Columns
Obama's Energy Plan: Oily Incompetence or Succeeding Fabulously?
Around the State

The president, during a visit to the University of Miami last month, talked about energy. With his poll numbers tanking, how could he not? But in keeping with his "green" fixation, Obama's focus wasn't on petroleum. It was on algae.
"We could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in the United States," he vowed.
Pointing to a $14 million federal grant to turn kelp into fuel, the president again banged the drum for renewable energy -- and hyped another Solyndra-style boondoggle.
The latest independent research shows that to replace 17 percent of U.S. oil imports, algae would need to be planted on an area roughly the size of South Carolina and would require 350 gallons of water for every gallon of algae fuel created.
While the president drills dry holes, he studiously avoids the facts on the ground -- which are that the United States has plenty of untapped oil reserves.
"The total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels, with 1.4 trillion barrels in the United States alone," writes Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research.
"That's more than the entire world has used in 150 years, and sufficient to fuel the present needs of our nation for the next 250 years."
Obama must know this. And, amid rising anger over soaring pump prices, the administration has begun to boast that it is OK'ing more drilling permits than ever.
Yet these belated, post-moratorium approvals are a drop in the bucket -- and about as credible as Energy Secretary Steven Chu's recent epiphany over the damage done by rising pump prices.
The Obama administration "has issued 50.7 percent fewer annual [oil drilling] leases on public lands than President Clinton did," says Karen Harbert, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy.
"Gulf of Mexico energy production is down 16 percent since 2009 and is projected to decrease even further in 2012," Harbert added.
Obama's feckless, or nonexistent, energy policies are keeping America's sluggish economy down because higher gas prices siphon discretionary consumer spending, raise prices and kill job growth. The White House's costly stimulus programs have merely managed to move (inflated) money around while shrinking the private sector.
In one widely circulating account that epitomizes his mal-administration, the president was stupefied to learn that the billions of dollars he has funneled into green-energy ventures yielded only 3,000 jobs to date. Bankrupt companies don't generate much employment after all.
The mainstream media, which ritually thrashed Republicans for the gas-price run-ups in 2004 and 2008, now declare there's little a poor president can do.
But surely a Nobel Prize winner hailed as the smartest guy in any room could see big problems beyond the Deepwater Horizon. And still this president can't even bring himself to approve the job-generating Keystone pipeline.
Such dithering only strengthens America's adversaries.
Say what you will about the Chinese communists, even they aren't so politically dogmatic as to commit these types of self-immolating blunders. Conspiracy theorists have attempted to explain away what appears to be gross incompetence: They assert that this president is succeeding fabulously in pursuit of his overriding goal -- remaking America into a quasi-European state.
Whatever dreams are bouncing around in Obama's head will become a real national nightmare if he's permitted to stay on his current course for another four years.
Pulling oil out of the ground is hard work, but it's not brain surgery. Promoting visions of green slime just won't get the job done.
Contact Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.

Comments (11)
Solydra story is opening a huge can of worms at the DOE LOAN GURANTEE LOAN PROGRAM. Its not just about the Solar loan guarantee program. Look at all the millions in fees collected by the DOE LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM with algae projects less than 20% completed. An audit is being done on all DOE GRANTS to algae researchers and ndividuals from the DOE that are now working in private industry. Very incestuous!
The US taxpayer has spent over $2.5 billion dollars over the last 50 years on algae research. To date, nothing has been commercialized by any algae researcher.
The REAL question is: Does the DOE BIOMASS PROGRAM really want the US off of foreign oil or do they want to continue funding more grants for algae research to keep algae researchers employed at universities for another 50 years?
In business, you are not given 50 years to research anything. The problem is in the Congressional Mandate that says the DOE can only use taxpayer monies on algae research, NOT algae production in the US. So far, algae research has not got the US off of foreign oil for the last 50 years!
A Concerned Taxpayer
ARPA-E halts algae project, citing missed milestones
Jim Lane | February 16, 2012
Share"In Washington, the DOE has halted a research project at Iowa State University funded by ARPA-E to develop biofuel feedstock from an aquatic micro-organism for failing to reach research milestones. About 56% of the $4.4 million grant was used. Politicians against increasing APRA-E funding as proposed by President Obama’s new budget are using it and other halted ARPA-E projects as examples to reject the program."
Well someone might want to ask Mr. Obama as he is the cause of this price spike. His do nothing, apologetic approach to the middle east and especially to Iran is creating major uncertainty and fear. When you have those two prices start escalating.
The other problem is we are printing money like it is going into Monopoly games. Our dollar is becoming worthless. It takes more and more of them to purchase oil. Thus the price goes up.
This latest spike is simple to answer. We do not have a supply problem, we have a policy problem.
While that estimate is a lot, we shouldn't forget it is stated as "sufficient to fuel the present needs of our nation" Double emphasis on present needs of our nation.
Over the next 40 years, we're expected to grow by another 100 million which will exponentially increase our needs (unless we continue to add alternatives and get better at efficiency.)
Not to mention that unless we nationalize the oil in our nation or require it to only be sold in our nation, as long as there is demand in other parts of the world, we will export as much as we can. (While we grow by another 100 million, the world is expected to grow by 2 billion or more.)
That will create a lot demand even if they continue to use a fraction of what we do.
Therefore, I say go ahead and open more drilling. We really have no choice. And go ahead and diss President Obama for thinking alternatives will come to the rescue in the near term, but not for investing in them. (Even though to date those investments haven't been so fruitful someday, it will pay off, just like our investments in oil have.)
And be mindful of the elephant in the room. Developing our oil (and natural gas) at this time requires water. Water. Another finite and important "commodity" to our economy and quality and life. And one in which our needs increase as the population grows.
(Already out west, some ranchers as well as municipalities are selling the water they have "rights" to, to the oil industry. Some of that water will be left unrecoverable as well as polluted. But that isn't the only area of the country where water is at a premium. Right here in Florida some places are considering cleaning up their effluent to not just meet their needs for industrial or outdoor use, but to meet their drinking water needs.)
Anyway, it would be penny wise and pound foolish -as well as selfish to make gas slightly more affordable for this generation if means making water a lot more expensive for the next generation.
Oh, and on the bright side. Maybe our legislators knew what they were doing after all by fighting the EPA's water quality standards for Florida. We already have plenty of algae growing and it won't require additional amounts of water. ;-)
On the flip side, the WSJ reports some drillers are scaling back due to the price drop. Another article claims they're looking for ways to export it to fetch higher prices.
We should face it. We will always be held over a barrel as long as there is demand anywhere in the world for oil and gas. Renewable alternatives are our only hope of ever having stable affordable transportation energy.
We have more coal than many (most?) countries in the world. Destroy the coal industry. The Alyeska pipeline is down to about 500,000 barrels a day. ANWR might just fill it up. Then the only "problem" will be repair and upgrade of an existing facility. The Keystone XL extension is held up due to "environmental" considerations. But no one tells you that there are thousands of miles of pipeline already over the Ogallala. Fracking is now "controversial". But the increased production has dropped the price of natural gas by 75% in ten years. But increasing oil production will have no effect on prices? Why is oil the "unique" among commodities? And why is the administration considering opening up the petroleum reserve to lower crude prices? That is, if increasing production will not affect prices?
I could keep going - but that was a good start. A follow through in November is in order.
Leave a Comment on This Story