tv Washington Journal Brian Scheid Discusses U.S. Energy Policy CSPAN July 5, 2017 7:29pm-8:01pm EDT
our time, how should this rate, not how does it read that how should it read, and the judges in our system who believe that the constitution is eternal, that there is a way to amend the constitution, it is not by judicial legislation, it is by the amendment process that the framers set out in the constitution and it is illegitimate for judges to themselves amend the constitution. and the resolution of that injuring battle is absolutely vital to the future of freedom in our country. >> you can watch the entire discussion with justice clint bolick tonight. he talks about racial preferences and juvenile scenting -- sentencing here on c -span. >> now a on the energy department undersecretary rick
carey, this is from "washington journal." --host: brian scheid is with us. energy week, energy dominance, which is not energy independence, the term we heard often in the but energy dominance. , but energy dominance.gy what does that mean for the future of u.s. energy policy? what's the change? guest: it's an idea that has been talked about by every president since new -- nixon. the idea that we no longer have to rely on opec imports or be concerned of some sort of embargo or a blockade of crude coming into the u.s.. an --dea has become become of it antiquated. we're producing 9.5 million barrels per day. basically double what we were back then.
we are also integrated with the rest of the world. this idea of energy independence morphed into this idea of energy security. we will be fine if there is a blockade. if the strait of hormuz is shut down, it won't have too much of an impact on the u.s. oil and gas markets. the trump administration has shifted that a bit to talk about this idea of energy dominance. it's not highly clear exactly what they mean by that. with this administration there are not that many details, but basically it means that our allies can now rely on us for crude oil experts or things of that nature. they can really push forward --s idea that we can reduce produce as much as possible. no longer are these quote unquote onerous regulations of the obama administration going to get in the way of producing coal and natural gas at a pace
that the industry really wants. host: the president took this theme to the state department, the energy department last week. here's a bit of the president. [video clip] >> my administration to seek only the american energy independence of have been looking for for so long, but american energy dominance. we are going to be an exporter. exporter. we will be dominant. american energy all over the world, all around the globe. these energy exports will create peopless jobs for our and provide true energy security to our friends, artan is, and allies across the globe. when he's talking about energy exports there, is it just oil, is a gas as well? what's he looking to boost? guest: i believe he's talking about energy ellen p, oil.
energy expert is not true from the point of view of the obama administration. they ended these long-standing restrictions on crude oil exports, the only thing standing in the way of all energy exports. this idea that we will all of a sudden start exporting crude oil and oil is not exactly true. that was all put in place by the obama administration. i also mentioned this idea of onerous regulations that the trump administration talks about. if you look at the numbers of what happened during the obama administration, the u.s. was producing about 5.4 million barrels per day. he then goes forward with his has beengenda, which described as everything from the death rattle to u.s. oil production in the u.s. oil industry, and went from 5.4 million barrels per day to about
9.4 million barrels per day. ,t's expected to go over shattering records. .e should step back a bit all of that was during the obama administration. host: we are talking to brian scheid. host: this week smart -- this week marks four months since rick perry became the energy secretary. what impact has he had on the future of energy production in the united states? what has been his role in the trump administration here? -- guest: hereally
has really push this idea of getting to our full potential as a global user of oil. coal.l gas, sixalked about the different things, u.s. energy week. some of them were lng export approvals, which were in line with the obama administration. the state department approved new pipeline, 108,000 barrel per day refined product pipeline. relatively it's not that much of a big thing. compared to something like the keystone access, it's a much smaller project than that. it basically links the u.s. market with the mexican market. we are now sending even more refined products to mexico. that a cross-border
