Timing of so-called "energy crisis" highly suspect

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Just as Bush takes office, he and his corporate friends in the energy industry produce a threatening illustration in the heart of environmentalist territory as to what will happen if they don't let these money-hungry scoundrels tear up our wilderness in search of more oil.

Just coincidence? I think NOT! Just watch, in a few years you'll know exactly why this is happening at this particular point in the political paradigm shift.

__________

Thursday January 18 8:16 PM ET Bush to Fight 'Energy Crisis,' May Help California

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect George W. Bush (news - web sites) on Thursday vowed to fight a ``huge energy crisis'' by expanding energy supplies and offered a ray of hope to California as the state battles an acute electricity shortage.

In an interview with Reuters, Bush he would analyze all federal lands for oil exploration and enlist Mexico's help as a neighbor and major oil producer.

He rejected calls to breach hydroelectric dams and said a natural gas pipeline would be needed to transport any gas tapped in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

``I can't (over)emphasize how important it is for this nation to develop energy supplies. There needs to be conservation, no question about it, but we cannot conserve our way to low prices and energy independence,'' Bush told Reuters.

In a later television interview, the president-elect held out the prospect of early federal help for California, which is wrestling with an electricity shortage that has triggered two days of blackouts, saying he would explore providing regulatory relief for power plants.

However, Bush also said California was hampered by long-term problems including a ``faulty'' deregulation law that must be fixed, a shortage of power generating capacity, and not enough pipelines to supply any new plants.

``California must fix its system. And to the extent that the Federal government can help California help itself, I will do that,'' Bush told Fox Television.

Exploring ``Western Lands''

The president-elect said he would respect state wishes not to allow oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida. But he contended there were a lot of ``western lands'' that could support energy exploration without undue risk to the environment.

``I'm going to analyze every ... every piece of property that is federal land and come up with a cost-benefit analysis, basically. Because we need more supply,'' he said, adding that there would be ``pristine'' and ``sensitive'' areas where energy development should be prohibited.

However, referring to the Arctic refuge, Bush said: ``No question about the fact that the ANWR will be a part of a longer-term strategy.'' Environmentalists hotly oppose oil and natural gas drilling in the vast federally protected wildlife area. Congressional action would be required to open the area to energy development.

Developing the refuge would not have a quick impact, because of the need to build infrastructure, Bush said. ``Natural gas can't be trucked. It's got to be piped and therefore there has to be a pipeline, capacity to move that gas,'' he said.

Bush dismissed as outdated calls for breaching hydroelectric dams, criticized by environmentalists for disrupting salmon runs, especially in the Pacific Northwest.

``I don't notice anybody talking anymore about breaching the dams to save the salmon now that there's a huge energy crisis,'' he said, adding that power from hydroelectric dams was needed.

``When you start removing supplies of energy out of the mix, you're going to affect price,'' he said.

Bush said strengthening energy ties with Mexico, the world's fifth-largest oil producer and not a member of the OPEC (news - web sites) cartel, would have an immediate effect on easing a U.S. energy shortfall.

``The quickest way to have impact on the energy situation, is for us to work with Mexico, and a certain extent Canada, to build a policy for the hemisphere,'' he said.

California Crisis

Noting that California faces long-term difficulties, Bush said, ``What's happening in California is not only the result of what appears to be a faulty law to begin with ... but there has been no power generating capacity developed in California.''

``If there were power-generating capacity, which evidently there is going to be here in the short term, there may not be enough product to power that capacity, because there's no pipelines being built.''

In his interview with Fox, Bush pledged to investigate relaxing federal regulations on power plants. ``I am told ... that there are some federal regulations that prevent them from operating at maximum load. And if that's the case, we need to do something about it. Relax regulation,'' he said.

He rejected price controls and said California must change its deregulation law. ``It is a bad piece of legislation and California needs to change it. But in the meantime, the Federal government can help in the short term.''

