Hillary, or Obama, or John?

The political season is upon us. The media, and news junkies everywhere, are in a frenzy over permutations in the penumbra of chance remarks by the political candidates. I used to be a dedicated political junkie, but had to swear it off some years ago. I just couldn't handle the constant emotional triggering. Talk radio could get me in such an uproar during commutes, that I had to quit.

But politics is important to the energy industry. We will always be an industry that goes through cycles as energy supplies go out of balance with energy demand. But those cycles are driven to extremes by the politics of our great nation. Our last major cycle of boom and bust was almost catastrophic, in large part because of US politics. Price controls on domestic oil and gas production had the predictable effect of depressing supply and increasing demand. Allowing "new" production" to sell at a market price, artificially inflated, predictably drove our industry into a wild frenzy of drilling.

When the price controls were removed the market, again predictably, rationalized. The resulting chaos, as "new production" prices dropped and "old production" rapidly increased left scars on our industry that are still affecting our thoughts and actions. I, for one, sold residential real estate for a year. If you don't think that the picture of me discussing the color of living room carpets with potential house sellers isn't funny, think about it again.

The recent debacle in ethanol simply reinforces the point. US energy policy has an enormous effect on the lives of people. While it is comforting to believe in the silliness of our political class, they are not stupid people. But they are driven by political considerations, not economics or engineering logic. They have the jobs they do because we put them there. They may be fools, but they are our fools.

So what Hillary, or Obama or John think about energy is very important to me, my job and future. I have to tell you that I don't want to apply for a job with ReMax again. It didn't work the first time and I have a greatly lessened tolerance for the effect of "realtor beige" discussions now. I have a lot larger mortgage as well. The potential collateral damage is huge.

My parents repeatedly told me that you should never discuss sex, politics or religion. So it is with a fair amount of inherited guilt that I write the next paragraphs. But what the heck, this is the 21st century.

I have to tell you that I feel pretty good about our future, electing any one of the three. Let me narrow that statement a bit. Concerning the impact to the Denver based energy market from election by any of the three candidates mentioned, I feel pretty optimistic. None of the three would appear to have any past interest in energy. That means that they don't have any axes to grind, beyond their obligatory lip service to our greed and the pain we cause Mother Earth.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of political fire behind high energy prices. We are all hurt by $3 gasoline, but it's different this time. The last time energy prices went up like this, there was fire in the political belly. Our political masters had to do something, and right now, or there was going to be rioting in the streets. Even the Great Father Figure, Walter Cronkite, was angry. I interpret that to mean that the chances of really stupid legislation this time to be relatively small.

What is very positive about Denver and energy is the need to do something about Iraq. If we were honest with ourselves, we know that the reason we went into Iraq is oil. The US public wants out of Iraq. Some want to cut and run, while others want to leave with honor and a declaration of victory, but the broad public wants out of Iraq. But the problem is that Iraq sits in the middle of the world's oil supply. Simply leaving the Middle East to its own devices and the consequent chaos in energy won't work without a fallback position.

At some level most of us know this to be true and will vote accordingly. From a political point of view, the only fallback position that will sell to the general public is "Energy Independence". "Energy Independence" is emphasizing and publicizing renewable energy, while working to increase domestic energy supply. On a number of different levels, Denver is the big winner here.

Increased domestic energy supply means greatly increased production from the Rocky Mountains. Denver is the regional hub of the Rocky Mountain energy production business. Denver can hardly lose. Our level of activity is high simply based on economic factors. But as politics begins to drive "Energy Independence", our level of activity will be turbocharged by the political incentives, in whatever form they may take, that will come from our need to increase domestic production of energy.

Renewable energy is the public centerpiece to "Energy Independence". Today and for some time to come, it is not a serious piece of the solution. But it is the necessary cover to cope with the perceived degradation of the environment caused by increased domestic production. After all, most of the increased energy production will come from federally owned lands. To allow this use of federal lands will require political trade offs, that is, a serious commitment of money to renewable energy development and production.

Here is where Denver is a double winner. Denver is rapidly becoming a hub of the renewable energy industry. Our workforce, our energy experience and our physical setting make this a natural development. A large part of that money committed to renewable energy will be spent in Denver. The public stance and actions of our current Governor lead one to believe that he has made this connection and is acting on it.

So my thought is that no matter who wins the election, Denver's energy future is likely to be prosperous and secure.