Tag Archives: energy policy

local news

‘New normal’ for fuel prices: still weird

We all were kids once and many of us of a certain age remember when it was “normal” to pay, oh, 25 cents for a gallon of motor fuel.

No more, gang. We now are in the midst of the “new normal” that allows us to rejoice — if only just a bit — when the price of go-juice dips below $3 per gallon.

I just filled up my pickup in Princeton, Texas, where gasoline is now being peddled for $2.52 per gallon at the service station near my home. The truck was practically empty — not “running on fumes” empty, but still pretty low. The pump stopped at less than $40. The truck was full.

I am acutely aware that the new normal means something different for our fellow Americans in California, or Hawaii, or New York. I hear about it all the time; I have family members out west who pay a whole lot more per gallon for gas than we do in Texas.

Still, it makes me chuckle when I applaud the notion of paying $2.52 per gallon for gasoline … when I recall how it used to be.

To be sure, it’s a whole lot more tolerable to shell out dough for gasoline when it’s two whole dollars per gallon less expensive now than it was just a little while ago.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

economic news

Shall we slow down to reduce fuel prices?

Of all the possible remedies being discussed on how to deal with the skyrocketing price of motor fuel, I have yet to hear one notion that got a lot of attention in the 1970s when we experienced an earlier form of sticker shock at the gas pump.

Those of us old folks recall when the Middle East oil embargo forced prices to zoom out of sight. Our response then in real time? It was to slow motorists down to 55 mph. Do you recall that? Sure you do!

Congress acted with relative dispatch.

The slowdown on our interstate highways lasted until the mid-1990s when Republicans took control of Congress and then lifted the mandated speed restrictions. We’ve been zooming along ever since.

I want to offer that as a possible talking point in the current climate.

It is clear that slowing down our motor vehicles from 75 and 80 mph to something a good bit less than that results in significant fuel savings. So, if you play that out just a bit you come up with a notion that greater supply and diminished demand on a commodity — such as gasoline or diesel fuel — could drive the price of that product down to more reasonable levels.

I was a huge proponent of slowing motorists in the 1970s. I received plenty of grief from my West Texas friends about my desire to drive more slowly.

Well, I don’t expect anyone to take this seriously. Perhaps the current price spikes are far beyond simple remedies such as what we enacted in an earlier time.

I just would like to see this talking point introduced once again in the public debate on energy policy. Let’s all remember this indisputable fact: Fossil fuels will not last forever.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

economic news

That was then

Ahhh, yes. We remember those days, don’t we. They’re gone forever. As Don Henley once sang, “Don’t look back; you can never look back.”

But this picture does remind me of a more innocent time in the life of our great nation.

I am 72 years of age, which makes me old enough to remember how simple life used to be for all Americans. I remember a time when gasoline sold actually for about half the price shown in the picture attached to this post.

I grew up in Portland, Ore. Dad had this way of talking to gas station attendants — yes, they’re still on the job in Oregon to this day. We would ride in a car he was driving; he would pull up to the gas pump at the station.

The attendant would approach the car and Dad would say, “I’ll take a buck’s worth of regular.” Yep. One dollar’s worth of gasoline in the car.

Let’s do a bit of simple math. Gasoline sold for about 25 cents per gallon in those days. A “buck’s worth” bought Dad about four gallons of gas. If the vehicle he was driving was somewhat fuel-efficient — bear in mind that “fuel efficiency” was hardly on our minds in those days — he could drive, oh, about 60 to 75 miles on just those four gallons of gas.

I am left to simply sigh wistfully.

Those days won’t return. I find myself at this very moment wishing for “less expensive” motor fuel to drop to less than $4 per gallon.

Today we are grumbling at everyone. The president needs to “do something” to stop the skyrocketing price of motor fuel. In truth, the president is virtually powerless to control these prices. We bitch at the oil companies for price gouging. I am inclined to join that crowd, but I certainly understand there is little we can do to fight against what we believe is occurring in oil-company board rooms.

