People Saved Thanks To An Armed Citizen
13 hours ago
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Monday, August 20, 2012
False Sense of (Energy) Security
Superficially, it would seem that the nation is successfully pursuing the Obama Administration’s stated energy goals of “increasing domestic oil production” and “reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” Domestic oil production has increased, but in spite of and not because of Administration policies. And while our overall oil import demand has declined, our imports from the Persian Gulf states, and Saudi Arabia in particular, have actually grown dramatically to make up for shortfalls from Mexico and elsewhere.
There are two separate issues with regard to the supply of petroleum and refined products: Price, and Security of Supply. When the President said, “We can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices”, the political pressure of $4.00 per gallon for gasoline was his primary concern. But in an international emergency (say, a protracted shutdown of the Straits of Hormuz), our Strategic Petroleum Reserve might be quickly exhausted. Gasoline at $4.00 per gallon might seem cheap. Security of supply should be our nation’s #1 strategic concern with respect to energy.
A recent article in the New York Times considers our current supply situation and its causes:
U.S. Reliance on Oil From Saudi Arabia Is Growing Again
The increase in Saudi oil exports to the United States began slowly last summer and has picked up pace this year. Until then, the United States had decreased its dependence on foreign oil and from the [Persian] Gulf in particular.
This reversal is driven in part by the battle over Iran’s nuclear program. The United States tightened sanctions that hampered Iran’s ability to sell crude, the lifeline of its troubled economy, and Saudi Arabia agreed to increase production to help guarantee that the price did not skyrocket. While prices have remained relatively stable, and Tehran’s treasury has been squeezed, the United States is left increasingly vulnerable to a region in turmoil. …
“At a time when there is a rising chance of either a nuclear Iran or an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, we should be trying to reduce our reliance on oil going through the Strait of Hormuz and not increasing it,” said Michael Makovsky, a former Defense Department official who worked on Middle East issues in the George W. Bush administration.
CONTINUED: http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2012/08/18/false-sense-of-energy-security/
Monday, June 25, 2012
TPN--JUDSON PHILLIPS: The Last Summer
The American summer is in full swing. The calendar says it is summer. The temperature gauge says it is summer and even with the metrological calendar it is now officially summer.
Americans are enjoying many of our traditional summer pastimes. We are watching and playing baseball, going to the pool and some Americans can still take vacations.
While we try to enjoy this summer, could we be looking at the last American summer?
A few weeks ago, Donald Trump accused Obama of making a deal with Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to drive prices down before the election.
Trump could be right. Reuters reported two days ago that Saudi Arabia had pushed its daily production to 10 million barrels a day, creating an oil surplus.
Gas prices, instead of soaring to $4 or even $5 a gallon this summer are now on a slow steady descent to $3 a gallon.
But what happens after Obama is reelected?
CONTINUE READING: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/the-last-summer-1
Americans are enjoying many of our traditional summer pastimes. We are watching and playing baseball, going to the pool and some Americans can still take vacations.
While we try to enjoy this summer, could we be looking at the last American summer?
A few weeks ago, Donald Trump accused Obama of making a deal with Saudi Arabia to pump more oil to drive prices down before the election.
Trump could be right. Reuters reported two days ago that Saudi Arabia had pushed its daily production to 10 million barrels a day, creating an oil surplus.
Gas prices, instead of soaring to $4 or even $5 a gallon this summer are now on a slow steady descent to $3 a gallon.
But what happens after Obama is reelected?
CONTINUE READING: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/the-last-summer-1
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Did Buffett Help Obama Kill Keystone Pipeline to Reap Financial Gain?
The Blaze.com
As the nation’s gas prices skyrocket, critics argue that President Obama’s recent rejection of the $7 billion, “shovel-ready” Keystone XL oil pipeline, followed by his continued vow to “double down” on green energy, is a clear sign the administration plans to do little of substance in terms of American oil exploration. The move has also stirred controversy about the president’s real intentions concerning job creation and reducing pain at the pump for everyday Americans.
TransCanada and the Keystone XL oil pipeline
TransCanada filed an application to build the nearly 1,700-mile underground pipeline in 2008 and passed two rigorous State Department reviews. In February 2010, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) granted a permit based on a thorough work up of the project.
“There has been a great deal of work and due diligence leading up to this decision,” said South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner Dustin Johnson in an interview with DownStreamToday. “The record compiled in this case is pretty impressive. In the end, I feel the conditions we have placed upon this project ensure that it will be constructed in a manner that is sensitive to South Dakota and her people.”
Another Public Utilities official said he believed “the process by which this application was considered was open, thorough and fair” and Keystone openly pledged to station full-time personnel in South Dakota to respond to any emergency situations that may have arisen, according to the report.
That was apparently not enough for the White House, however, which sent TransCanada and others back to the drawing board in January 2012, citing environmental concerns.
To bypass obstacles created by special interest groups and the Environmental Protection Agency, a March 2012 amendment was introduced in the Senate that would have eliminated the need for a federal permit, while addressing environmentalists’ worries by placing more autonomy in Nebraska’s hands. After a vote, however, the measure was squashed 56 to 42.
