In the depth of the depression, President Roosevelt, with gumption and imagination sought different solutions, different thinking to deal with the crippling economic conditions that had descended on the nation. He asked Congress to mandate the creation of "a corporation clothed with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of private enterprise." On May 18, 1933 the Congress passed the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) Act to revitalize the economically stricken Tennessee Valley in areas of power generation, river navigation, flood control, reforestation and erosion control. Its success in all these areas was outstanding.
During the war years the TVA set upon perhaps the largest hydropower construction programs ever undertaken in the United States building 12 major hydroelectric plants to provide power to critical war industries.
To this day the TVA pursues an aggressive clean air program and is on track to meet its commitments to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions to 80-85 percent of 1977 levels by 2010. In this and in its many endeavors it has consistently and successfully aimed to set a standard for public responsibility against which private companies could be measured.
And now we have President Bush announcing that he has lifted the executive branch's restriction on drilling for oil and natural gas on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. A showdown with Congress is clearly inevitable given the opposition to offshore drilling and the partisan politics this issue has ignited.
Stepping aside from the pros and cons of the president's announcement, a new initiative along the lines of Roosevelt's TVA would go far toward smoothing the path toward creating a viable and ecologically safe program allowing access to this valuable and urgently needed national patrimony. The creation of a "National Oil/Gas Production Authority", with responsibility to explore and develop oil, gas and shale oil deposits on national lands and the Continental Shelf would be a boon to the nation.
It would allay immediately the palpable suspicion that President Bush's oil cronies would be the real beneficiaries from opening these territories to development rather then the nation at large. It would assure that this treasure remains in the public domain rather than appearing as further billions on the bottom line of oil company earnings.
And, as in one scenario, it could be achieved in a straight forward way by creating a Congress mandated entity charged with assembling a coterie of highly qualified and experienced oil hands having sense for public service. They could readily do much the same as most any oil company, subcontracting the necessary seismic work , and subsequently leasing or subcontracting oil platforms and crews to do the drilling. If successful in finding commercially viable reservoirs, storage and shipping facilities will come knocking at the door. Though oil platforms are currently in tight supply the imprimatur of a government entity with access to boundless acres along the Continental Shelf would have its own persuasive dynamic.
As presently constituted our oil/gas concession system is an abomination and has benefited virtually no one but the oil companies at the great expense to the nation as a whole. The oil companies, accessing the riches of America's resources have in effect become toll takers, offering the nation little in return from their bonanza other than ever higher dividends to their shareholders while millions of American will be freezing in their homes this winter barely able to meet their heating bills and families will be cutting back their food budgets to pay for the gas they need to go to work. This while the oil companies rake in ever more billions selling back to Americans their own national patrimony at rapacious prices. It must Stop! These resources belong to the people and must be developed for and on behalf of the people, with the people in mind first and foremost. We were able to achieve it brilliantly with the TVA. Norway, the third largest oil exporter in the world, has done it brilliantly with its National Oil Trust. The time for our "National Oil/Gas Production Authority" is today!
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A "TVA for Oil/Gas Production" would then also require a "TVA for Climate Change Reduction."
Why not have a "TVA for Renewable Energy"? - kills two birds with one stone.
The price of oil dropped 11% in the last 3 days. Has there been any new supply of oil to suddenly hit the market in the last 3 days? No. Has consumer demand dropped 11% in the last 3 days? No. That would mean the price drop was entirely due to speculation. Maybe we should deal with the real culprit of the high oil prices.
Please, Please call you Republican and Blue Dog Democrats and demand that join the Democrats in voting for a bill that states that all oil and oil products (gas, etc) drilled in America be sold in America and that if oil companies do not want to drill on existing leases that the lose those leases.
It is not just oil the this administration and their cronies are robbing from the American people. It is the trees from the national forrest, the gold, the copper , theWATER, etc etc etc etc
TREASON
There has been oil and gas exploration on national lands for a long time.
Perhaps it is not common knowledge.
The suggestion of government control of oil and gas exploration on national lands in the future is preposterouch. It is reminiscent of Saddam Hussein and governmental control of oil in Iraq.
It is tiring to see and listen to the use of history, such as the TVA reference, removed from the original context and put into play in mainstream political discourse and debate.
"The creation of a "National Oil/Gas Production Authority", with responsibility to explore and develop oil, gas and shale oil deposits"
More calls for 19th Century technology to carry us into the 21st Century. I know conservatives are a bit slow on the uptake but this is ridiculous.
