable for electricity supply.

It is the responsibility of society through government to steer policy. The free market is a wonderful system for generating wealth and income. We all benefit from it's efficiency. But generating wealth is not the only goal of public policy. We have many rules to constrain and guide markets of all sorts. We need to move toward renewable energy for many reasons, but the biggest one is climate change. The energy companies have a responsibility of care to their shareholders to make a profit. They have no responsibility at all for our future. We would be stupid to leave it up to them.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 1,619]

brenthutch

BTW the topic of this thread is how the fracking industry is a victim of its own sucess.

I would say the fracking industry is a victim of its own excesses.

All the time an industry can get someone else to pay the price of the pollution and other environmental and health impacts it creates, it is being subsidized by those who eventually will have to pay with reduced life expectancy, reduced quality of life, increased taxes, etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,379]

>Why can't we just be happy that we have cheap, abundant, domestic energy for
>generations to come.

I am quite happy - especially since the cheapest source of that energy we have, one which is growing exponentially, is helping us displace fossil fuels. And we now have enough fossil fuels to bridge the gap. Good news all around.

Sorry if that means stuff you hate will become more popular.

[billvon 2,379]

>I would rather spend our preciously constrained resources on feeding the hungry and
>educating our children, than giving tax breaks to the wealthy to buy a new toy (Tesla)
>or lining the pockets of ADM (ethanol).

And I'd rather spend that money on saving lives and feeding kids than on killing Iraqis and lining the pockets of Exxon, Halliburton and Blackwater executives.

So I propose ending all those subsidies. End them all and just have all cars and power plants meet the same emissions standards based on BACT. Tesla will meet them no problem. Many manufacturers make SULEV cars that meet those standards, and have power plants that are clean enough to meet BACT standards. Others will have to change the design of their cars and powerplants and/or change fuels. But your taxes will surely go down from all those spending reductions, so it's a net win for most people and for the free market.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

But your taxes will surely go down from all those spending reductions, so it's a net win for most people and for the free market.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



BWAAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHAH.

That was a good one, Bill.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 383]

Subsidies via regulation are still subsidies. I'll give you an A for imagination though.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

Subsidies via regulation are still subsidies. I'll give you an A for imagination though.

You are saying minimal standards are subsidies? Please explain.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 383]

Who said anything about "minimal standards" please explain.

[dorbie 0]

kallend

Bust, baby, bust.

You'd be forgiven for forming the impression that this never happened:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52abb9b9e4b0cb06a591754d/t/54f4acb6e4b02ef942b92446/1425321160700/

This business helped keep the price of oil down, GDP up and the trade deficit lower while creating millions of jobs. The flip side of its recent decline and the reason it is in decline is that oil prices are much lower, so every other business sector in the USA benefits as domestic producers struggle. The reason the crunch is so hard is the higher extraction costs mean their margin is erased when oil prices fall unlike other sources, but everyone in the oil business is suffering due to tighter margins as we benefit at the pump.

I'd rather take some satisfaction from the trouble this creates for Putin and his ambitions than the trouble it causes US businessmen and their employees.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

Who said anything about "minimal standards" please explain.

bill said end subsidies, make everyone meet a standard via regulation.

You said subsidies via regulation are still subsidies.

Am I missing something? Were you responding to a different post?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 383]

dorbie

***
Bust, baby, bust.

You'd be forgiven for forming the impression that this never happened:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/52abb9b9e4b0cb06a591754d/t/54f4acb6e4b02ef942b92446/1425321160700/

This business helped keep the price of oil down, GDP up and the trade deficit lower while creating millions of jobs. The flip side of its recent decline and the reason it is in decline is that oil prices are much lower, so every other business sector in the USA benefits as domestic producers struggle. The reason the crunch is so hard is the higher extraction costs mean their margin is erased when oil prices fall unlike other sources, but everyone in the oil business is suffering due to tighter margins as we benefit at the pump.

