« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Seed Corn Is What’s For Breakfast

“We’re looking at the options,” including drawing on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, William Daley said. “It is something that only is done—and has been done—in very rare occasions. There’s a bunch of factors that have to be looked at. And it is just not the price.”

(HT: Breitbrt.com)

In the recent two years, oil has gotten progressively more expensive and as a result, gasoline prices have followed a similar trajectory. That was until two weeks ago, when both of these commodities blasted to the moon in response to the uprising-cum-civil war in Libya. This leaves our current Presidential Administration with two sets of choices of how to handle the resulting public suffering from expensive gasoline.

The choice the administration makes depends upon what they interpret the problem to actually be. If the problem consists of a bunch idiots waving tea bags, and stopping the brilliant and civic-minded governmental over-class from implementing solutions to all of mankind’s problems, the administration implements one sort of solution. This sort of solution would consist of a panacea designed to get rid of the inconvenient anger. They throw the whinging dogs a few hush-puppies and get back to the glorious business of saving the planet.

Another alternative involves the administration believing that the current protests offer a very useful data point. This data point informs them that their current policy direction leads to utter failure, and therefore needs to be reversed. This would result in the administration inaugurating a plan that attacked the root cause of the problems. They would address the economic threat posed by long-term increases in the prices of gasoline as those increases relate to the increased price of its fundamental root commodity – petroleum oil.

Barack Obama would never go down that road, because of the implicit introspection involved and its potential to refute his solipsistic philosophy of Barack Infallibility. So we look then at what our poor, overburdened Pericles on The Potomac can do to placate these idiot mobs who want affordable fuel.

The Obama Administration has two policy prescriptions available that would possibly provide short-term downward pressure on the price of gasoline. These policies involve actions to either increase the flow of petroleum oil to US refineries, or to reduce the perceived uncertainty of future oil supplies. The short-term supply to US refineries can be augmented from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The uncertainty of future supplies could possibly be assuaged by sending in the USMC to brutally stomp some of the rebellions and civil wars going off in oil country.

The current administration at least bluffed at breaking a few heads in Libya, when the USS Kearsarge was sent to nearby waters with elements of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Force. He has fortunately been a wise enough Harvard man not to commit to the idiocy that would unfold if we went in to “stabilize” and “democratize” the barren wastes of Libya. This leaves the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on his menu of feel-good, quick-hit, palliate-the-Tea-Partying-Mob solutions.

This comes with encumbered with its drawbacks. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended for strategic uses. This store of oil is intended to provide the US military with a cache of POL (Petroleum, Oil and Lubricant) products that they can use to fight a long-term, protracted, medium intensity conflict.

In WWII, Patton’s Armies had to stop frequently when the US tanks ran out of gasoline. US military decision-makers don’t want the next General Patton to have to take forced rests because of petroleum shortages. The more mechanized and jet-fueled the American military becomes, the more POL we will need to defeat the next Herr Rommel.

Our current Boy President is risking our ability to maintain long-term military operations against a well-armed opponent over the political ramifications of expensive gasoline. America’s seed corn is what’s for breakfast during this short-sighted, puerile and overly-political administration. Decisions like this make me long for an American President who will suspend the campaigning operations for a bit after actually winning an election.

Just to be complete in this post, I’ll briefly outline some of what this administration actually could be doing if they viewed the rising prices of petroleum to be an existential problem, rather than a political and perceptual one. China, for example, has bravely pushed forward on a program to build Molten Thorium Salt nuclear reactors. They are working to actually decouple their national interest from the corrupt kleptocracies of the Arabian Peninsula. In America, meanwhile, our POTUS furrows his brow and expresses deep concern.

As Erick Erickson points out today, America does in fact, actually have domestic reserves. A resourceful nation, facing a shortage of petroleum, replete with its own minable stock, would be expected to actually break ground and extract their own resources to assuage the high prices. I’m not talking brilliance, here – just plain, simple basic logical thinking. As Voltaire once put it succinctly; man’s best course is to tend his own garden.