pipeline was approved without much controversy is, i think, a major change from the last administration where you had those fights over access. this is what rick perry has been talking about a lot. quick approval, fast approval of i plan projects, infrastructure projects, things of that nature, so that you can get production ramped up as quickly as possible. you can get these fossil fuels industryrkets that the wants them to go to as fast as possible. where does that cross? this would run under any sort of wallet was the? he made a famous motion during the speech anger you would go right under the wall. theoretically it could, but i think this pipeline would be completed before any construction on the wall begins. on that theme of energy
dominance, last week at the beginning of energy week for the trump administration, paving the perry,n op-ed by rick with scott pruitt, the epa administrator joining in on the op-ed that ran in "the washington times." taking her calls with brian about theretarded future of u.s. energy policy. buie pooley, maryland, jean, go ahead. i would like to suggest one policy from dr. ortez, the department of energy secretary and obama, and what to do with increased natural gas availability. in that study, two years in m.i.t. that he chaired, they two up to it with conclusions. first, use the natural gas to replace the worst performing .oal plants with electricity
that has artie been done to a large extent and has worked out well. the second one hasn't been acted on, to use it as a practical, economic risk proven fuel. and the source of producing .nother, petrochemicals the united states is, in fact, today, from louisiana, doing exactly what m.i.t. suggested, to taking the natural gas and turning it to ethanol, but it has been going on 1100 foot methanol tankers to china and as a is using it right now mixture of fuel for their citizens and the have come out with a 100% methanol cost. caller: you want to see that brought to the united states and used. kerry used as a source for other countries and also
i'm nots? guest: familiar with the study you mentioned, but the key thing is market forces are really what is for thesel the flow different fossil fuels. we talked about natural gas replacing coal-fired plants, that has to do with market forces. margin a better profit running a natural gas fire plant instead of a coal-fired plant in a lot of these different markets. that's not entirely based on regulation. if the supply and demand fundamentals. you talk about the export of methanol. again, that goes back to the idea of free markets, of tohanol producers shifting where he gets the best price. it's as simple as that. host: a good place to learn about market forces, s&p global
flatts.com, follow brian on twitter. he is taking your calls this morning for about the next 20 minutes to talk about the future of u.s. energy policy, rick perry, for months at the energy department, taking your calls and questions. bill, good morning. good morning. thank you for c-span. i want to make two major comments on how the u.s. in a way is going backwards on energy. coalr one, the kentucky that you saw in the papers switched to solar energy. this is the coal museum and they are saving $8,000 year by doing it. the second point i'm making is in china, this was an the new york times -- "the new york times." they have stopped production on
103 coal-fired plants. they stopped rolling them because everybody -- the pollution, they are all wearing masks and stuff. some of those towns, it's unfortunate but this new president is pushing this junk. dirty coal in 30 oil. even when you have rivers getting polluted and the water know, it'sned, you just a total long way to go. germany is 75% solar. brazil, i think, doesn't -- they don't use gas in cars anymore. i'm pretty sure on that. we are going backwards. we should do to solar technology, we should be in the lead. we are becoming draconian. it's all just to save a few rich payoffs in the coal and oil industry. commentsbrian scheid
on this, i will show this chart from the energy administration on total production in recent years. here's 2016, natural gas is the blue line. .here's coal there's the production of renewables in this country. yellow is nuclear. liquids, the orange line above. brian scheid can maybe walk it through us a little bit better. the kentucky coal museum famously put solar panels up. they did a cost-benefit analysis and turned out it was cheaper to go with renewables over coal. similar thing, i would expect is happening in china as well, they're shutting down coal-fired power plants because it is likely cheaper to run gas-fired power plants. you see that all around the world. trump will talk about
the new coal plant that opened up in pennsylvania and all the work he's doing on his policy agenda for coal miners. i think it's debatable whether or not any of that can accomplish what he hopes it can accomplish, simply because of the economics. simply because of the supply and demand fundamentals in the market. how far away are we from renewables competing on the same level as coal or natural gas in terms of energy usage or production guest: in the united states? guest:this is a little outside my coverage area. critics would say that it's overly subsidized. that was one of the key arguments against the paris climate agreement. on the other hand people will point out that the paris climate agreement had nonbinding provisions within it. there was nothing the u.s. had to do.
