Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Frack, Baby, Frack! — then Export!

That's how to make America energy independent again! (sarcasm)

To get a budget deal, why do we have to extend tax breaks for big corporations and give big oil companies (who already get government subsidies) another huge bonanza?

You'd think that America's natural resources was a personal piggy bank for a handful of people running a few oil companies...and some crooked politicians.

Huffington Post (Dec. 9, 2015) Congress is close to a deal that could flood the global markets with American oil because Republicans are eager to end the oil export ban ... and Democrats are listening. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is leading the charge.

L.A. Times (Oct. 2014) Alaska gives every resident $1,884 despite declining oil revenue -- Voters upheld a state oil tax plan that critics, including leading Alaska Democrats and Sarah "Drill, Baby, Drill" Palin, called a government giveaway to oil companies. Alaska has no state sales tax or income tax, relying mainly on declining oil revenue to pay for services such as state troopers and roads. Republican Gov. Sean Parnell, a former oil industry lobbyist who took office when Palin quit in 2009, championed the tax plan. Parnell said the lower taxes would increase the oil production that was once so plentiful that it seeded the now-$51-billion Permanent Fund used to write strings-free checks to every eligible resident.

Wiki: Shortly after the oil from Alaska’s North Slope began flowing to market through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the Alaska Permanent Fund was created by an amendment to the Alaska Constitution. It was designed to be an investment where at least 25% of the oil money would be put into a dedicated fund for future generations, who would no longer have oil as a resource.

So now cheap heating oil and gasoline is a "bad thing" because it reduces incentives to transition to clean energy. From the last paragraph at the New York Times:

"For consumers, the drop in oil has been a boon. Still, the energy agency warned of the long-term consequences of low energy prices. Sustained low prices will not necessarily create benefits for importing countries in the longer run as it could complicate the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

If we all drove electric cars and heated/cooled our homes powered by electricity created from nuclear fusion, solar panels and wind farms, don't you think that the corporations who create nuclear fusion, electricity and electric cars would still make enormous profits — with our prices always increasing?

If we rely on oil now, why not stockpile (or stop producing, and just import cheap oil) until such a time that cleaner energy can be more economically produced? Why export our domestic resources (what we have for finite capacity) if we can use someone else’s? Is it just to profit American oil/gas companies?

Yahoo News (Dec. 7, 2015) Hillary Clinton would not oppose lifting the 1970s-era U.S. ban on most oil exports, if it came with tradeoffs for clean energy, and that it would not be responsible to abruptly halt oil, gas, and coal extraction on public lands. Bernie Sanders would stop exports of U.S. natural gas and all crude oil. He is also the co-sponsor of a bill to ban future fossil fuel lease sales on public lands. (More here and here — and here's Bernie Sanders' plan)

My related Posts

End Entitlements for Big Oil

Build the Keystone Pipeline AND Export Oil?

GOP's Energy and Jobs Bill is Transparent

Not just Big Oil, there's also Nuclear Welfare

Romney to give Mormon State our Federal Land and Oil

Keystone Pipeline: Who Owns the Oil, and Why?

How does Cheap Oil Risk U.S. Jobs and Pensions?

Energy Independence from Big Oil Companies

China's Keystone XL pipeline

Canada Seizes American Property for Oil Pipeline

Hillary Clinton Flip-Flops on Keystone Pipeline


  1. U.S. taxpayers need a huge reserve of oil for national defense — fuel for our military's needs. Why should we have to pay more when the cost of oil eventually rises again?

  2. The Hill:

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats appear ready to accept a major policy change by allowing an end to the current ban on crude oil exports -- a reform long sought by the petroleum industry and Republicans on Capitol Hill. But the Democrats’ compromise won’t come without significant concessions from across the aisle, and the prolonged stalemate appears largely rooted in the fight over what the Democrats can win in return for the oil export provision. [Nancy Pelosi and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan sat down for dinner together last night, but claimed the budget wasn't discussed. Then what else were they talking about?]