But we can’t bother with that. We have elections and futures to win. Or was that just future elections? I think it was just future elections. Our current leadership could truly care less about the commonweal of The American People in the future. Nothing reveals the utter contempt and disrespect that The American Left has for the American People like their current proposals to solve America’s energy problems.

Just releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to temporarily knock down gas prices is akin to giving a cancer patient a couple of Advil so he won’t gripe so loudly over at the nurses’ station. It shows no regard for the future this administration supposedly has committed itself to winning. It shows an utter absence of regard for the people forced to live through this administration’s predictably dystopic future outcomes. It shows the utter absence of thinking we’ve grown to regard as typical from the man whose favorite solution to the crisis of the day is voting “present.”

COMMENTS

  • dwander

    I’ve often wondered what would happen to the price of oil if we mandated that within ten years, oil should not be used for either heating or power plant fuel. Instead; homes and factories will be converted to using natural gas, nuclear, coal, or some other energy produced within our borders. Oil, for the near future, would be reserved for transportation or as an ingredient for products, something like plastics.

    In order to wean us off oil for transportation, our so called energy department could actually do something to increase research into alternative fuels. Instead of tax breaks that enrich certain individuals within a political circle, ethanol, why not give a 10 million dollar prize, much like the NASA prize, to the first company that comes up with a non base fossil fuel and a non expensive conversion method.

    • steve010

      electric power and heating. 55% comes from coal, 20% from nuclear, nearly 17% from NG and everything else makes up the rest. We have something like 250 years of reserves of NG in the mainland at current levels and we haven’t built a nuclear power plant in 35 years.

      Nuclear pays off with about 3 cents per kwh, as opposed to solar shingles and windmills which are at 23 cents per kwh. The windmills are like the Chevy volt. Only the rich tree huggers can afford them. Power from windmills and shingles will bankrupt the poor and middle class and won’t move a single car or truck.

      Private industry is standing in line to finance nuclear power plants and more NG production which can also be used to fuel cars and trucks, at less than 50% of CO2 emissions. Nuclear is zero Co2. All of this energy production can be done with American investment with American labor with American products and without taxpayer money. Guess who is standing in the way?

    • http://westforwestwing2012.com heartlander

      Indeed, even if some magical car could be invented that would not require fossil fuel of any sort, we would still have the problem of needing petrochemical feedstocks.

      Most people very rarely think about everything in their daily life that is made from petroleum: everything plastic — from ziploc bags to hospital IV tubes, from toys to computer parts to automobile interiors; synthetic fibers (nylon, polyester, etc.), paints, adhesives, deodorants, antiseptics, just about every household and consumer product!

      One of my most horrible nightmares is getting sick and needing hospitalization in an era when there are no available petrochemicals — therefore, no antiseptics, no catheter or IV tubing, no sterile bags for blood transfusions, no disposable syringes, no waterproof mattress covers, no hand sanitizer, etc.

      There is no surer way back to the darkest of Dark Ages than to have to live without the things that are made from petrochemicals.

  • juumanistra

    As an MSFR fanboy, I feel obliged to make a couple of points re: your bringing up Red China’s work on them. First and foremost, that the Chinese work on commercializing them has little to do with their imports from the Persian Gulf. While they import substantive amounts of oil, oil not a major fuel used in the generating of electricity, which would be the task of the MSFRs. The imports their electrical grid requires originate in the United States and Australia, in the form of coal. If through the power of magic the Red Chinese could convert their every last coal-burning generating station to an MSFR, it would not affect their imports of oil from the Gulf.

    A funny thing happens you start building MSFRs, though. Because they use molten salt as their coolant rather than light or heavy water, their outlet temperatures can be markedly higher. Sufficiently high that one can start running established thermochemical hydrogen-production processes with waste heat. If you have sufficient heat, liberated hydrogen, and a carbon source lying around, it starts becoming practical to engage in the Fischer-Tropsch cycle to breed hydrocarbons to dispose of your stockpiles. Once you start breeding hydrocarbons…well, congratulations, you’ve now got a POL source capable whose production is not reliant upon imports from the Gulf. And, if you’ve got ready coal supplies available to provide your carbon feedstocks, not reliant upon imports at all.