If they’re all doing it, how do we boycott the oil companies?

We are left to wish for worldwide conditions to change and for the worldwide supply to make it a bit more economical just to pump fuel for our motor vehicles.

If only we could turn back the clock.

— johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

economic news, environmental news

Biden energy policy undergoes big shift

It pains me to say this, but it appears that President Biden is flailing as he seeks to grapple with skyrocketing energy prices.

The president made a vigorous pledge during the 2020 campaign that there would “never” be drilling for oil on federal land were he elected to the nation’s highest office. I applauded the pledge when he made it.

Now he has changed his mind in a major fashion. The president now will allow that drilling to boost the supply of fossil fuel. He said times have changed since the 2020 campaign, requiring a pivot from that environmentally sound policy pronouncement.

The price of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products has zoomed skyward, causing considerable pain at the pump for millions of Americans.

Still, Biden’s decision has angered environmental activists. I am not officially one of the “angry” Americans. I am just disappointed in the president’s policy reversal, which isn’t likely to have much of an impact on the price of fuel we are paying.

Joe Biden has sought to steer the nation toward a more renewable energy posture. Critics suggest any diminishing of the fossil fuel industry deprives Americans of jobs. What they ignore, though, is that green-energy job creation can help soften such job losses.

What’s more, efforts to rely more on alternatives to fossil fuels free the nation of any dependence on foreign sources of oil … while creating a cleaner environment that helps stem the damage caused by climate change.

President Biden is feeling the heat — no pun intended — from those who want relief from high fuel prices. If only he could stop flailing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

business news, environmental news

Energy prices up, then down, then up . . .

Donald Trump is cheering the drop in oil prices. So am I. I don’t like paying more for gasoline than I can afford. So, I am enjoying watching the price of crude take a tumble.

But wait a second! Didn’t the president come into office declaring his intention to shore up the fossil fuel industry? He tossed some of the environmental regulations approved during the Obama administration, claiming they hurt drillers’ ability to explore for oil.

The other thing that hurt drillers was, um, the price of oil. Back when it was around $100 per barrel, pump jacks all over Texas and the rest of the Oil Patch that had gone silent when the prices fell were restarted. They began pumping the “Texas Tea” out of the ground.

Why, then, does the president say this in a Twitter message:

Oil prices getting lower. Great! Like a big Tax Cut for America and the World. Enjoy! $54, was just $82. Thank you Saudi Arabia, but let’s go lower!

His Pennsylvania Avenue cheering section seems to suggest now that he wants the price to keep falling. A lot of West Texas wildcatters are unhappy with the trend. They don’t want to see it continue. They want it to go the other way.

I happen to hope it doesn’t, just like the president.

But why didn’t the president say anything in that tweet about developing alternative energy sources? President Obama made quite a push to do so during his two terms in office. The result was that we became effectively “energy independent.” The U.S. of A. became the world’s leading oil producer. Meanwhile, we invested in wind, solar and hydropower to take the burden off those wildcatters and Big Oil to keep producing.

Which is it now? Are we going to cheer the plunging oil prices or wish them to increase?

Donald Trump, per usual, is sending a mixed — or perhaps confused — message to the world.

***

And of course, the bouquet the president tossed to Saudi Arabia — in light of his hideous acceptance of the Saudis’ denial in the murder of a U.S.-based journalist — sends another chilling message altogether. More on that one to come.

business news

Boone Pickens calls it a career … for the final time?

T. Boone Pickens is retiring.

Reportedly for the third time. Something tells me that this is it for the legendary Texas Panhandle oil and natural gas mogul.

Pickens is 89 years of age. His health has been sketchy of late. He wrote this in a letter published on LinkedIn:

“Health-wise, I’m still recovering from a series of strokes I suffered late last year, and a major fall over the summer. If you are lucky enough to make it to 89 years of age like I have, those things tend to put life in perspective. It’s time to start making new plans and setting new priorities.”

Pickens recently put his vast Mesa Vista estate in rural Roberts County up for sale. He’s asking about $250 million for the 80,000-acre spread.

