iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Raymond J. Learsy

GET UPDATES FROM Raymond J. Learsy
 

Has The Energy Department Gone Completely Off The Rails?

Posted: 06/19/2012 8:02 am

During the course of the Obama Administration under Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the Department of Energy has almost totally abdicated its responsibility to the day-to-day consumers of energy, be it gasoline, heating oil, diesel and on. From the inception of the Obama administration the price of oil (and in turn gasoline, heating oil, etc.) has skyrocketed from $33/barrel (for West Texas Intermediate) in February 2009 to well over $100/barrel a few weeks ago, with barely any comment about these real-time distortions from the Department of Energy; nor has it come forward with any policy initiative to forestall this dramatic rise.

On the contrary, the Department of Energy is shackled with the mindset and outlook of its Chairman, Nobel Physicist Laureate Steven Chu, who continues to live in the aerie of academia. This, while seemingly divorced from the hard day-to-day tussle of the oil marketplace and its pilfering manipulation through the restraints imposed by the OPEC cartel, the distortions brought about by speculation, and manipulation on the commodity exchanges -- all costing American consumers billions upon billions of dollars more than if the market were a true reflection of supply and demand.

Chu and the Dept. of Energy's commitment to meaningful vigilance of the oil market's excess can best be demonstrated by the Chairman's own words (quickly modified after they hit home, but core to Department's inaction over the past years): "OPEC is going to do what they are going to do based on their own interests. I quite frankly don't focus on what OPEC should do, I focus on what we should do."

This in stark contrast to previous Secretaries of Energy, such as Bill Richardson, who did not hesitate to pick up the phone and call the OPEC nabobs to comment on their ongoing machinations and how it would impact the United States and its economy, to be roundly chastised:

In the forty year history of OPEC there has never been the case of the secretary of energy calling OPEC in the middle of an OPEC meeting... we are very upset and disappointed at external pressure, we don't like it.

As though fixing quotas to manipulate prices had become a divine right. Words that then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson could share with pride for having made those calls.

And of course Chu's fateful interview with the Wall Street Journal in 2008: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe."

Since retracted, but troubling evidence of his mindset, raising the issue of how and why, given the direction of his thinking, was he ever named Chairman of the Energy Department? It's a bit analogous to someone being named Secretary of Labor after being quoted "I don't much give a damn about labor unions," thereafter retracted or otherwise.

Or Chu's reply to Rep. Alan Nunnelee in Congressional hearings this February that, "No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy"; as if the here and now, with frozen homes in Maine and family budgets being ripped apart was not a core issue of his Department's mandate.

Even his battle to "decrease our dependency on oil" has been deeply flawed, as with the $500 million plus guarantees his Department misguidedly extended to the highly questionable Solyndra project, a tab that would be picked up at the nation's cost. And while the Dept. of Energy staff was busy considering the likes of the Solyndra project, Chu was busy moonlighting on such issues of "profound" relevance to the oil patch and alternative energy, by publishing highly dense papers titled "Subnanometre single-molecule localization registration and distance measurements" in such learned journals as Nature. With these digressions, focusing on what the likes of OPEC does or doesn't do, or how Solyndra was meant to make do, could well have become too much of a distraction.

But now, and unless I am missing something, comes an announcement whose timing is of such egregious inappropriateness that it appears to be mind-boggling. As though living in some far off island unencumbered by current events and political tensions, the Energy Department brazenly announced just days ago, almost on the eve of the scheduled nuclear talks with Iran in Moscow, that it would help the ailing the United States Enrichment Corporation finish its development work at its Portsmouth, Ohio facility. "Under the new agreement we will be able to move forward with critical research...while ensuring strong protections for the American taxpayer" Secretary Chu was quoted. A statement immediately to be taken to task by Rep. Edward J. Markey, (D.-Mass), "The real risk of this nuclear bailout is for taxpayers, who will be on the hook for questionable government handouts..."

Ominously the "rescue" is also being pegged as "vital to maintaining nuclear weapons and national security" almost concurrent to the nuclear talks that now seem to be going nowhere, where the point of contention is the very issue being highlighted by the Department of Energy's program, that of nuclear weaponry.

The Department of Energy's announcement and especially its timing now smacks of hubris or stupidity or both, as it may have weighed on the negotiations with Iran, reducing the chances for a peaceful outcome through the willingness of Iran to halt its own nuclear enrichment program. If that is the case, Mr. Chu has a great deal to answer for.

 
 
 

Follow Raymond J. Learsy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raymondLearsy

FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 252
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
07:52 AM on 06/20/2012
If Chu worked in the real world (with the exception of Wall St.), he would be fired. The failure to hold him accountable and terminate him for poor performance is inexplicable. If Obama really wants to get re-elected, it is hires such as these and the failure to fire these folks for failing to do poor job performance, that will hold voters back.

