Obama Administration: US Has Overinvested In Oil, Gas
Obama Administration: US Has Overinvested In Oil, Gas
by Siobhan Hughes
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones Newswires), Sept. 11, 2009
The Obama administration opened a new front in its effort to impose $31.5 billion in taxes on oil and gas companies, saying that the nation puts too much emphasis on oil and gas at the expense of other industries.
The chief economist in the Obama administration's Treasury Department testified before a Senate panel that current subsidies "lead to overinvestment" in the oil and gas industry. That went beyond previous statements about the need to protect taxpayers and was the clearest signal yet that the federal government hopes to end its role in nurturing domestic oil and gas production.
"To the extent that current subsidies for the oil and gas industry encourage the overproduction of oil and natural gas, they divert resources from other, potentially more efficient investments, and they are inconsistent with the Obama administration's goals to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and build a new, clean energy economy," Alan Krueger, the Treasury's chief economist, told the panel.
"That's absurd," said Devon Energy Corp. (DVN) Chief Executive Larry Nichols, the chairman of the American Petroleum Institute, before the panel. "At a time when respected energy studies agree on the need to increase all sources of domestic energy, it makes absolutely no sense to discourage production of our leading sources, oil and natural gas."
For years, Republicans encouraged oil as part of an "all of the above" strategy intended to reduce reliance on imports, especially from unstable parts of the world. But the Obama administration is trying to shift the debate amid a focus on global warming. Oil is viewed by the Obama administration as part of the problem because transportation accounts for more than a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
The new rhetoric isn't sitting well with Congress. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, warned that the U.S. would be "at a tremendous disadvantage" if the country turned its back on oil, gas and coal. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., a moderate voice in the Democratic party, cited "concerns" about some of the proposals, urging sensitivity to regional interests. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., used stronger language.
"We are 62% imported from not very friendly countries right now on oil," Bunning said. Krueger replied: "That's correct. The best way for us to reduce" -- but Bunning cut him off. "Is to become less independent -- is that what you're saying?" Bunning said.
The Obama administration also may run into inconsistencies as it shapes its own energy program. By taking away tax incentives for gas production, the U.S. would be discouraging a cleaner-burning fossil fuel that is seen by some environmentalists as central to transitioning away from coal.
"This counterproductive approach is also at odds with the administration's own carbon reduction policy because it would discourage the production of natural gas, our cleanest fossil fuel," said Nichols.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=80239&hmpn=1
by Siobhan Hughes
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones Newswires), Sept. 11, 2009
The Obama administration opened a new front in its effort to impose $31.5 billion in taxes on oil and gas companies, saying that the nation puts too much emphasis on oil and gas at the expense of other industries.
The chief economist in the Obama administration's Treasury Department testified before a Senate panel that current subsidies "lead to overinvestment" in the oil and gas industry. That went beyond previous statements about the need to protect taxpayers and was the clearest signal yet that the federal government hopes to end its role in nurturing domestic oil and gas production.
"To the extent that current subsidies for the oil and gas industry encourage the overproduction of oil and natural gas, they divert resources from other, potentially more efficient investments, and they are inconsistent with the Obama administration's goals to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and build a new, clean energy economy," Alan Krueger, the Treasury's chief economist, told the panel.
"That's absurd," said Devon Energy Corp. (DVN) Chief Executive Larry Nichols, the chairman of the American Petroleum Institute, before the panel. "At a time when respected energy studies agree on the need to increase all sources of domestic energy, it makes absolutely no sense to discourage production of our leading sources, oil and natural gas."
For years, Republicans encouraged oil as part of an "all of the above" strategy intended to reduce reliance on imports, especially from unstable parts of the world. But the Obama administration is trying to shift the debate amid a focus on global warming. Oil is viewed by the Obama administration as part of the problem because transportation accounts for more than a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
The new rhetoric isn't sitting well with Congress. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, warned that the U.S. would be "at a tremendous disadvantage" if the country turned its back on oil, gas and coal. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., a moderate voice in the Democratic party, cited "concerns" about some of the proposals, urging sensitivity to regional interests. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., used stronger language.
"We are 62% imported from not very friendly countries right now on oil," Bunning said. Krueger replied: "That's correct. The best way for us to reduce" -- but Bunning cut him off. "Is to become less independent -- is that what you're saying?" Bunning said.
The Obama administration also may run into inconsistencies as it shapes its own energy program. By taking away tax incentives for gas production, the U.S. would be discouraging a cleaner-burning fossil fuel that is seen by some environmentalists as central to transitioning away from coal.
"This counterproductive approach is also at odds with the administration's own carbon reduction policy because it would discourage the production of natural gas, our cleanest fossil fuel," said Nichols.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=80239&hmpn=1
Views: 64
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on -
No, Jack Blake is right, even in the third person!
Obama is wrong. And he lies!
-
Permalink Reply by essay on -
hitler might be hyperbole, but closet marxist is not.
i never thought i would see the day.
edit: and i might add what i find really disturbing about the man is the fact that by now i am utterly convinced of his personal convictions.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill G on
-
I havent been on this web site in 4 ever and nothing has changed...same old sheep fallowing the master into the slaughter house....IDIotS...
I LOVE IT...
Guess I will look back on the site in another six months and see the same loosers...following thes same Paths...No need to argue with these idiots...they are who they are...LOL! I just laugh and move on..
Us Evel rich will have it all in the end again cause idiots like this will just give it back to us...LOL
Obama can hug my left Acorn! LOL!
-
Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on
-
Bill G: we must observe proper protocol. It is "President Obama can hug my left ACORN!, sir".
I'm not sure I want him anywhere near my Acorns...or my wallet...or my children...or my healthcare provider...or my truck...he or his unapproved/unconstitutional czars!
-
Permalink Reply by Catfish on
-
JB i do agree on the second statment>
Long live jack blake! long live the hs
-
Permalink Reply by LP on
-
Politicians bought and paid for by the middle east.
Kill any opportunity to make the USA energy independent. If America were to become energy independent, would hurt the middle east and we can't do that. It wouldn't be nice.
The one and only way we had to save this country was through domestic energy resources.
At least we can stop fretting about health care, jobs, food, illegal aliens, and national security. No country, no worries.
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
Sadly, I think a lot of these guys are true believers who think that liberal treehugger thinking is going to miraculously preserve our way of life without any oil, gas, or nuclear fuel as an input.
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on
-
Perhaps the goal is for us to live like the Chinese citizens live. They don't use so much energy like we do on an individual or per capita bases do they?
-
Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on
-
Remember the bumper sticker from a few years back? "TURN ON A LIGHT BULB AND FREEZE A YANKEE".
It just needs to be updated from "YANKEE" to "TREE HUGGER".
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Hn on
-
For decades, Enviro-Nazi groups such as Greenpeace, E.L.F., etc, have affected & helped shape our Nation's energy policy. That "Unofficial" energy policy has been "Let's get as much of our oil, as possible, from Abdul". With the historic election of the Nation's first ever Black Panther president, these lunatic fringe groups are no longer affecting policy from the outside, they are in the White House and they intend to make 'changes' that can only be described as lunacy. These people, and their 'Green' agenda, are a threat not just to our American way of life, but also a threat to National Security. It's one thing to aspire to do without hydro-carbon based energy, but to actually think that we can, at this point in time, is insane. I'm not the first to say it, this 'out of control Gov't' and their Democrat media complex, are a threat to 'We, the People'.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Vernon Parish
59 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
399 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
242 members
-
Sabine County, Texas
172 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
Cass County, TX
118 members
-
Angelina County, TX
87 members
-
Titus County
10 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