it was merely an aspirational goal. if you look at it from that , whether or not renewables can compete on the same playing field depends on time and whether or not can be done without government subsidies and that's an open question. and we come back to those market forces. harold, go ahead. good morning. thank you for appearing today. i basically have three comments. first, the choice of rick perry for energy secretary, i just -- i just think his opinion on climate change, saying the science isn't settled? one thing that isn't settled his global sea level rise. lawn the locations of our -- largest refineries in america
, even a 12 inch rise in sea levels is going to affect us a great deal. you will find that they will not be building a wall on the u.s. mexico border. they will be building seawalls along the gulf coast to try to protect all of the infrastructure located there. my second comment is about pruitt at the epa and how he's ont changing the rules handshake agreements with local attorney general's. i mean it was in the paper just this weekend about how ken paxton went in on a handshake and got some epa rules changed on monitoring the release of gas and methane at oil wells, finding out how much is being released into the atmosphere. i guess my third comment to your do a littleust research and find out who owns your local power generation. many of you will be surprised to
find out that your local electricity is produced by companies that end up being owned offshore of the united states. thanks for taking my call. guest: secretary perry there -- secretary perry was actually heckled by climate change activists during the administration's annual conference for the last few weeks, a very unusual occurrence at this conference, which is usually focused on data and statistics. pair of climate activists got up and loudly challenged him on his views on climate change. didn't seem to convince them to change his views at all. on that point, another incident that got a lot of attention last month was rick onry at the senate hearing the doe budget and his exchange with out franken on this issue of climate change.
want show that to our viewers. >> don't you think it's ok to have this conversation about the science of climate change? why don't we have a red team approach and get the politicians out of the room and let the scientists and listen to what they have to say about it. i'm pretty comfortable that, you know, what's wrong with being a skeptic, i think, about something that we are talking about that is going to have a massive impact on the american economy? [video clip] >> you said this thing, you said we need a red team blue team to establish climate change. in amy understanding that red team blue team exercise the blue team makes an argument and the red team tries to knock it down. blue team then refines their argument and they go back and
forth until consensus is reached. but that's exactly how science works. science. climate researchers collected data and make arguments. here reviewers poll -- poke holes in the arguments. they go back-and-forth. until consensus is reached. every peer-reviewed climate study goes through that red team blue team treatment. and then thousands of studies are gathered and those courts themselves go through rigorous red team blue team. that's the scientific process. host: on that incident, brian scheid, and how it played out? guest: there was a departure a bit from the republican clinking -- thinking of climate change. democrats painted as denying the science and then when a bunch of trump administration nominees started getting hearings, they
would say -- well, we concede that climate change is happening , but our dispute is how much man has to do with that climate change. thatthis hearing it seems the overwhelming consensus of scientists share this view on man-made climate change and the impact man is having on climate change. secretary perry seems to have this view of -- well, not every scientist. host: the science isn't settled yet. guest: i think that really grates at the views of environmentalists and democrats who want to say that the importance of this is saying -- let's move on, the science is settled. we need to start doing something about climate change. their frustration stems from the fact of perry saying something on brakes, the sciences in central yet -- settled yet.
host: robert, fort worth, go ahead. caller: i have a comment and a question. the gentleman from elgin, texas, he's right, the sea level is rising in galveston. i have friends that live in galveston and i asked them how the beaches are these days and they said at the shoreline is getting smaller and smaller and it's like that all the time. is, my question is how many barrels of crude oil did we import from vietnam , you know,vietnam vietnam war era. that's my question, thank you. while brian thinks to that question, whitey you want to know? caller: this whole issue of oil and dominance and the whole thing, you know? our history of extracting crude oil's throughout the world is
not exactly a really wonderful one. it doesn't lend a smile to the face of people who come from countries where there is enormous amounts of crude oil. nigeria is one of them. also the reason i ask is i have a friend who was in the air force during vietnam and he said it was interesting because when he was on leave for saigon, he was astounded because he would , corporate signs like shell, the show had corporate offices in saigon, the same with exxon. i was amazed. during my last year in college i met this gentleman who was a geologist. he always had a bunch of books about vietnam and i asked him his interest in vietnam and he
