Thursday, April 5, 2012

Energy Works in Ohio

For the state of Ohio, the oil and natural gas industry currently means:

More than 230,800 statewide jobs provided or supported – with an average salary of $68,256 for non-gas station oil and natural gas employees.$11.4 billion contributed to state labor income.$22.7 billion contributed to the state’s economy.

With sensible energy development and sound tax policies, here’s what the oil and natural gas industry could mean to Ohio:

13,144 additional jobs created by 201515,840 additional jobs created by 2020

Energy works in Ohio, with the men and women of the oil and natural gas industry playing a critical role in that state’s economy. See more, here.


View the original article here

Itching for Floor Fight Over Higher Energy Taxes

Why did energy supporters in the U.S. Senate stand aside to allow consideration of legislation they oppose – raising taxes on America’s oil and natural gas companies? After all, there were more than enough votes to keep the proposal from coming to the floor.

Simple, in politics you choose the fights you think you can win, and Senate opponents of higher energy taxes feel like they’ve got the American people behind them.

Here’s why. A spate of surveys shows that strong majorities of Americans favor more production of oil and natural gas here at home. Both Gallup and Rasmussen have new polls showing Americans support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from neighbor and ally Canada. Another Rasmussen survey indicates 2-1 support for developing energy from shale via hydraulic fracturing.

Then there was a Pew Research Center poll that suggests the reason for the findings in the others. Pew found that as gasoline prices rise, so does Americans’ interest in greater oil and natural gas production.

A Harris Interactive poll ties things together: It found 76 percent of voters nationwide believe higher taxes on the country’s energy producers could cost them more at the gas pump – which the Congressional Research Service substantiated in a report last year.

Americans’ reaction to increasing fuel costs – driven higher by the rising cost of crude on the global market – is understandable. They’re saying let’s have policies and strategies that could put downward pressure on crude supply as opposed to policies that would make energy producers’ operations costlier – potentially reducing exploration, development and production while elevating prices.

Thus, a Senate debate that supporters of more oil and natural gas production are eager for the American people to see and hear.


View the original article here

Confusing the History on the Keystone XL

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney this week, on the administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline:

"In terms of Keystone, as you all know, the history here is pretty clear. And the fact is because Republicans decided to play political with Keystone, their action essentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted on a time frame in which it was impossible to completely approve the pipeline." 

Wait. In the span of two sentences the history on the Keystone XL took a pretty good beating. In fact, in the exchange with White House reporters the only thing that’s clear is that Carney’s job was to make the Keystone XL history unclear. Let’s parse this statement by the press secretary and others.

First, the fact is the Keystone XL has been sitting on the administration’s plate for more than three years – or about twice as long as similar approvals have taken in the past. Talk of a rushed time frame to “completely approve the pipeline” is absurd after more than three years, three successful environmental reviews and numerous public hearings across the country.

More from Carney, quizzed by ABC’s Jake Tapper on how the president could claim to be for an all-of-the-above energy strategy and reject a pipeline that would bring upwards of 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada:

"But the President didn't turn down the Keystone pipeline.”

Whoah! The president is the chief executive. It’s his administration.

Carney:

“There was a process in place, with long precedent, run out of the State Department because of the issue of the pipeline crossing an international boundary …”

Suggesting that the State Department’s process was beyond the reach of the White House, in a kind of the-buck-stops-over-there assertion, is just dodging responsibility for a decision that clearly runs counter to the national interest.

Carney:

"The Keystone XL decision “required an amount of time for proper for review after an alternate route was deemed necessary through Nebraska at the request of the Republican Governor of Nebraska and other stakeholders in Nebraska and the region that needed to play out, to be done appropriately. You can't review and approve a pipeline, the route for which doesn't even exist.”

Now blame shifts to Nebraska and Gov. Dave Heineman, who objected to the pipeline’s route through the state’s Sand Hills region. But here’s Heineman last month, puzzled that the administration continues to use Nebraska as an excuse to shelve the project. The governor said the pipeline could start from either end and finish in Nebraska, which is possible because all of the other approvals are in place and because no one believes the pipeline won’t win final approval from Nebraska:

“At a minimum, the president of the United States could do a conditional yes. … Since the Department of State basically approved the old route, we don’t really think at the end of the day there is going to be a challenge there. … When you have an 8.5 percent unemployment rate in America – this is a no brainer.”

So yes, Carney’s memory on the Keystone XL needs refreshing. (See Sean Hackbarth’s post over at FreeEnterprise.com.) The pipeline would create 20,000 U.S. jobs during its construction phase and be integral to fully utilizing Canada’s oil sands resources that could create 500,000 U.S. jobs by 2035. As Hackbarth notes, the project has labor union and business support.

Meanwhile, Carney’s boss keeps talking about an all-of-the-above energy strategy – words that ring hollow when you look at what the real history of the administration’s handling of the Keystone XL pipeline.


View the original article here

Energy Works in Arizona

For the state of Arizona, the oil and natural gas industry currently means:

Nearly 86,000 total jobs provided or supported statewide – with an average salary of $54,052 for non-gas station oil and natural gas employees.$4 billion contributed to labor income.$7.6 billion contributed to the state’s economy.

With sensible energy development and sound tax policies, here’s what the oil and natural gas industry could mean to Arizona:

682 additional jobs created by 2015.1,443 additional jobs by 2020.

Energy works in Arizona, with the men and women of the oil and natural gas industry playing a critical role in that state’s economy. See more, here.


View the original article here

On Power and Fuel

Keith Hennessey with a reminder:

"If (when?) battery technology leaps forward to make hybrid or electric vehicles a significant share of the market, then electricity and its sources will begin to act as significant substitutes for gasoline and diesel fuel. At that point R&D to reduce the cost of solar power, wind power, nuclear power, hydro power, and natural gas power could start to affect the price at the pump enough for you to notice. But until then fuel and electric power are for all practical purposes separate issues, and when an elected official’s response to high fuel prices is more research on or subsidies for some form of electric power production, he is either confused or misleading you. More from the EIA here.

But until then fuel and electric power are for all practical purposes separate issues, and when an elected official’s response to high fuel prices is more research on or subsidies for some form of electric power production, he is either confused or misleading you."

More from the EIA here.


View the original article here