QUOTEBOX-US energy sector on presidential candidates' plans
Oct 29 (Reuters) - U.S. energy policy has been at the fore of the 2008 presidential race due to growing concerns about energy costs, U.S. reliance on foreign oil and environmental issues.
Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama have proposed energy plans highlighting offshore drilling, alternative energy, climate change, and fuel efficiency. (For a descriptions of both candidates policies click: [N29485886])
Below are comments by energy analysts, traders and industry groups on both candidates policies.
PETER BEUTEL, OIL ANALYST, CAMERON HANOVER, NEW CANAAN, CONNECTICUT
"Neither has an energy policy that is completely fleshed out yet. Obama wants to drill on existing land. McCain wants to drill on other lands.
The most important thing any president can do is to keep their eye on the ball. We need to prepare for 'peak oil'. We need to drill in a lot of places we don't now. We need to do everything Republicans and everything Democrats want."
ED MORSE, CHIEF ECONOMIST FOR LCM COMMODITIES IN NEW YORK
"If you look beyond the rhetoric, if you look at the guts of their energy and environmental platforms, they are very similar. I think that similarity reflects what now is an underlying consensus in the American political system to do something about supply, about demand, about the integrity of the environment, about carbon and to do it through market solutions.
Both of them have taken a position on accelerating what was legislated a year ago which was unbelievable tightening of CAFE (vehicle mileage) standards -- not only by boosting them by nearly 30 percent but also imposing regulations on cars, SUVs and light trucks. They are going to be coming into office -- no matter who is elected -- partly as a fallout of this political environment where the consumer has moved away from energy intensive transportation to lighter, more efficient vehicles.
If they actually tighten the CAFE standards, they will be moving to get America off oil more rapidly. We are now in a situation where in the United States, we have reduced consumption of oil products by 1.5 million barrels per day over where we were a year ago. That's responsible for the fall in oil prices."
JIM RITTERBUSCH, PRESIDENT OF RITTERBUSCH & ASSOCIATES, GALENA, ILLINOIS.
"With an Obama election, you would see much more of an emphasis on alternative energies, I think you'd see a lot more emphasis on the CAFE or mileage standards being enforced or mandated.
"Within the McCain camp, you have more of tilt to what (Republican Vice Presidential candidate) Sarah Palin would call the "Drill, baby, drill" philosophy. And overall, the McCain victory would suggest more of a supply response to the energy problem, while the Obama camp would come would come up with a policy more targeted toward demand response.
"Obviously, the large integrated oil companies would benefit from a McCain election and the companies involved the solar, wind, and alternative-type energy sources would benefit more from an Obama victory."
BILL COOPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE CENTER FOR LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS, WASHINGTON, DC
"McCain and Obama are both advocates of climate legislation and as such either explicitly or implicitly would have to be in favor of increased natural gas usage .
Even strong advocates of advancing renewable usage realize that natural gas is going to be a bridge fuel to accomplishing that end.
There is some difference from the camps about how you are going to get more gas, but broadly speaking neither has come out against the use of LNG.
What you really see is how the regions approach it. You have Democrats along the Gulf (Coast) who favor LNG and the development of those terminals, but there are elected officials in the Northeast in the New York area that are opposed to particular terminals being advanced regardless of their political stripes, or even in California. I don't see it as much as a partisan issue as a regional issue."
TIM EVANS, ENERGY ANALYST FOR CITI FUTURES PERSPECTIVE IN NEW YORK CITY.
"The idea of "energy independence" makes for a nice political slogan and in the wake of $147 per barrel crude oil it no doubt has considerable popular appeal, but in my view it is neither attainable nor particularly advisable, at least if taken literally. Our top sources of imported oil, for example, include Canada and Mexico and there is no compelling reason to believe that these supplies are risky.
Attaining independence would inherently involve a higher overall price tag than doing nothing, with subsidies to other sources of energy or to domestic oil producers to provide economic incentives.
For example, "Drill, Baby, Drill" is fun to chant, but opening up the US Outer Continental Shelf to exploration will not result in greater US production unless the oil from those areas is competitive with investments overseas.
If production from Iraq is cheaper (and if politically stable it would be) then US oil majors would want to drill there, rather than offshore the US. In order to assure more US production, access to offshore reserves would have to be combined with subsidies for the oil industry, and that's not politically feasible.
The other observation I would make, is that a "kitchen-sink" approach to energy policy makes sense. Conservation is often our cheapest source of spare production capacity (as the current market is demonstrating) but we also need a healthy rate of investment in new energy supplies to cover the longer term growth prospects."
Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama have proposed energy plans highlighting offshore drilling, alternative energy, climate change, and fuel efficiency. (For a descriptions of both candidates policies click: [N29485886])
Below are comments by energy analysts, traders and industry groups on both candidates policies.
PETER BEUTEL, OIL ANALYST, CAMERON HANOVER, NEW CANAAN, CONNECTICUT
"Neither has an energy policy that is completely fleshed out yet. Obama wants to drill on existing land. McCain wants to drill on other lands.
The most important thing any president can do is to keep their eye on the ball. We need to prepare for 'peak oil'. We need to drill in a lot of places we don't now. We need to do everything Republicans and everything Democrats want."
ED MORSE, CHIEF ECONOMIST FOR LCM COMMODITIES IN NEW YORK
"If you look beyond the rhetoric, if you look at the guts of their energy and environmental platforms, they are very similar. I think that similarity reflects what now is an underlying consensus in the American political system to do something about supply, about demand, about the integrity of the environment, about carbon and to do it through market solutions.
Both of them have taken a position on accelerating what was legislated a year ago which was unbelievable tightening of CAFE (vehicle mileage) standards -- not only by boosting them by nearly 30 percent but also imposing regulations on cars, SUVs and light trucks. They are going to be coming into office -- no matter who is elected -- partly as a fallout of this political environment where the consumer has moved away from energy intensive transportation to lighter, more efficient vehicles.
If they actually tighten the CAFE standards, they will be moving to get America off oil more rapidly. We are now in a situation where in the United States, we have reduced consumption of oil products by 1.5 million barrels per day over where we were a year ago. That's responsible for the fall in oil prices."
JIM RITTERBUSCH, PRESIDENT OF RITTERBUSCH & ASSOCIATES, GALENA, ILLINOIS.
"With an Obama election, you would see much more of an emphasis on alternative energies, I think you'd see a lot more emphasis on the CAFE or mileage standards being enforced or mandated.
"Within the McCain camp, you have more of tilt to what (Republican Vice Presidential candidate) Sarah Palin would call the "Drill, baby, drill" philosophy. And overall, the McCain victory would suggest more of a supply response to the energy problem, while the Obama camp would come would come up with a policy more targeted toward demand response.
"Obviously, the large integrated oil companies would benefit from a McCain election and the companies involved the solar, wind, and alternative-type energy sources would benefit more from an Obama victory."
BILL COOPER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT THE CENTER FOR LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS, WASHINGTON, DC
"McCain and Obama are both advocates of climate legislation and as such either explicitly or implicitly would have to be in favor of increased natural gas usage .
Even strong advocates of advancing renewable usage realize that natural gas is going to be a bridge fuel to accomplishing that end.
There is some difference from the camps about how you are going to get more gas, but broadly speaking neither has come out against the use of LNG.
What you really see is how the regions approach it. You have Democrats along the Gulf (Coast) who favor LNG and the development of those terminals, but there are elected officials in the Northeast in the New York area that are opposed to particular terminals being advanced regardless of their political stripes, or even in California. I don't see it as much as a partisan issue as a regional issue."
TIM EVANS, ENERGY ANALYST FOR CITI FUTURES PERSPECTIVE IN NEW YORK CITY.
"The idea of "energy independence" makes for a nice political slogan and in the wake of $147 per barrel crude oil it no doubt has considerable popular appeal, but in my view it is neither attainable nor particularly advisable, at least if taken literally. Our top sources of imported oil, for example, include Canada and Mexico and there is no compelling reason to believe that these supplies are risky.
Attaining independence would inherently involve a higher overall price tag than doing nothing, with subsidies to other sources of energy or to domestic oil producers to provide economic incentives.
For example, "Drill, Baby, Drill" is fun to chant, but opening up the US Outer Continental Shelf to exploration will not result in greater US production unless the oil from those areas is competitive with investments overseas.
If production from Iraq is cheaper (and if politically stable it would be) then US oil majors would want to drill there, rather than offshore the US. In order to assure more US production, access to offshore reserves would have to be combined with subsidies for the oil industry, and that's not politically feasible.
The other observation I would make, is that a "kitchen-sink" approach to energy policy makes sense. Conservation is often our cheapest source of spare production capacity (as the current market is demonstrating) but we also need a healthy rate of investment in new energy supplies to cover the longer term growth prospects."
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
China executes two for tainted milk