There is no shortage of oil. Are gas stations closed for lack of product? No. Are 0il storage facilities holding less than 10 years ago? No. Are tankers laden with oil not unloading on schedule? No. Are Brokerage Houses and Speculators holding $250,000,000,000 more in oil contracts than two years ago? Yes. Are oil interests herding the hapless toward unfettered drilling using mindless scare tactics? Yes. Do the American People value their gas tanks more than the lives of their soldiers? Yes. How short of an attention span do the American People have? Short enough to forget the "Electricity Crisis" of 2001. Short enough to forget the WMD lies of 2002. Short enough to forget "Heck of a job Brownie" Bush nonsense from 2005.
The price of oil fell over 6 bucks yesterday. Any new supply hit the market? No. The Fed predicted a slowing economy and falling demand for oil. Speculators sold a few contracts and the price dropped. As easily as it went up, it could go down. At $60 a barrel the Sheeple would be more difficult to herd.
why do so many people on this site think you can't ration by price?
I don't know, I didn't mention rationing. Ask someone who did. I only pointed out obvious facts.
This is a ridiculous proposal that only perpetuates our dependence on oil and does nothing to provide a long-term supply of energy for our country.
Why don't we instead start by requiring oil companies to exploit the territories they already have access to, or we will take the concessions back and sell them to the highest bidder? The oil companies in collusion with the White House only want access to more oil to prop up their balance sheets and give them larger oil reserves. Believe me, if we threatened to take away their leases on unused sites, they would start to develop them for sure. The alternative path of losing the leases would not be an option because it would reduce the amount of oil reserves these companies have under contract which is the most important factor upon which they are valued in the stock market by oil analysts.
BTW - They're [the oil companies] not paying us what they should for the oil they extract from public lands. We should make it a condition of any future oil lease bids that they pay their bills before they are allowed to bid on any new leases. Stop coddling these greedy thieves.
why do you assume every square mile of land they own has oil? does all this land have a reverse fault? an anticline or salt dome? does it have source rock? did all this source rock at one time go below the oil window? does it all have reserve rock? does it all have a good oil cap that doesn't leak? is it all recoverable? what are the flow rates? is it all economic to recover?
do you have any idea what you're talking about or are you just playing politics?
this is this most explored country in the world by far
i don't think any oil companies will keep drilling dry holes
this isn't the 1920s
the only areas left to search for a decent size field is offshore
and if it's too far offshore, it's not cheap oil
nor is it all that much
18 billion barrels is nothing
Why would these companies continue to lease land that doesn't have any recoverable oil? Seems like an awful waste of money to me.
It's weird, people seem to think that exploring for oil begins with drilling wells. They don't understand that the last part of the process is drilling exploratory wells, not the first, by the time they summon the courage to drill, they already have a pretty good idea that oil is there.
The average person thinks that oil companies would rather do offshore exploration than nice comfy onshore conventional exploration, because of some vast conspiracy.
Mr. Learsy, this is the best idea I have heard concerning the energy crisis. No one is talking about the oil that we are currently exporting to other countries. I heard we export about 11% of America's oil. We should also have investigatiors to find the capped wells that these greedy oil giants have stowed away to make the greatest profits. If we allow them to control the oil they will sell it to the highest bidder in this global economy.
I definitly like the idea. After all our (America's) resources do belong first to the people. You don't see the people in Venezeula or the Arab countries paying $4.50 a gallon for gas.
Attempting to maintain the level of oil (fossil fuel) use, by whatever method is crazy. Everyone in the first world nations needs to lower, considerably, their energy use. Our current rate of use is obscene, unfair and unsustainable.
yep
listen to this guy
not the pther clowns
Now that the government has totally, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, messed things up, the very last thing we need is for them to get involved in something else. We need to stop asking them to do things that are none of their business. These are not the leaders of years gone by with the interest of the country in their hearts. These are greedy morons without any foresight whatsoever. Finally, even as incompetent as Bush is, he has realized what these anti-drilling measures have created and abolished them. It's too late and it's an empty gesture. We no longer have the time to drill.
The government is broke and the only way they could pay for this is by printing more money that would only add fuel to the fire.
We became great as a free nation with free enterprise. Then the government, illegally, got more and more involved and caused us problems while taking away our freedom and our right to free enterprise through taxation and legislation. We still have enough freedom to work our way out of this disaster.