    And really gets sillier from there. But the things one can do with MSFR-fired nuclear thermochemistry really are amazing.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      you could, for example, start making plastics without consuming as much petroleum or natural gas? Thank you for an interesting ( and very informative) comment.

      • juumanistra

        The Fischer-Tropsch process is best known by the popular culture as the basis upon which Nazi Germany ran its synthetic oil program, by converting coal into various useful liquid hydrocarbons. The process itself is fairly simple: It is the hydrogenation of syngas — carbon monoxide — in the presence of heat and a catalyst. The variety of hydrocarbon bred by the process depends upon the catalyst used and amount of heat applied: The higher the temperature, the greater the methanation,

        Re: making chemical, most of the entirety of the petrochemical industry is based up the usage of natural gas as a feedstock. Natural gas is, by mass, something like 98% methane. So, generally speaking, the hotter one runs a Fischer-Tropsch reaction, the more methane is produced. And as methane is basically the starting point for almost every plastic, yes, it would be possible breed plastic feedstocks from the Fischer-Tropsch process.

        It’s worth noting that Fischer-Tropsch is not necessarily a byproduct of an MSFR: It is merely one possible use for the large amounts of usable process heat that one can produce. It’s also debatable whether such could be economic: As no commercial MSFR has yet been built, there’re no bases for cost analysis. What it does have going for it is that it relies entirely on proven technology — with the MSFR concept been proven at the Oak Ridge Lab with the 10MW reactor that ran for seven years — and have, with the exception of the reactor, been in commercial use for decades.

        • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

          is a good reason for Goodwin’s Law. Just because Nazis used, doesn’t necessarily mean it should beconsidered evil. I know combustion of the fuel gives you lots of CO2 emissions, but with the “settled science” on the effects CO2 being of dubious quality, maybe not even that should stop us from at least taking a serious look at FT Process. Especially if Saudi Arabia and Kuwait get violent enough to stop them from exporting hdrocarbons.

  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    “This leaves the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on his menu of feel-good, quick-hit, palliate-the-Tea-Partying-Mob solutions.”

    If Barry thinks that will satisfy us, he’s gravely mistaken.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      The man’s “I love me” wall must be something to behold.

    • CJB68

         His narcissism, that is.

  • keysconservative

    As I understand it the real problem is that the Federal Government is currently sitting on loads of oil drilling permits issued by various oil companies across the country. Why is this permitting process in the hands of the Federal Government and not in the hands of the individual states? If Louisiana, Florida, Colorado, Alaska, etc., had the power to issue permits for oil drilling, as I see it, the entire country can’t be held hostage to one man’s or one party’s environmental agenda.

    • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

      that the permits being sat on are for drilling on “Federal” land. Which makes the recent Federal land grabs all the more insidious.

    • juumanistra

      The permitting process is a result of legislation passed by Congress or promulgated by the Department of the Interior to manage the lands owned by the federal government. The permitting process is also a creature of off-shore drilling: On-shore drilling has different terminology and methods of operation. (Though the result is usually the same, as Ken Salazar proved early in his term by yanking recently auctioned off leasing rights in Utah.)

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      It can be virtually impossible to get a free and clear right to do invasive surgery on someone else’s lot. A better policy would be for the govt. to decide what should be drilled and physically sell the property.

    • http://vladenblog.tumblr.com Steve Maley

      In LA, it’s 3 miles. In TX and FL, it’s 3 leagues, about 10 miles. (Don’t ask, it just is.)

      Seaward of that, out 200 miles or 1/2 way to the nearest sovereign country (whichever is less) is under Federal jurisdiction.

      Most people don’t realize that the Feds get virtually all of the revenue — lease bonuses and royalties.

      One of Obama’s budget insults is a proposal to increase the fee for a leased but nonproductive block. He proposes to charge more for not drilling a lease that he won’t grant a permit on.