Bush told Reuters the United States would make clear to OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, that any moves to raise oil prices would put the economies of the United States and other free-market countries at risk.

This was also a central element of Clinton administration OPEC diplomacy, but OPEC on Wednesday agreed to cut production by five percent to keep crude prices at $25 per barrel.

-- Bush Dynasty (masters@of.deception), January 19, 2001

Answers

...he and his corporate friends in the energy industry produce a threatening illustration in the heart of environmentalist territory...

In what way do you think Bush and his friends are causing California's energy crisis?

-- (S@y.what), January 19, 2001.


The Texas energy companies have been buying energy companies for years in preperation for the deregulation. Texas is selling power to California at outragous prices. They don't bother to justify the high prices. Yes they do have a big influence on the power "emergency" in California.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), January 19, 2001.

The bottom line is we need more energy resources. Yes, exploration and production must be done responsibly and cleanly.

The Texans are shrewd businessmen. We should applaud them for paying attention. Not that I agree with exhorbitant pricing; but I don't know what their exploration/production costs are.

-- John Littmann (littmannj@aol.com), January 19, 2001.


Not that this disturbs our Republican and Libertarian brethren here, but this is a classic example of how Dubya is going to work-right from the get we see him saying we need to ease regulations-Aren't these regulations in place for a reason? Weren't environmental impact studies done, urging the adoption of these regulations for good reason? Do people not have the right to be protected from corporate greed? This is what this is all about-corporate greed-the prices charged to the california utilities to buy product.

So in order to offset this "power grab", so to say, which is lining the pockets of the energy producers, Dumb-ass Bush jumps right on the deregulation bandwagon.

I live in a state that has over 100 superfund sites, the result of corporate barbarity, and a lack of regulations in the past. We have more than a few cancer clusters in our state, and I suspect when Bush is done that somewhere in our country will be the beginnings of new superfund sites, and increased smog and other forms of pollution.

Hail to the thief! Out of one side of his mouth he talks about reforming healthcare for seniors. Out of the other side of his mouth he is going to make their air more difficult to breath. After all, who is affected first by an increase in air pollutants? You guessed right. The seniors.

Great policy, there. Don't take the usurers to task, the ones selling energy at ridiculous prices-fuck the people over who benefit from regulation. Looking forward to four years of this madness.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 19, 2001.


If this isn't the funniest Bush bashing I've seen yet! California has all sorts of problems and it's Bush' fault? BWAHAHA, too funny.

Ya know, these things don't happen over night (I know I'm stating the obvious to most sensible people on this forum). The crisis has been looming for some time, OPEC's increase prices just magnified the problem. Clinton has no energy policy (another of his great legacies); *he* takes (or should take but we know he won't) responsibility for this. I challenge any of the Clinton supporters to find where his policy would have prevented this from occurring.

And as far as other states charging higher prices to Calif. - great! If CA had instituted worthwhile policies, they wouldn't be in this mess. Why should other states have to give up this precious commodity at lower prices? As an aside, I would love to see p&g (or whatever the company is) go under. CA kept such unbelievable controls over them; it would be nice to see the CA reaction to a bankrupt utility company. (But that's just my "you get what you deserve" side showing)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 19, 2001.



I haven't dipped my toe into this pool of thought much really, but what are the latest thoughts on building more nuclear power plants in CA? A lot of the cons I've seen bandied about are relating to plants made decades ago. There are some new, cleaner plants around the country, and as far as I know they're the most efficient and clean power-producers we can make (at least until fusion is feasable - probably not for the next 30 years.)

I know there are arguments against nuclear power, but I also know we've made a ton of technological progress on safety and efficiency, and it seems like there's been a lot of buzz about new waste disposal techniques - true? Where do we stand here with nuclear power?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 19, 2001.


...then California can just get to work disattaching themselves from a dependency on "Texas" power (notice that L.A. generates its own juice). Jeesh, people complain about conspiracy-theory nuts and doomers, this one takes the cake. "Bush creates an energy crisis in California so his buddies can make more money." Wow, that's about as good a conspiracy theory as Y2K melting down the world.