Any intelligent human being holding the position of Energy Secretary in the U.S. at this point in time should have one single goal: to remove Big Oil from power and switch this country to solar and wind-generated energy. You don't have to graduate from Harvard to know that one single truth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bccmeteorites
Don't believe everything NASA says.
07:45 AM on 06/20/2012
"Subnanometre single-molecule localization registration and distance measurements" in such learned journals as Nature.

When Walter and Luis Alvarez proposed the giant impact theory of mass extinction scientists came out of the wood work laying heavy criticism to which he referred to as "stamp collectors".

You have my permission to note Dr. Chu as nothing more than a highly skilled stenographer.
07:19 AM on 06/20/2012
Sadly, many wells in the US laid idle because the cost of processing the crude and recovering the resource did not make it cost effective. Now that oil is above $50+/-, our own resources are usable.
abetterplace
Capitalistic reverand
07:12 AM on 06/20/2012
Mr Chu is just a reflection of so many Obama's various department heads. Holder stands out as the real bummer, but several more are failures because, like Chu, they have just sat and did nothing to promote their departments successes in guarding our American rights. Obama's main directive on the energy front has always been to decimate the coal industry and cripple the oil industry. Beyond that, he is willing to outrageously support the failing wind and solar companies that are still decades away from making any meaningful footsteps in energy production. If this money was being used to build the infrastructure for a natural gas program to supply our vehicles with, it would mean great savings for consumers and a real cut on oil imports. Obama's ethanol program has sent grain prices soaring and caused much higher prices for our food supply while doing little for the reduction of oil imports and much for the destruction of our internal combustion engines that power our vehicles.
07:43 AM on 06/20/2012
Wind energy is not failing, it is succeeding. The only cheaper new resource for generating electricity is natural gas right now, due to the unregulated hydraulic fracturing that is being allowed. As for solar, it, too, is succeeding. The problem for manufacturers in the US is that their labor costs and environmental regulations make them uncompetitive with China. The price of solar energy goes down and down, due to China flooding the market - which is a good thing for the consumer. That the Obama administration made a bad bet on Solyndra is unfortunate, but certainly not the worst thing it has done in the energy field.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
05:48 AM on 06/22/2012
 Many Americans think our rights include the right to live without unnecessary pollution and disease.It is in all the world's citizens interest to move away from the use of fossil fuels, and pandering to polluting industries is the exact opposite of that goal. Oil and gas production is at higher levels under Obama than it has been in decades. We obviously need better regulation and oversight of mining and drilling operations. Renewable energy is ready NOW, as demonstrated by the fact that investments in renewable energy surpassed investments in fossil fuel power, and the fact that renewable energy with wind and solar power is lowering costs of electricity and reducing pollution. Natural gas is lower on CO2, but higher on methane emissions to the atmosphere, and methane has 20 times the global warming effect as CO2. Ethanol comes form many sources beside corn. Commodity speculation is the reason for high food prices, as well as the cost of transportation of food. It is a common tactic to claim newer technology is not capable because it has historically not been well utilized, in the same way that people of the 1800's claimed cars would never replace horses. Our vehicles are changing, and petroleum is not the only way to achieve transportation.
U.S. Now an Oil Exporter

Spain Sets Wind Power Generation Record

Price of Wind Lower Than Gas, Hydro in Brazil Auction | Renewable Energy News Article

Top 10 for 2011: Wind power achieves many milestones this year | American Wind Energy Association

PSR: Cost of Wind Power Far Lower Than Cost of Damaging Health Effects From Coal | PSR

Value of Solar Power Far Exceeds the Electricity | john-farrell-ilsr

Solar is the Fastest-Growing Industry in the US

Ethanol Reduced Gas Prices Per Gallon in 2011

How Wall Street Drives Food Prices | Growth Energy

 Obama realizes that there are 315 million citizens in this country, not just oil and coal companies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Laurent Wagner
07:10 AM on 06/20/2012
$33 a barrel is impossible. Outside the Middle East, new drillings make economic sense as long as oil prices remain above $60-$80 a barrel.

- In Canada, lower oil prices and lower gas prices are already reducing investments.

Going from $55-billion last year to an estimated $47-billion in 2012, will constitute the weakest rate of investment since 2005.

- In the U.S. at $68 a barrel, 51.6% of independent U.S. oil producers would cut drilling.

