Politics Romney - Is he ready?

I agree that most of the recent increase in production was on non-federal lands. I should have separated production from new drilling leases. But the myth of Obama as anti-drilling is just more conservative bullshit.

According to the Bureau of Land Management, the Bush administration approved only 3,439 permits om federal land in 2001, increasing slightly to 3,802 by 2003. It wasn’t until 2004 that Bush doubled the permits approved, but they dropped dramatically back down to 4,579 in 2005 and beyond. In 2009 under Obama, there were 4,487 permits approved to drill on federal land and in 2010 there were 4,090 permits issued and finally by 2011 there were 4,244.

So there is little difference between Bush and Obama on lease permits on federal land.

The difference in the two policies (as well as earlier Republican policies) is the more balanced approach, including a significant government commitment to the development of other energy resources.

 

And the time from permit to production is?

Oh, I just give an answer. It can be a year or less (rare), but most likely it may take 3 years or more from permit to full production.

 

What part of....

So there is little difference between Bush and Obama on lease permits on federal land.​

​

The difference in the two policies (as well as earlier Republican policies) is the more balanced approach, including a significant government commitment to the development of other energy resources.​

...dont you understand?

 

If your point was that domestic oil production is up because of Obama, I don't understand. I think domestic oil production is up because of the price of oil increased significantly over the past 10 years, and increased technology that has made wells more productive.




When the price of oil is around $100/brl, there is an incentive to pump more than when the price is $60.

 

My point is that Obama has opened nearly as much federal land to drilling as Bush (in the same number of years).

AND has invested significantly more in developing alternative and renewable energy resources.

A one-legged stool is pretty shaky, dont you think?

 

I have not disagreed with the above. I simply add to it. Another point to consider is opening federal land with known and proven reserves compared to federal lands where there is not know and proven reserves. In some instances quality trumps quantity.

I would argue that the government's role is to maintain an environment where the private sector (aka - experts) invest significantly in alternatives and renewable energy resources.

One legged stools have their purpose.

Handy Farm Devices - Cobleigh - chapter 4

My grandparents lived on a farm.

 

Government has always had a significant role in R&D....part of that "no one does it alone" concept you evidently cant accept.

From 30% or so of total R&D (down from about 50% in the 50s)



to nearly 60% of basic R&D



This is what creates or contributes to that environment you want to encourage or stimulate the private sector to invest in new technology (and not just alternative energy)

 

True, I can not accept it. I don't know about the oil industry but I do know that generally the Tech industry spends about 10% of their revenues on R&D, that is one sector and a big number, I can not imagine how the US government accounts for 30% of R&D spending in our economy. I would need to understand how they came up with the numbers you present.

 

Maybe a quote from a private citizen/inventor/entrepreneur will help.

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest."

- Ben Franklin​

 

Romney released his energy plan yesterday to make the US energy independent by 2020

• drill, baby, drill -- open new offshore areas for drilling, starting with Virginia and the Carolinas, along with the more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska Wildlife Reserve, with less regulation; health and environmental concerns be damned.
• states can do it better -- kill the pesky job-killing federal permitting process for drilling on federal lands and lets the states issue permits and have oversight - 50 sets of rules/regulations are better than one
• pipe dream -- more "fast track" (deregulated) pipelines like Keystone will create millions of jobs
• conservation -- not needed as part of the equation; repeal new CAFE standards despite the fact that it would reduce consumption by billions of barrels/day
• alternative energy -- just a pay off to Solyndra-like contributors (as opposed to his gift to big oil); investing in clean/alternative energy is not the role of the federal govt.

Are you impressed? Do you see energy independence in the future with this thoughtful and comprehensive plan?

 

Last time I checked Canada was producing more oil and gas than they used, but gas prices were still high there. It only helps the oil companies get rich, while polluting the local environment.

His energy plan is about the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

 

Romney is Bush on steroids...the flip flopping pandering to the extremists, the failed economic/tax policy, the "drill, baby, drill" energy policy....

I propose drug testing of candidates to expose their performance deflating rehashed (no, not that hash) ideas.

 

the 'you didn't build it' quote was the worst thing i can think of that obama has said. it is a real slap in the face.

 

So you think business owners taught themselves, built the roads and bridges that lead to their place of business?

 

no. everyone has access to those things though, but everyone isn't capable of building a successful business. these business just dont spring up by themselves. this was a real shot to most people who've owned a business, hence the huge backlash and romney playing it up.