Obama and Johnson offer no energy solutions

Stop the presses! Senator Johnson has something to say about energy policy…

He says the U.S. must focus on using energy efficiently and on developing ethanol and other renewable fuels.

I guess it wasn’t the ground breaking news I was hoping for. But, just as he has blindly supported President Obama throughout this last senate term, Senator Johnson has the President’s back once again.

In a telephone press conference with South Dakota reporters, the Democratic senator says Republican presidential candidates are wrong to suggest that President Barack Obama is not doing enough to encourage an expansion of domestic oil production.

How are Republicans wrong to say President Obama has not done enough? Has he done anything other than block energy production? Obama opposed Keystone, has stifled the shallow and deep water drilling permits in the gulf and his moratorium in the gulf has accounted for an estimate loss of oil production at 220,000 barrels of oil a day. Yet he continues to act as if nothing can be done. Just like with every other issue, relieving the struggle of working people at the gas pump across our country is beyond his control.

Republicans argue we need more domestic production, which would mean jobs and a productive American energy solution.

If we want to lower the price of fuel, the intelligent thing to do would be to increase supply. Obama says this won’t influence the price, but we shouldn’t be surprised when he eventually decides he’s going to release 30 million barrels from the strategic petroleum reserve to flood the market and bring down the price.

If Obama thinks he can lower prices by releasing petroleum from the SPR, why wouldn’t it also work to just produce more energy in our country on a daily basis?

44 Replies to “Obama and Johnson offer no energy solutions”

  1. Amadeus

    According to Johnson I guess I should sell my farm truck since it burns more fuel than a Prius.

    Good point on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The President has no interest in doing anything but driving this country off a cliff. I can’t imagine the frustration amongst lawmakers in DC who want to do what’s best for our nation. It’s a sad time for the USA.

  2. springer

    And this is breaking news?!?! If Obama issues a statement, you can be assured that TJ will echo that same statement sooner than later. If Obama says the sky is yellow and the sun is blue, TJ would agree wholeheartedly. No surprise here!

        1. Anonymous

          If you’re talking about Iran, they won’t be around much longer anyway. Israel will slip a nuke bomb into Iran and make it look like Iran had its own nuke and accidentally set it off. Then the GOP will point to Obama and say, “Look – we told you Iran was close to having a nuke.” President Willard “Mitt” Romney will give Israel a few billion taxpayer dollars and a replacement nuke for the one Israel doesn’t acknowledge using in Iran.

          1. Bill Fleming

            Unlike the nation of Israel (specifically the city of Jerusalem) the nation of Iran cannot be obliterated by a single bomb. Israel supposedly has around 200 of them, and even that might not do the trick, especially if Russia and other Iranian allies retaliate. Iran is a huge country geographically.

            Thoughts such as those you express are decidedly not helpful. They only lend proof of the ignorance and arrogance so many concerned world citizens already suspect of our country.

            1. Anonymous

              Oh, our country won’t have anything to do with Israel’s attack on Iran. Netanyahu hates Obama almost as much as Ahmadinejad. Nothing would please Netanyahu more than attacking Iran and making Obama’s re-election more difficult at the same time. How’s that for an October surprise? From Netanyahu’s perspective, any President would be more friendly than Obama. So Romney, who will have nothing to do with the attack on Iran, will be the grateful recipient of the political (as opposed to nuclear) fallout, and will gladly do what all Presidents of both parties do – shovel American taxpayer funds hand over fist to Israel and put up with it when Netanyahu berates him in public.

              1. Anonymous

                Just to clarify, I’m not saying that Israel doesn’t have legitimate concerns about Iran or its neighbors. What I’m saying is that Netanyahu may in fact be an undiagnosed sociopathic megalomaniac of the same order as Newt Gingrich.

        2. duggersd

          You are in favor of those things such as fracking. This article talks about getting the oil from the resources that require different methods. Also note, the increase in production is not on federal lands. It is on lands he has no control over. Of course, the President could get behind the effort to open ANWR and more off shore places. Do you favor those much easier methods?

          1. Bill Fleming

            I am for examining all options and making the best (most sustainable) and environmentally enlightened long range choices. None of that will affect next week’s price of gasoline at the pump and anyone who thinks it will is either a liar, a fool, or both.

            1. duggersd

              So, ANWR would be a good idea, right? And from your article: “Small energy companies using such controversial techniques as hydraulic fracturing, along with horizontal drilling, are unlocking vast oil and natural gas deposits trapped in shale in places like Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Texas.” That hydraulic fracturing is something a lot of greenies do not like. Do you mind it? And off shore, you don’t have a problem with that, right? It is usually environmentally safe.
              Had ANWR been allowed to be drilled way back when it would either be online now or about to be. That would have been another amount that could have been added to our supply. But Senator Johnson preferred to import rather than develop our own.

                  1. anon

                    Take heart Dugger, you are bing called ugly by the worse trolls on SD blogs. Like being called stupid by a stump!

                    1. anooner

                      I don’t care for racists, and I don’t care for how Dug has treated students over the years. If that makes me a troll, so be it.

                  2. duggersd

                    nooner,
                    replying to your comment below, my identity is pretty well known on the blogs I participate. Making a statement such as the one you have, indicates to me your basic cowardice. And those statements should be taken with a grain of salt. Thankfully, I now know there is no reason to respond to anything you say in the future.

                1. duggersd

                  I only seek specificity, Bill. You know you. You like to twist what you say. Just trying to clarify your position. If you choose not to be clear, then that is your business.

                  1. veldy

                    Bill’s right when he says that nothing that might be done will affect the price at the pump next week. The reality is that everything that “might be done” won’t have an impact for 4 or 5 years. The problem is that that stament has been being given as a reason for doing nothing for the last 35 years.