  • victrola

    that only allowed use of the Strategic Reserve for the military. Not as an election tool for use like Hugo Chavez does to keep the proles quiet.

    I would be interested to hear an energy analyst weigh in and tell us how much you can really drop the price of gasoline (and for how long) by opening up the reserve. 15-20 cents a gallon for a few months? And won’t it send a panic in oil markets, making the price rise even higher? And since you have to eventually refill these reserves, won’t that sudden uptick in demand also boost prices?

    Just get ready for Obama to open this up as he’s running for reelection in 2012, (I have ZERO doubt about that) he probably doesn’t want to use this “Hail Mary” just yet.

    • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

      but I basically like your train of thought on the issue.

    • earlgrey

      years ago. He just stopped the taxes on the gas when gas prices were rising through the election. It worked. He was re-elected, and than died in office.

  • dpddj

    you do not care much for the Marxist-in-Chief. Well, neither do I.

  • bassethound

    how quickly the price bubble popped in 2008 when Bush announced that he was opening up more drilling options.

    All the handwringing about India and China stopped. Likewise did all the moaning about $400 a barrel “peak oil”.

    • CJB68

         He was waiting in line at one of the local wholesale stores when he happened to be in front of one of those Housepets? who started spouting off on the oil prices, blaming the whole thing on GW Bush (no surprise there).  Pointing out that when GW left office, the PPB of crude oil was down around $32 (USD).  It was our current President whose executive order rescinding the “Drill, Baby, Drill” call that started this whole thing back on its downhill roll again.

         Needless to say, said Housepet robot just shut up.

  • Adjoran

    It’s wrong on policy, since it was set up as an emergency reserve to counter potential temporary supply disruptions. It should never be used to affect domestic pump prices, and can only do so for a short period anyway.

    It’s also dumb on politics. Using it as a temporary quick fix on pump prices makes no sense at all when we are still nearly 20 months from the next election. Any political value would be in late summer/fall 2012, not now.

  • cam1

    lies at the feet of our government. If the powers that be in washington gave a damn about the American people they would do everything in their power to ensure that we have cheap energy and a lot of it. This includes the damned Republicans as well.

  • seisner01

    It?s time to let the dogs out! Let?s take a lesson from our own history ?how Reagan won the Cold War. Essentially, it was an economic victory as opposed to a military or ideological victory. We ran the Soviet economic engine into the ground.

    Now, we are faced with a myriad of enemies whose sole source of economic and political power is that they happen to live above huge oil reserves. The Soviets had technology, military might, a solid manufacturing infrastructure, abundant resource and a wellspring of intellectual capabilities that rivaled and in some areas exceeded our own, but the configuration of their economic engine doomed them to failure against a Capitalist machine ? it inherently just could not compete in a flat-out competition. Reagan proved this to them and, seeing the light of reason, they backed down to avoid all-out disaster.

    Our current crop of enemies have far less to work with ?, their infrastructure, their military capabilities, their ability to cling to power are all dependent on one simple factor ? their control of vast oil reserves. So it would seem obvious even to the casual student of history that this one source of power and control is also their Achilles Heel. If we are to prevail and defeat them, this is where they are most vulnerable.

    Traditionally, they have wielded power on the international stage by controlling the supply of oil as we (the West) have come to them ?hat in hand? with gifts of technology, food, infrastructure projects, cash, ? you name it, in order to ?persuade? them to keep the pumps open. As anyone who drives a car can see, this philosophy is about to explode in our faces ? unless we react quickly. How do we accomplish this?

    It seems that the obvious and easiest way to attack the source of our enemy?s is, simply, to flood the world marketplace with oil and other energy sources!!! The United States alone (not even counting the vast resources of western countries like Canada) sits on top of HUGE sources of energy ? billions and billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, billions of tons of coal ? unknown billions of barrels of off-shore oil ? yet for a variety of reasons, we have not taken advantage of this ? political reasons disguised as ?concerns? for the environment have obscured the real challenges with which we have to deal with. IT?S TIME TO LET THE DOGS OUT!!!.