-- mbo (rfp@mail.com), January 19, 2001.

The army of California continues to advance. We have completed our occupation of the parasite Nevada and now march on the kooks in Salt Lake City. Soon AZ will fall like a ripe plum. President-for-Life Gray Davis is excited about the Davis Dam project for the Grand Canyon.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), January 19, 2001.

I have a friend that I just talked to yesterday who brokers electrical power for a living. I asked him if he was moving a lot of power to CA holders or utilities lately and he said a lot of power doesn't move West of Montana comparitively, and that the West coast and CA in particular are kinda in their own market. He thinks it's because when the market was being established there weren't a lot of high-capacity lines making it through the rockies. They have to sell what amounts to "transfer windows" on these lines, and they're always booked now, so there's just so much power you can get over there from elsewhere.

I think shiney new nuclear power plants are the answer, seriously.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 19, 2001.


Bemused,

The pesky problem is that the wonderful strip of land that our nukes would rest on is moving north compared to the rest of you US folks - at about the same rate that your fingernail grows. The narrow Pacific tectonic plate {which extends from south of LA to north of SF} is slipping along the North American plate in a way that some geologists call 'highly mobile' {read: unstable}. Seismic safety is a daunting issue.

Those power plants need water, & in dry CA that means you've got to be on the Pacific plate to utilize the marine resource.

Speaking of marine resources, we've got several national marine sanctuaries offshore now, including the world's 2nd largest {Australia's great Barrier Reef is #1}. Oil exploration has been prohibited in areas that have been under contention for decades.

-- flora (***@__._), January 19, 2001.



Thirty percent of California's electrical generating capacity is fueled by natural gas compared to ten percent for the country as a whole. Several articals were posted last spring and summer warning of critcal natural gas shortages,since then natural gas prices have sky rocketed to all time highs. The genesis of this electrical shortage is being reported by the press as deregulation, a ploy to give our politcal hacks a figleaf.

I live and work in the belly of the beast (S. Cal, oil&gas). One huge field down here at one time and maybe still is the largest industrial user of electricity in the State. This field has been shut down twice during the stage 3 warnings which frees up electricity for tens of thousands of homes (read voters). In the meantime oil and gas feed stock are shut down to refineries and natural gas processors. SCE knows this, but they don't call the shots, its the reulatory agencies.

The fireworks have just begun, wait til summer when electrical usage peaks.

have a nice day.

-- Cave Man (caves@are.us), January 19, 2001.


{Whatever happened to cpr?}

-- flora (***@__._), January 19, 2001.

It sounds to me like Californians have three choices: build nuclear plants (regardless of what may happen 100 years from now), reduce energy usage or move. If there isn't any other choice, what else are you going to do?

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), January 19, 2001.

Subject: ***WEST COAST REFINERS MULL RUN CUTS AS ENERGY CRISIS WORSEN

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:51:04 -0500 (EST) From: opisalerts@opisnet.com

2001-01-18 18:27:22 EST

WEST COAST REFINERS MULL RUN CUTS AS ENERGY CRISIS WORSENS

Refinery run cuts are almost a certainty in West Coast oil markets if the Kinder Morgan pipeline is down for much longer. The company's West Coast system, serving Northern and Southern California, as well as Las Vegas and Phoenix, was down intermittently for nearly 40 hours since Tuesday in one of the worst power supply crunches California has ever experienced.

The problem is now beginning to affect refined products terminals, with racks at the huge L.A.-based GATX facility that Kinder Morgan is in the process of buying now shut down to all pipeline shipments. Meanwhile, some other racks in Northern and Southern California are starting to run at reduced rates, including Equiva's Signal Hill facility in L.A. Also, Ultramar Diamond Shamrock this morning told customers that its Carson terminal racks were shut until further notice due to a Southern California Edison Stage 3 power alert.