                    1. Bill Fleming

                      See my note below. US oil consumption has been relatively constant for the past 30 years. The new demand is global. And prices fluctuate due to market speculation. But if you want to REALLY see them skyrocket, bomb Iran and watch what happens.

  3. insomniac

    We have so much energy in this country that we could be self suficient. It’s time we use our resources and stop buying energy from those we are at war with. If anyone says that they will be the next president.

  4. Anonymous

    Nixon had no solutions, Ford had no solutions, Carter had no solutions, Reagan had no solutions, Bush had no solutions, Clinton had no solutions, Bush jr. had no solutions. This is news?

    1. Anonymous

      They had solutions but the Dems controlled congress or the whitehouse through most of those years.

      The only time we were close to opening up oil production was in Bush’s early years after 9/11. Otherwise liberals in DC repeatedly stop American energy progress.

  5. MC Post author

    I am surprised that people just don’t get it. There is no silver bullet. The real key is ‘All of the the above.’

    Drill baby, drill – There is oil out there, let’s go get it.
    Conservation – We have to be careful about how when and where we use what we energy we have
    New techologies – There is a finite amount of fossil fuels left, we need to find a new scources. We might want to get a move on, time is running out.
    Old techologies ? I’m not saying give up the family car for a horse and buggy, but maybe use the wood fireplace or stove a tad more often.

    1. V

      We haven’t built a new major oil refinery in the USA since 1978. It’s time we get our country back on track.

    2. MC Post author

      Another factor is we have entirely too many blends of fuels, some states require api and some ban it, some areas require gasoline to meet different requirements others just don’t care.

      Have one or two different different mixes would go a long way in curbing gas prices.

  6. Anonymous

    Anon1:41, ya right. It’s all the liberals’ fault. Nobody else has any culpability. Now I understand. You are brilliant.

    1. 73*

      I doubt Republicans are anti production. It takes a majority or a sizable group of support to support this type of legislation.

  7. toad

    Day by day this is one of the issues that will destroy the Obama presidency.

    He doesn’t have anything going for him or his reelection efforts. Other than Rick Santorum.

  8. Bill Fleming

    And those who bemoan high gas prices now need to remember two things: 1) gas prices hit $4 a gallon during the Bush administration too. And 2) When gas prices were at rock bottom when Obama took office, so was the Dow Jones Industrial Average. But go ahead, flog it to death GOP, it’s the only argument (besides banning contraceptives) you have left. LOL.

  9. duggersd

    The basic question as I see it on these posts is the ability for the US to provide as much of its own energy as possible and the Administration’s lack of policy to make it so. On the one hand the Administration says it is for an all of the above approach and on the other it blocks many sensible programs that would put the US on the road to achieve the goal. The Obama Administration has blocked several drilling efforts and then takes credit for increased production that has more to do with his predecessor than with his policies. That production also happens to be on private land that he has no control over, yet.
    I have asked Bill if he specifically favors the practice of hydraulic facturing, a practice used to get oil from shale oil. I also ask him whether he supports drilling in ANWR, the footprint of which would be about like the placement of a foot on a football field. I ask these questions because the kinds of stands he has taken in the past tends to make me believe he does not favor these. So I am just wondering whether I misinterpreted his positions or whether he has changed them. Do to his practice of wordsmithing, it seems appropriate to clarify.

    1. i-pea

      Keystone XL is a land-grab that takes control of US private property by an offshore multinational.

      Just say no to ecocide.

    2. Bill Fleming

      Asked and answered. I am for examining all options and making the best (most sustainable) and environmentally enlightened long range choices.

      1. Bill Fleming

        Under certain geological conditions fracking can be harmful to the environment, in other situations not so much if at all. It depends on the circumstances. I don’t know enough about ANWR to comment and neither does duggerSD, but that doesn’t seem to stop him. Whatever Rush thinks is probably just dandy with him.

        1. Les

          I’m greedy, so I think fraccing is ok, kind of. It darn sure is causing earthquakes in some areas. It has consequences. The frac water pulled from the fracced well is hazardous waste and is usually disposed into another deep well. There are virtually no dry holes with horizontal drilling and fraccing.

          It’s a time thing, we need to get our butt in gear and get all the alternatives developed on a timeline. I don’t believe the current technology won’t blow up in our face given too much time.

          BTW, it appears to me the greenies call it fracking and the industry seems to be ok with fraccing as it is hydraulic fracturing. What say you class experts?

        2. duggersd

          Bill, it is nice to see you are willing to at least consider options that some years ago I do not believe you would have. As for ANWR, that has been in the news for over a decade. I am sure if you googled it, you could find some information on it. Saying that I like it if Rush says I should is like me saying you like something because President Obama does. I, like you, have my own mind, thankyouverymuch.

  10. D.E. Bishop

    MC said, “Another factor is we have entirely too many blends of fuels.” Good point, and interesting. I’ve heard very little talk about this.

    I’m guessing that states have their own blend requirements, depending mostly on their individual ecological/economical concerns. Can you say more about how to limit the number of blends without standardization via the federal government? It seems to me that would dramatically lessen a state’s right to monitor its natural environment.

    Will you say more about this, MC? Anyone else too.

  11. D.E. Bishop

    I’ve been hearing more about the earthquakes in western Pennsylvania. I wonder if they will restart fracking there? Seems like an awfully dangerous idea.

    The latest quake was something like 4.5, which continues the curve of strengthening quakes since it was the strongest so far. 4.5 is small potatoes for the West Coast, which is built for quakes, but it’s pretty big stuff for western PA, and probably anywhere fracking is going on.