The government needs to get out of the way and we need to take what freedom we have left and implement a plan. That plan should come from an energy expert, not some government bureaucrat. Boone Pickens has a plan, Before you say that he just wants to make more money, you need to demonstrate how he is benefiting financially.
http://ewebsmith.com/pickensplan1
What free enterprise? We subsidize big oil companies, wall street, banks, automobile industry, etc., with taxpayers' money. The only true free enterprise is seen in moderate and small businesses.
ummm....
The motivation for Mr. Pickens' grand scheme is return on investment.
I hope I don't really need to explain how that works.
When Mr. Pickens gets all that investment money together for wind power,
he is not going to create some kind of socially-responsible investment fund.
He is going for the bucks.
What's wrong with that?
I am tickled pink that he has figured out a terrific business plan that is guaranteed to give him the return that he deserves for putting his money into wind power, and hopefully, solar energy in general, and energy conservation as number one.
But, clearly, he is no more or less than an oil tycoon business man with a great new market niche.
Don't try to make him out to be some kind of statesman.
There are many other balance of payments issues that can be argued to be good business for America.
Let's hope someone pays some attention $$$$$$ to them.
The foreign oil menace is less than convincing as a springboard to wind power.
We import oil for our cars and homes, not for making electricity.
Oil's fuel to electricity is a tiny part of the oil we use in this country.
We should do ALL the wind we can do.
But, when electric cars make the scene, we will be needing more baseload power plants, where the fuel of choice is either coal or nuclear.
And, there, I am sure, you will also find Mr. Pickens.
For good reason.
BINGO!
T. Boone knows there's no profit margin in hanging onto the past.
A TVA for oil? That is the answer. It hasn't a snowball's chance in hell to ever happen. Corporate American fascism includes Corporate American Media and no American will get the facts about oil. Just lies and propaganda. We lost our rights on 9/11.
remoe, you're correct. The US should be embarrassed with ourselves that we would advocate sinking anymore of the money we do have for infrastructure into oil and gas exploration. The bottom line is that anything you have to mine, grow, refine, or pipe is using our energy to make energy. This is known as non-renewable and it leaves our power grid operating at a net loss.
So lets not be unintelligent. We already have a power grid we only power it archaically. Where are the billion dollar incentives and congressional bills for our SmartGrid and plug in cars? Where is the research funding for solar panels and turbines? Will we wait for the Indians and Pakistanis to develop them and then import those goods [sounds like a familiar problem]?
Nuclear is not the answer. It's identical to our current oil problem in the not-so-distant future. Uranium and Plutonium are even less renewable than oil because they aren't formed by natural processes and nuclear waste in massive quantities are every bit as harmful as greenhouse gases.
Do we want to create more problems for ourselves or do we want to do it right while we have the option? If we need a TVA-like entity it is for our renewable powered SmartGrid. The sort of project that creates jobs, increases national security, and keeps manufacturing revenue in the US. We should be leveraging our vast renewable resources for energy instead of throwing more fuel on the fire.
ummmm....
We do need a TVA-like project for our renewable powers and SmartGrid, for ALL the reasons that you said.
As for the Billions needed to fund this TVA, it is in the carbon tax, readily available if the COTUS can get their heads out their asses with their inane Cap-and-trade schemes, which will get you nothing.
But you are talking about a generations-long transition away from oil.
And I cannot imagine why you want to tie your children to this unconscionable, greed-driven system of oil (energy) production and distribution, when we could be doing it ourselves. It is OUR oil.
And, for Pete's sake, don't forget the obvious.
The LESS we have to pay to oil speculators, traders and manipulators, the MORE we have available to do the right thing.
This country got fat on the diet of cheap oil and cheap energy.
Those that will get hurt the most from the continued abandonment of a national energy policy that is based on the needs of this country and its people, are the people of this country.
Mr. Learsy proposes a proper mechanism for the fossil fuels we will still need for a couple of generations. It is no more or less than that part of the answer.
It is important to remember (before we drill or mine) that there is NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL! no matter what you do to it, the mining and energy used changing it into whatever other form you want is so destructive of land and requires such vast amounts of fresh water as to make it worse. Oil shale is almost worse in that the final product comes from such a nasty process (google it in Canada if you want). Nuclear requires destructive processes and leave such scary stuff when it is used that that is not acceptable either. One use of petroleum not considered in reduction scenarios is agriculture. Right now 2 (some say more) calories of energy are required to produce one calorie of food. That is not sustainable. Big monoculture agriculture has to be brought into the efficiency plan . Corn ethanol is NOT a solution either.