    What does that mean??? Let?s let the energy companies loose ? let?s help them, subsidize them, partner with them, support the quest for cheap oil sources, help them realize huge profits and tax them, let?s take off the gloves ? LET?S FLOOD THE WORLD MARKETS WITH OIL AND OTHER ENERGY SOURCES ? let?s break our Middle East enemy?s economically by taking away the one advantage they have!!!! Let?s make their oil worth a fraction of what is worth today to the point where it is they who must come to us ?hat in hand?.

    A ?small? peripheral benefit would be, through taxes on what would be vast profits and government/industry partnerships, to reduce or perhaps even eliminate our national debt! Another lesson from history can be seen from the ?Dot Com? era. Did the vast surpluses of money that flowed into our government coffers in the 90?s come from Bill Clinton?s economic brilliance, or was it the natural result of taxes being levied on vast new sources of income? Does anyone remember how low unemployment was during that time as well?

    It seems that letting the ?energy dogs? loose might just prove to be our salvation.

  • seisner01

    It?s time to let the dogs out! Let?s take a lesson from our own history ?how Reagan won the Cold War. Essentially, it was an economic victory as opposed to a military or ideological victory. We ran the Soviet economic engine into the ground.

    Now, we are faced with a myriad of enemies whose sole source of economic and political power is that they happen to live above huge oil reserves. The Soviets had technology, military might, a solid manufacturing infrastructure, abundant resource and a wellspring of intellectual capabilities that rivaled and in some areas exceeded our own, but the configuration of their economic engine doomed them to failure against a Capitalist machine ? it inherently just could not compete in a flat-out competition. Reagan proved this to them and, seeing the light of reason, they backed down to avoid all-out disaster.

    Our current crop of enemies have far less to work with ?, their infrastructure, their military capabilities, their ability to cling to power are all dependent on one simple factor ? their control of vast oil reserves. So it would seem obvious even to the casual student of history that this one source of power and control is also their Achilles Heel. If we are to prevail and defeat them, this is where they are most vulnerable.

    Traditionally, they have wielded power on the international stage by controlling the supply of oil as we (the West) have come to them ?hat in hand? with gifts of technology, food, infrastructure projects, cash, ? you name it, in order to ?persuade? them to keep the pumps open. As anyone who drives a car can see, this philosophy is about to explode in our faces ? unless we react quickly. How do we accomplish this?

    It seems that the obvious and easiest way to attack the source of our enemy?s is, simply, to flood the world marketplace with oil and other energy sources!!! The United States alone (not even counting the vast resources of western countries like Canada) sits on top of HUGE sources of energy ? billions and billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, billions of tons of coal ? unknown billions of barrels of off-shore oil ? yet for a variety of reasons, we have not taken advantage of this ? political reasons disguised as ?concerns? for the environment have obscured the real challenges with which we have to deal with. IT?S TIME TO LET THE DOGS OUT!!!.

    What does that mean??? Let?s let the energy companies loose ? let?s help them, subsidize them, partner with them, support the quest for cheap oil sources, help them realize huge profits and tax them, let?s take off the gloves ? LET?S FLOOD THE WORLD MARKETS WITH OIL AND OTHER ENERGY SOURCES ? let?s break our Middle East enemy?s economically by taking away the one advantage they have!!!! Let?s make their oil worth a fraction of what is worth today to the point where it is they who must come to us ?hat in hand?.

    A ?small? peripheral benefit would be, through taxes on what would be vast profits and government/industry partnerships, to reduce or perhaps even eliminate our national debt! Another lesson from history can be seen from the ?Dot Com? era. Did the vast surpluses of money that flowed into our government coffers in the 90?s come from Bill Clinton?s economic brilliance, or was it the natural result of taxes being levied on vast new sources of income? Does anyone remember how low unemployment was during that time as well?

    It seems that letting the ?energy dogs? loose might just prove to be our salvation.

  • leehazel

    “It shows the utter absence of thinking we?ve grown to regard as typical from the man whose favorite solution to the crisis of the day is voting ?present.? ”

    AND, don’t forget, Give a Speech”