To say this man has left a huge footprint across the Texas Panhandle would be to say that Donald John Trump has, um, “changed” the presidency of the United States.

Pickens’s influence spreads far beyond the Panhandle, the region that helped him build the beginning of his immense fortune. And along the way, he made his share of enemies as well as friends. He once engaged in a notorious feud with the Amarillo Globe-News, where I worked for nearly 18 years until August 2012; Pickens’s beef with the paper predated my arrival there, but I heard all about it.

I am in neither camp. I am merely acquainted with Pickens. We have what I believe is a nice relationship. While working for a time as a “special projects reporter” for KFDA NewsChannel 10 in Amarillo, I had the pleasure of interviewing Pickens at his opulent Mesa Vista ranch.

I certainly know of the impact he has made on the region and on the world’s energy industry.

My intent with this blog post merely is to wish Pickens well as he, in his own words, begins “making new plans and setting new priorities.”

business news

No, sir, government isn’t the same as a business

I’ve had the pleasure of visiting on three occasions with one of the smartest men in America.

T. Boone Pickens has earned a fortune in the oil and natural gas business. He knows fossil fuels better than, well, almost anyone.

The former Amarillo resident and current fossil fuel tycoon, though, misses the mark when he says that you can run government “like a business.”

Pickens has written an essay for Texas Monthly, in which he says in part: “In the late eighties and early nineties, I considered running for governor of Texas. Now a lot has changed since that time. But one thing that hasn’t changed is the need to make sure we have a government that works.

“’Can you really run a government like a business?’ I was asked at the time. ‘Sure you can,’ I replied. ‘It’s a business to start with. Taxpayers are like stockholders, and both are entitled to a full day’s work for a full day’s pay. For a dollar spent, taxpayers ought to receive a dollar back in value.’”

Pickens is as smart a businessman as anyone you’ll ever know.

But as another tycoon is learning, government is a much different animal than a business. That tycoon, Donald J. Trump — who Pickens supported wholeheartedly for president of the United States — is learning in real time that the founders established a checks and balances system for a good reason. It is to ensure that no one branch of government runs roughshod over the other two.

The crux of Pickens’ essay was to extol the need to make the United States energy independent. He’s right about that need. He’s also got a dog in that fight, given that he owns a whole lot of fossil fuel rights in the United States and stands to benefit tremendously from pumping these fuels out of the ground.

He misses another point, though. It is that we already have made huge strides toward that goal in the past eight years. The Obama administration sought to provide incentives for investment in alternative energy sources: wind, solar, hydropower, biofuels. The big spike in oil prices in recent years has prompted much more fossil fuel exploration in this country. Add to that the fuel efficiency standards mandated on automakers and you have a sort of perfect storm that weans us from foreign oil.

Back to my main point.

Business is business. Government, though, is another creature altogether. I get that Pickens desires a business-like approach to government. However, the principles one applies to running a business do not transfer straight into the act of politicking, legislating and the making of laws.

Business executives can make decisions that stick, with no questions asked. Politicians have a different platform on which they operate. They have voters to whom they must answer. They also have colleagues who might have different points of view, a differing world view. They are as wedded to their view of the world as the businessman or woman is wedded to whatever he or she believes.

The “business” of running a government requires a certain skill set that business executives need to learn. From what I’ve seen of the businessman/president, he hasn’t yet learned it.

Perhaps someone like Boone Pickens could figure it out. If only, as he said, he had less history behind him and more in front of him.

environmental news, national news, political news

Would a Secretary Perry bring wind into U.S. energy grid?

electric sparking lamp

Let’s play out a possible scenario that, the more I think about it, sounds increasingly intriguing.

It’s the idea of naming former Texas Gov. Rick “Oops” Perry as the country’s next energy secretary.

Set aside for a moment that Perry once said he wanted to get rid of the Energy Department. His recitation of the three agencies he’d dismantle produced his infamous “oops” moment during a 2012 Republican presidential debate.