The use of fresh water to produce energy is or should be out of the question. the world will not be able to survive without water. The western US is already short of water and that is where the huge reserves of coal and oil shale are.
Think again. Efficiency and using less are the only solutions. We cannot drill or mine our way out of this problem.
Coal is what it is.
You can certainly use coal more cleanly than it is being used today.
Nothing is really clean.
Not even your footprint.
The hugest fallacy of the environmental movement is the empty notion that if we decide to not use coal, we will do away with all of its problems.
Guess what?
If we decide not to use coal, then we will increase the problems that it will cause.
UNLESS, we nationalize ALL the coal and then leave it in the ground.
Either that, or buy up ALL the rights to ALL the coal in the the ContUS.
OK, if you're not going to NATIONALIZE, and your not going to EXPROPRIATE, and your not going to BUY these rights, then ALL of that coal will go to market.
Will it go to a US market driven by the latest carbon capture technology, and be burned as cleanly as our science will allow? (But, not clean)
Or, will it be shipped (carbon) off to some other nation half way round the world, and burned in unregulated, cheaply-engineered power plants spewing all the carbon they need to in order to keep their price down?
Your choice.
It will NOT stay in the ground.
There is constructive debate and silly debate; Mr. Learsy seems to indicate that name calling and a certain smugness leads to constructive debate. Unfortunately, he is left with the silly part and transparent log rolling. In point of fact the American energy dilemma is not the product of limited resources or poor practices by industry to develop those resources. The current situation is the product of lack of will by a moribund Congress that panders to lobbying efforts by special interest groups opposed to resource development and their perception of what the "organic" life should entail.
American energy resources approach 1.8 trillion barrels of oil (1,800 billion barrels) in oil shale alone in the U.S. alone according to a DOE report. Another 60-80 billion barrels are in U.S. tar sands and another 98 billion in heavy oil, another 495 billion tons of coal. The addition of Canadian reources increases this total and the oil off our coasts and Gul, and Arctic and West, add resources. Virtually none of this is available to industry. Government is the last resource development agent needed--who would they subcontarct to--perhaps the indolent members of Congress can become roughnecks on rigs. Some real work would do them good.One would hope Mr. Learsy would pain a more accurate picture and leave the silly politics at home.
heavy oil has a low flow rate
which means low production rate
plus, 1 trillion doesn't mean 1 trillion is recoverable -- so far --none of it is
which equates to expensive oil
oil shale in uneconomic, but even if it could be produced right now -- low production rate
still, expensive oil if any
tar sands also have a very low production rate which equates to expensive oil
the gulf is sadi to be at best 18 billion barrels of oil
some of it hard to get too, in deep waters -- again expensive oil
you're not painting an eaccurate picture either
Raymond Learsy never gets it. We face catastrophic global warming. We must phase out oil use not increase. And in any event peak oil is upon us and there just ain't that much oil left to find.
Now that you have mentioned global warming: would you please inform me as to the "proper" average global temperature? Just so we will know when we get there.
"We face catastrophic global warming"
How so, what catastrophic events can you tie to manmade gobal warming?
"We must phase out oil use not increase"
Great idea, got any solutions . . . didn't think so.
"in any event peak oil is upon us and there just ain't that much oil left to find"
Are you Jimmy Carter? The same gut that told us oil would be gone by the early 1980s?
Well, he really just said that we need to not find it an more organized way. So that when we come up empty, we are guaranteed by a government agency that everything humanly possible has been tried and still resulted in failure. Because then we can always say that it was just an administrative failure, not a fact of geology.
:-)
Part of the problem with peak oil is oil companies get paid more if they work less. Who wouldn't they do that? Work 20 hours a week and get an annual salary higher than if you work 40. You would be a fool not to. Oil companies aren't fools.
So, this idea has merit, even if peak oil (a rather controversial idea in the first place) is here. I think a much more useful way of looking at this is what I call peak air, I.e., how much pollutants (including CO2) can the planet handle. We're way past that already.
You are right, we need to stop finding ways to get our fossil fuel fix. A 12 step national program is in order and I doubt hanging out in places where the supply of the drug of choice (oil) is available is a good idea. On the other hand, protecting ourselves from the whims of foreign, oil producing nations is also a very good idea. So a TVA for oil production coupled with a cap and gradual ratcheting down of oil importation would also be important
Another antique profiteer from the 20th century, Oil at any cost, screw the more rational alternatives that do not require planet destructive actions(extraction/nuclear)Why not solar power & win
Posted July 15, 2008 | 08:16 AM (EST)