Posted on 08/22/2012 9:15:03 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
In what his campaign is billing as a major policy speech, Mitt Romney will unveil an energy plan Thursday that would give states the power to determine whether drilling should occur on federal lands within their borders as part of a larger effort to increase domestic oil production and achieve energy independence.
Under current law, the federal government controls oil and gas permits for federal lands. But in a speech at an oilfield services company in Hobbs. N.M., Romney will argue that determination should be up to state officials, insisting individual states are in a better position to "develop, adopt and enforce regulations" on local basis than the federal government--which his campaign says has been unduly influenced by Washington politics.
A policy paper released ahead of the candidate's speech by the Romney campaign argues President Barack Obama "has intentionally sought to shut down oil, gas and coal production in pursuit of his own alternative energy agenda."
In his speech, Romney will contend that loosening regulations on the energy industry will benefit taxpayers by lowering gas costs and reducing the cost of consumer goods, which have increased as companies pay higher energy prices. He'll argue that allowing more federal drilling will not only bring money back into the nation's budget but would result in lower energy prices that could create jobs, lower the trade deficit and increase the nation's security.
...
The push is part of what Romney will tout as effort to achieve energy independence by 2020, a plan that also includes expanding offshore energy development along the coast of Virginia and North and South Carolina as well as approval of the Keystone energy pipeline linking Canada to the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Fast-tracking several new nuke power plants projects wouldn’t hurt either.
Nuclear plants require a lot of government involvement in areas of insurance and loan guarantees. They are very expensive and take a long time to build. Fossil fuels are the most economical way to go for the foreseeable future.
“Romney energy plan aims to expand drilling on federal land”
And. . .?
That’s a problem because . . . ?
I very much doubt that it's possible to "fast-track" a nuke plant.
There are so many legal roadblocks the enviros can erect and delaying tactics they can employ that a wholesale re-writing of the environmental laws and regulations would probably be required to make another nuclear plant even remotely feasible.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, though...
There shouldn’t be such a thing as federal land.
Private enterprise serves as a far better steward than the federal government of this acreage. And with our need for domestic energy, what is now a socialized land mass would be much better served by drilling.
Amen FRiend! You said in just a few, succinct words what I wrote in post #7.
... also making some new refineries, and making the formulations the same across all 50 states.
Given the huge reserves of thorium we have in the USA, developing LFTR technology to maturity and building over 100 1,000 MW LFTR reactor plants means not only hundreds of thousands of high-paying engineering and construction jobs, but also means a dramatic reduction in the need for imported petroleum products and a huge leap up in electric generating capacity, which makes it possible for a major means to reduce air pollution: electrifying all the major long-distance railroad lines in the USA. And unlike large-scale wind and solar power installations, LFTR plants are no threats to large scale bird migration you get from large wind farms and no excessive need for land like what solar power installations require.
We already have a surplus of refinery capacity. We currently make more refined product than we use and export the surplus.
We haven't built a new refinery in ~3 decades, but we have spent most that time expanding and upgrading the ones we already have.
Are those real exports, or just trans-shipments through a Caribbean intermediary so that refined product can be sent from TX to NY without having to use union labor?
Somehow, I can't envision this in North Dakota, for instance. (Yes, there is a major E/W BNSF line here.) Between voltage drop, the hazards of weather, and the potential loss of livestock, I don't see that happening with better results than the current diesel electric locomotives.
We are a net exporter of refined products (ie not crude oil). So if it went out one area and in another, regardless of a middle stop, it would not count toward net exports.
U.S. Petroleum Products Imports by Country of Origin
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_EPP0_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
U.S. Exports of Finished Petroleum Products
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTPEXUS2&f=M
U.S. Net Petroleum Products Imports by Country
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_EPP0_IMN_mbblpd_m.htm
So we import more crude oil than we need, refine it keeping jobs and surplus capacity in country, then export the surplus helping trade balance.
We will see these change to LNG powered locomotives, not electrified from outside power source.
It would help if the electric grid were updated as well.
Possibly, if there is a change. If so, it will be phased in, and the reduction in diesel demand may make it more economical to retain a mix.
If any are interested in the LNG train topic:
Chesapeake presses natural gas locomotives despite resistance by railroads
http://www.platts.com/weblog/oilblog/2012/03/28/chesapeake_pres.html
Westport Reports Second Quarter Fiscal 2012
http://www.stockhouse.com/News/CanadianReleasesDetail.aspx?n=8580032
Westport and Caterpillar Inc. have agreed to co-develop natural gas technology for off-road equipment. While the agreements initially focus on engines used in mining trucks and locomotives, the companies will also develop natural gas technology for Caterpillar’s off-road engines
More LNG Locomotives in Russia
http://www.fleetsandfuels.com/fuels/lng/2012/06/more-lng-locomotives-in-russia/
EMD to develop natural gas locomotive
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/emd-to-develop-natural-gas-locomotive.html
I remember using propane engines on drilling rigs (Waukesha) to power the rig. I would imagine they could be on top of development for similar engines for locomotives fueled by natural gas. They performed much like their diesel counterparts (usually Caterpillar or GMC).
I don’t think Waukesha is a real player in the Natural Gas large engine industry.
See page 6 in the link below for the top ten.
http://www.westport.com/media/presentations/corporate-update/corporate-update.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.