I'd rather take some satisfaction from the trouble this creates for Putin and his ambitions than the trouble it causes US businessmen and their employees.

And Venezuela, and Iran.

[billvon 2,379]

>Subsidies via regulation are still subsidies.

Ah, so laws against theft, pollution, shooting into the air, driving drunk - all subsidies?

[brenthutch 383]

GTAVercetti

***Who said anything about "minimal standards" please explain.

bill said end subsidies, make everyone meet a standard via regulation.

You said subsidies via regulation are still subsidies.

Am I missing something? Were you responding to a different post?

The "standard" can be set and manipulated to achieve a particular outcome, but of course Bill knows this he is just being coy.

[gowlerk 1,901]

brenthutch

Subsidies via regulation are still subsidies. I'll give you an A for imagination though.

Regulations outlaw lead in paint because it poisons people, especially children. Paint companies had to switch to titanium dioxide as a substitute. It that wrongfully benefiting titanium mining companies over lead miners? In a truly free market both our gas and our paint would contain lead, because then profits would be higher. But our children would be both less healthy and stupider. Would you support that? How free do you want markets to be?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 383]

gowlerk

***Subsidies via regulation are still subsidies. I'll give you an A for imagination though.

Regulations outlaw lead in paint because it poisons people, especially children. Paint companies had to switch to titanium dioxide as a substitute. It that wrongfully benefiting titanium mining companies over lead miners? In a truly free market both our gas and our paint would contain lead, because then profits would be higher. But our children would be both less healthy and stupider. Would you support that? How free do you want markets to be?

Are you the same guy who said:
"But I find that when I do engage you, and others as well on an issue, it quickly spins out of control and into unrelated side issues."

Just checking.

[gowlerk 1,901]

brenthutch

******Subsidies via regulation are still subsidies. I'll give you an A for imagination though.

Regulations outlaw lead in paint because it poisons people, especially children. Paint companies had to switch to titanium dioxide as a substitute. It that wrongfully benefiting titanium mining companies over lead miners? In a truly free market both our gas and our paint would contain lead, because then profits would be higher. But our children would be both less healthy and stupider. Would you support that? How free do you want markets to be?

Are you the same guy who said:
"But I find that when I do engage you, and others as well on an issue, it quickly spins out of control and into unrelated side issues."

Just checking.

I addressed the issue you brought up. As have several others. Regulations are not subsidies in the ordinary meaning of the word. But they are policy and do have an effect on markets sometimes. Do you think the example I gave is analogous to the point you were trying to make? For my part, I acknowledge that regulations can affect behavior and change markets. Can you not agree that sometimes that is for the best?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,379]

>The "standard" can be set and manipulated to achieve a particular outcome

Correct. Here in the US, that outcome (when it comes to environmental law) is generally fewer dead people and less pollution. Similar to many other laws, like the laws against murder, theft and drunk driving.

Again, that does NOT mean those laws equal subsidies.

[brenthutch 383]

Never said it did. I hope you are playing dumb.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

The "standard" can be set and manipulated to achieve a particular outcome, but of course Bill knows this he is just being coy.

That thought leads directly to no regulation at all. No manipulation of an outcome? Every regulation manipulates an outcome. That is what they are designed to do. It is in the word itself. regulate: to control or manage by rules.

Of course, you just mean manipulated in a bad way because it leads to an outcome you don't like. Otherwise there is no way you would say such a thing. Because if you did, it would imply you have no idea of the purpose of standards and regulations.

And that would just be crazy! You don't understand government aid to the energy sector throughout the US history AND what regulations are? Crazy, I say.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

Never said it did. I hope you are playing dumb.

you said regulations = subsidies
bill said those laws (that define the regs) != subsidies

You then say you did not say the first sentence.

Now who is playing dumb? Are you keeping track of what you are saying?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 383]

So you put your faith in the sub-par intelect of government bureaucrats. The same guys who promalgated the notion of peak oil and catastrophic global warming. I feel sorry for you.