said there's a lot of crude oil ,eserves in the south china sea which is where vietnam is. found it interesting, yeah, we have oil dominance, but you know, this is eventually going to end. host: thanks for your point. i will let brian scheid take it up. guest: i do think that vietnam toduces oil that is exported the united states, but the idea of what he's getting at is that importing oil from our quote unquote enemies, we are still importing a lot of oil from opec nations. we certainly don't consider them enemies, we consider them allies . but saudi arabia was still importing a significant amount , to other opecom nations. we don't import anything from iran because of sanctions in place. we import a little bit from russia. are: at the same time we
exporting a lot of our own oil, right? keepot import less and some of those exports for use in the united states? guest: part of it is that we produce about -- we are on track to produce about 10 more -- 10 million barrels per day. we are still consuming double that amount. we need to import some oil. we could import less, but the way the refineries are configured in this country, we have this sort of imbalance. the u.s. creates a lot of what is known as light oil. refineries, particularly on the gulf coast refine heavy oils. they have to import from mexico, for for example. there is a way to configure the refinery to refine more light oil, but it's a very costly procedure and it gets back to the economics and benefit analysis. it's cheaper to import that from, say, saudi arabia than it
would be to reconfigure your refinery to refine north dakota oil, for example. coshocton, ohio. steve, republican. good morning. caller: i have two questions for brian. i would also like to thank the cable companies for providing "the washington journal," i have enjoyed it for many years. host: go ahead. caller: my first question is -- i haven't heard much about the pipeline in the indian situation. i would like to know where the oil comes from that is going to go through that pipeline. it was about -- maybe week ago, i was watching the thatand it showed a train had crashed and there was oil
spilling all over the place. i was curious as to whether you heard anything about that. those my two questions. thank you. host: where was the train wreck? exactly, don't know but it looked to me like it was a train that was hauling oil from up north down to the ports there. your point there. certainly rail safety is a topic we have talked about before. -- guest: first, with the pipeline, i assume you're talking about the dakota access pipeline. that went into service on june 1. challengetill a legal and in court the judge ruled that we should just continue with the case. commercial service continues on
a pipeline, but there is an ongoing legal challenge to it as well. should point out that they have received a presidential permit, it was in march. subject to astill lot of challenges. there is no approved the root yet through nebraska. sorry, the dakota access pipeline, you asked where that is coming from, that is all coming from the shale plane in north dakota. the train crash, i'm not aware of a train crash, but i should point out that because of these market fundamentals we have been talking about, less and less crude is moving by rail in the united states now. dakota access is one of these things that they will be moving , some on this pipeline 500,000 barrels per day that may have otherwise been moved by rail. market forces are the theme of the day. brian scheid is the oil news
senior editor. randy, lewiston, line for independents. randy, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking me. dominance,ut oil could we use oil as a weapon? could be flood the european market with cheap oil so they wouldn't have to buy? with that help? or with that mess up the whole system, thank you. host: i should point out -- guest: i should point out that we don't have a state-run oil company similar to countries like china and russia. it would be pretty difficult for the government to compel u.s. oil companies to ship their oil to one specific market. a loss of profits would be difficult. there are a lot of efforts at talk about.
they willomacy tool be talking up u.s. liquefied natural gas and how you can get away from your reliance on russian gas by relying more on u.s. energy. it remains to be seen if the economics of that work out. that definitely is a big push by the administration, using u.s. produced energy as a diplomatic tool. a topic we will be talking more about in the coming days and one will be covering for platz. the capital crude report, how can viewers access that? guest: >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and you.y issues that impact
coming up thursday morning, barry lyinn for american's unite ed for church and state will talk about the issues. and real clear politics tom bevpb will talk about the political consequences of repealing obamacare. also research fellow bruce clinger talks about the nuclear threats. be sure to watch "washington ed for church and state will talk about the journal" live at 7:00 eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. > thursday at 7 p.m. eastern, join american history tv for a tour of the museum of the american revolution in philadelphia. the museum's president and ceo michael quine and the exhibition's vice president scott stevenson will introduce artifacts and exhibits throughout the museum, including george washington's war tent and a piece of the old northbridge.
hear stories about the american revolution and you can participate in the live program with your phone calls and tweets. tv, liverican history from the museum of the american revolution thursday starting at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. up tonight on. c-span, and arizona supreme court justice on the constitution soniaupreme court justice sotomayor speaks to law students at stanford. and the u.n. security council needs to talk about north korea. -- meets to talk about north korea. last month justice clint bolick the arizona supreme court talked about his interpretation of the constitution and thoughts about the role of the federal and state judiciaries. next his remarks of the conservative forum of silicon valley. they run about an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] justice bolick: thank