According to The American Oil & Gas Reporter’s annual Survey, for crude oil, 25.8% of survey respondents would trim their drilling programs at a WTI spot price of $72 a barrel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Frank
My last name is FRANK so thats what I am..
06:57 AM on 06/20/2012
Too many of our govt positions are filled with people who are there simply because someone appointed them not because they have any actual skill in the required area of expertise .its pathetic and every president/political party has done this
07:42 AM on 06/20/2012
I'd say a country's department of energy could do worse than a Nobel Prize winning physicist when it comes to relevant expertise, but that's just me...
06:17 AM on 06/20/2012
Obama adminstration has a war on fossil fuel. They stop the keystone pipeline to get part of thier base in line. Green energy is a great idea but is not ready to take the place of oil yet. Chu has the idea if he can make oil and gas prices high he can lower theuse of fossil fuel. The writer of this article is correct. The price of everything else goes up when the price of fuel goes up. People on SS are having trouble because of this adminstration. Do you heat your home or buy food. Green energy will come as it techinology improves but now we need to keep the price of oil down until that happens.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
05:56 AM on 06/22/2012
Oil production is up under Obama. The Keystone pipeline was not properly analyzed, and if the Republicans had not forced an unreasonable time frame on approval, the proper analysis would have been done. Obama would have been breaking the law to approve the pipeline without a legal analysis. Oil and Gas Jobs Increase by 75,000 Under Obama -- 69,000 More Than Would Be Created By Keystone XL | ThinkProgress

Keystone XL: State Department cleared of conflict, not ineptness - latimes.com

People on SS are having trouble because Republicans have blocked cost of living increases and are trying to privatize the program, and trying to raise retirement age. The price of gas is not set by the President. Even Oil Companies Know That Oil Prices Are Rigged - Benzinga Insights - - Forbes
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NeoConsAreFinished
Fight the Ah mer I cun talibanned
05:39 AM on 06/20/2012
The Energy Dept does not have a thing to do with our dependence on oil.
The one government institution that could help is the CONGRESS of the USA.
And they are owned by big oil,pharma, a few billionaires,and the banksters.
So do not expect us to be independent anytime soon.
02:48 AM on 06/20/2012
Wow, when it comes to oil prices, the Americans (including Rep's) are real communists! The government has to provide in cheap oil, just like in Venezuela, and keep "free market forces" of the playing field. How hypocrit is that?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MWChris
01:30 AM on 06/20/2012
The dirty little secret about the Department of Energy is that it does not establish energy policy for the US Government. It was created in 1977 conduct atomic energy and atomic weapons research through the National Laboratories, to administer the oil price regulatory program of the mid-1970s and to collect energy market data. The oil price program was ended by Reagan in 1981, leaving the remaining functions the the Department does today. So, yes, Steven Chu can issue as many statements as he wants on energy markets, but they wouild have no practical value whatsoever.
07:33 AM on 06/20/2012
From https://www.directives.doe.gov/

DOE Mission Statement

The mission of the Department of Energy is to assure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
killarneytim
Just common sense;not L or R
12:54 AM on 06/20/2012
The dept. of Energy has been and is a complete failure. It's goal, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, has has not been achieved. Until recently our dependence on foreign oil has increased. In the real world, such failure results in shutting down a failure,but we keep funding it and getting little in return.
We now know that we have abundant oil supplies, more than the Saudi's ever had and we could turn our country into a large oil exporter,creating good jobs and wealth in the process, not to mention our foreign trade deficit.
It is time to give the Dept. of Energy a mandate. Get the job done now, or we shut you down.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bowser
03:44 AM on 06/20/2012
This is a common misconception. The main roll of the Department of energy has always been to run the military nuclear program.

Much of the defense budget does not go through the Pentagon to make the military budget look smaller.
07:37 AM on 06/20/2012
Bingo. And the Portsmouth enrichment plant is part of a $50 billion "investment" in setting up the infrastructure for nuclear weapons development for the rest of this century - to no apparent need or purpose other than local pork for the President and members of Congress to dole out.

Chu, and Obama love nuclear technology generally - the amount of money wasted on Solyndra pales in comparison to the amount being lavished on the nuclear power industry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westbygoddoug
the weird turn pro
12:41 AM on 06/20/2012
There is no connection between the price of oil and ensuring America has a real supply of nuclear fuel. This writer is off his rocker.
12:25 AM on 06/20/2012
Obama says he cares about the middle class....
Well, then do the Keystone Pipeline
Don't waste my money on failed companies like Solyndra
and get the price of gasoline down to $3.00 in California....
The Democrats drive up the price by their energy policies and then when it goes down a few cents, they go back to sleep not realizing how hard it is on the middle class.
Obama - it takes more than just talk; it takes action and working with both sides - both Democrats and Republicans and also Independents. 100 games of golf does not help anyone.
07:44 AM on 06/20/2012
That pipeline is meant for export purposes and even if it wasn't it still just a drop in a global ocean (where prices are set), but at a terrible environmental price.
07:48 AM on 06/20/2012
Besides, under Obama domestic oil production is at record level and that has had more impact than the pipeline would ever have, and still even the increase in domestic production is only a drop in the global ocean.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bellalina
Let the good times roll..no really we need some
11:35 PM on 06/19/2012
Wow what a great article..I learned a lot!..Mostly that none of this is my imagination!
11:16 PM on 06/19/2012
Using the low price in the recession as a starting point is not even clever. But prosecutions for gouging and market manipulation would be nice.

Justice not politics is the goal right?