Let us also set aside that Perry once called Donald J. Trump a “cancer on conservatism.” The president-elect is considering him for this key Cabinet post anyway. Hey, Perry did end up endorsing and campaigning for Trump. I guess they’ve made up.

Perry served as Texas governor for 14 years, longer than anyone in state history. On his watch, the state managed to do something quite correct with regard to energy policy. It has become — along with California, imagine that — among the leaders in wind energy generation in America.

I’m not entirely clear on what direct role Gov. Perry played in all of that. I do know, though, that during the time he served as governor, the state’s sprawling landscape has become “decorated” with wind turbines, in many instances for as far as one can see.

The Texas Panhandle is among those places where wind power has become major “alternative energy” source.

It is as clear as can be that Perry comes from a state that also produces a lot of fossil fuel. Oil and natural gas also are quite prevalent throughout Texas.

I will remain hopeful, though, that a former governor of a state that has developed such a huge — and growing — alternative energy industry might want to imbue a federal agency that he might lead with the same policy.

Drill, baby, drill isn’t the only way to rid the nation of its dependence on foreign oil. Indeed, we’ve already come a huge distance in that regard during the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency, which has promoted many forms of clean alternative energy sources to heat and cool our homes, fuel our motor vehicles and power our industrial plants.

Would an Energy Secretary Rick Perry continue that policy? Would the president who nominated him allow such a thing?

My hope springs eternal.

environmental news, national news

No thank you on wind turbines

thzj7k5lfv

SANDHILL COUNTRY, Neb. — They love their sandhills in northwest Nebraska.

They love them so much that one sees signs that read “Save the Sandhills” as you tool along U.S. Highway 83 northbound into South Dakota.

“I wonder from what or whom they’re wanting to save the sandhills,” I asked my wife.

Then it became evident.

We noticed another set of signs: “Say ‘no’ to wind turbines.”

There you have it. They don’t want no stinkin’ wind turbines polluting the landscape in Sandhill Country.

Interestingly, as we noticed campaign signs for all manner of political candidates on the eve of the election, we didn’t see evidence of a ballot measure calling for construction of wind turbines. I guess, therefore, that the good folks here are launching a pre-emptive strike against anyone who might want to install the big-bladed turbines that have become part of the landscape in, say, West Texas, Eastern New Mexico, the Oklahoma Panhandle and even parts of Kansas.

This more or less cuts to another question: Do the folks in northwest Nebraska — what few of them one can spot — not care about national energy policy, or about whether wind power could help us develop cleaner, safer, non-foreign sources of energy?

I’m guessing they do.

Just don’t put the big ol’ blades in their territory.

business news, International news, national news

Here’s a thought: Let’s join OPEC

hf_128935_article

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has becomes something of a four-letter word in the United States.

OPEC is evil. It intends to do us harm. We don’t want to be “dependent” on oil produced in countries that hate us.

You’ve heard the mantra. I’ve heard it, too. It all started about the time of the first Arab oil embargo in 1973.

Here, though, is a notion that ought to get some serious consideration.

Now that the United States also is a “petroleum exporting country,” why don’t we join OPEC at the conference table?

OPEC comprises a lot of nations that do hate the United States. Venezuela is one of them. Iran, too.

However, now that we’re the big dog in the fossil fuel-producing pack, it would seem to make sense that we could exert our own influence over OPEC’s decision-making as it grapples with whether to reduce or increase production in an effort to control worldwide fuel prices.

Through a series of on-going efforts, Americans have eliminated this country’s dependence on imported oil. We’re now on the verge of becoming No. 1 in the world. We’ve overtaken Russia and Saudi Arabia. We’ve developed more renewable energy sources, helping increase the glut of petroleum on the world market.

OPEC, though, keeps meeting and deciding how much — or how little — oil to produce.

Isn’t it time the United States of America join OPEC? For that matter, we ought to bring our oil-rich allies in Canada and Mexico into the organization with us — providing, of course, that they’d be willing. We no longer need to curse the organization.