If the downtime extends much longer, the situation will have a big impact on the West Coast petroleum industry, causing alarming backups at refineries that can't move the product, sources said. Already, outlying terminals are reportedly running out of diesel fuel and gasoline, sources tell OPIS.

Airports too are vulnerable, with sources foreseeing shutdowns in San Francisco, Las Vegas, and other areas next week if outages don't cease soon. Earlier today, Kinder Morgan told shippers it could make up the downtime provided the outages don't extend beyond a few more days.

http://pub38.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventu respetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=2295.topic

-- Cave Man (caves@are.us), January 19, 2001.


OT -

Cave Man,

I had a thought this morning that if many of those voters figured out how much of their retirement funds just went *poof* with SCE, they might be singing a different tune already - or maybe just in a different pitch, eh?

The prioritizing of the loads does look to be a huge mess - talk about insult to injury...

-- flora (***@__._), January 19, 2001.



Netscape,

If you could reliably predict that a geologic event will happen '100 years from now' & not tomorrow - you might have some influence. By many estimates, we're way overdue. The problem is not that cut & dry, and has been batted around for a l-o-n-g time.

-- flora (***@__._), January 19, 2001.


Flora - Where is the fault line for this plate? I thought everything a ways east of the San Andreas was safe? Or are you talking about the earthquakes that would result?

Couldn't they make some nuclear plants in Nevada to power CA?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 19, 2001.


Bemused,

The most infamous is the San Andreas fault 'system', but there are many fault lines

Here's a page for you to take a gander at:

http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/

{Really wish I had more time for this today, but I gotta go...}

As far as Nevada's concerned, unless Patricia's ponying up that wine cellar for the needed fluid - I think we might be outta luck.

-- flora (***@__._), January 19, 2001.


...or perhaps the bon vivant/agent provacateur nemesis will be successful in his campaign {that Grand Canyon is looking pretty sweet right about now...}

-- flora (***@__._), January 19, 2001.

flora, if you can't predict that a geologic event will happen soon, and you think it might, why do you guys still live there? I understand it is difficult or impossible to just pull up roots, but somethings gotta give out there with the energy situation. Now it sounds to me like the only alternatives you have is to depend on the generosity of other states, reduce consumption or move. I wish you luck and you have my hopes for the best.

-- (Netsc@pe 6.0), January 19, 2001.

Netscape,

I'm a naturalist. My daily topic is of populations, resources & migrations.

A strange gift that has come out of my mother's passing this year has been a batch of papers enabling me to trace my heritage in this country back up one branch to the 2nd & 3rd pilgrim boat to sail to Plymouth, as well as a near boatload of revolutionary war chaps from other lands - some of whom took bounty property into 'the west'. {Family winding up on both sides of the Civil War}. Though part of my wing has resided in this state for four generations & helped to engineer several of the major projects that have made it habitable, I'm well aware that many of our next generations may not live here much longer, for a variety of reasons. Several of my own generation have already moved away...

Call me cynical or dispassionate, it just seems a part of the natural progression of things.

California can afford to lose those members of my personal family in a reverse-migration. The short term question for the rest of the country could be more of a concern for y'all - should we tip into a recession here.

Who knows...

-- flora (***@__._), January 19, 2001.


Its enough ta make ya wanna go to the Mideast and kick some ass!

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), January 19, 2001.

Bemused: " (at least until fusion is feasable - probably not for the next 30 years.)"

Isn't that what they said 30 years ago?

-- Scratching My Head (scritch@scratch.head), January 19, 2001.


Scritch - yup.

And they may be saying it 30 years from now. It doesn't matter, it's the thing we should be hoping for. It's clean, incredibly efficient (efficiency means power when scaled,) and the by-product is water.

It's VERY tough to get it to work in a controlled environment. We'll never stop working at it, though.

As you may be able to tell, I'm a reformed engineer! My specialty is not nukes, but Aero. And I even left that, to get into CSCI. Lucrative, and never ending CSCI.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 19, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