If allowed, Keystone would have brought a reported 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. outposts and refineries on the Gulf Coast and created thousands of jobs.
In the wake of Obama’s political maneuvering, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper deemed the U.S. an unreliable energy partner and is thus expanding his country’s crude export. The move will result in Canada eliminating the discount it once afforded the U.S. on its oil products.
The administration’s alleged reason for rejecting the application for the pipeline submitted by Calgary-based TransCanada was said to be based on a “recommendation” by the State Department, which concluded there was not enough time to assess alternate pipeline routes. Yet, as we have pointed out, the pipeline was under review for no less than three years and was approved earlier. In addition, if environmental concerns were truly the catalyst for rejecting the pipeline, why then would the president seem comfortable with operating pollutant-emitting freight trains along a Northern railroad line through the United States?
Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Railroad
What would prompt the president to turn the lights out on what critics argue would have been an environmentally-sound, job-boosting, oil-producing project that would benefit the nation and preserve the financially beneficial Canadian-U.S. oil relationship? What does President Obama have to gain by rejecting Keystone XL and who else stands to benefit from his decision?
It was previously reported on The Blaze that Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad — a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska based Berkshire Hathaway — would be among those poised to reap sizable gains by the administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp’s oil pipeline permit. According to Bloomberg, Berkshire Hathaway completed its roughly $26.4 billion purchase of Burlington Northern, issuing new stock and paying out $15.87 billion in cash.
“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern told Bloomberg. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul.”
CONTINUED: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-buffett-kill-the-keystone-pipeline-to-reap-financial-gain/
As the nation’s gas prices skyrocket, critics argue that President Obama’s recent rejection of the $7 billion, “shovel-ready” Keystone XL oil pipeline, followed by his continued vow to “double down” on green energy, is a clear sign the administration plans to do little of substance in terms of American oil exploration. The move has also stirred controversy about the president’s real intentions concerning job creation and reducing pain at the pump for everyday Americans.
TransCanada and the Keystone XL oil pipeline
TransCanada filed an application to build the nearly 1,700-mile underground pipeline in 2008 and passed two rigorous State Department reviews. In February 2010, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) granted a permit based on a thorough work up of the project.
“There has been a great deal of work and due diligence leading up to this decision,” said South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner Dustin Johnson in an interview with DownStreamToday. “The record compiled in this case is pretty impressive. In the end, I feel the conditions we have placed upon this project ensure that it will be constructed in a manner that is sensitive to South Dakota and her people.”
Another Public Utilities official said he believed “the process by which this application was considered was open, thorough and fair” and Keystone openly pledged to station full-time personnel in South Dakota to respond to any emergency situations that may have arisen, according to the report.
That was apparently not enough for the White House, however, which sent TransCanada and others back to the drawing board in January 2012, citing environmental concerns.
To bypass obstacles created by special interest groups and the Environmental Protection Agency, a March 2012 amendment was introduced in the Senate that would have eliminated the need for a federal permit, while addressing environmentalists’ worries by placing more autonomy in Nebraska’s hands. After a vote, however, the measure was squashed 56 to 42.
If allowed, Keystone would have brought a reported 830,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. outposts and refineries on the Gulf Coast and created thousands of jobs.
In the wake of Obama’s political maneuvering, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper deemed the U.S. an unreliable energy partner and is thus expanding his country’s crude export. The move will result in Canada eliminating the discount it once afforded the U.S. on its oil products.
The administration’s alleged reason for rejecting the application for the pipeline submitted by Calgary-based TransCanada was said to be based on a “recommendation” by the State Department, which concluded there was not enough time to assess alternate pipeline routes. Yet, as we have pointed out, the pipeline was under review for no less than three years and was approved earlier. In addition, if environmental concerns were truly the catalyst for rejecting the pipeline, why then would the president seem comfortable with operating pollutant-emitting freight trains along a Northern railroad line through the United States?
Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Railroad
What would prompt the president to turn the lights out on what critics argue would have been an environmentally-sound, job-boosting, oil-producing project that would benefit the nation and preserve the financially beneficial Canadian-U.S. oil relationship? What does President Obama have to gain by rejecting Keystone XL and who else stands to benefit from his decision?
It was previously reported on The Blaze that Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC railroad — a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Nebraska based Berkshire Hathaway — would be among those poised to reap sizable gains by the administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp’s oil pipeline permit. According to Bloomberg, Berkshire Hathaway completed its roughly $26.4 billion purchase of Burlington Northern, issuing new stock and paying out $15.87 billion in cash.
“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern told Bloomberg. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul.”
CONTINUED: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-buffett-kill-the-keystone-pipeline-to-reap-financial-gain/
Friday, March 23, 2012
How Many Times Has Obama Lied To The American People?
So, the man that lied when he promised not to accept public funding of his campaign; the man that lied when he said no abortions would be covered by his health care scheme; the man that lies every time he speaks about the amount of oil at this countries disposal; the man that lies when he says a President can’t do anything to reduce the price of gas, and then plans an October Surprise release of our emergency oil to temporarily do just that; the man who proves his own lies when a temporary release of oil has a diminutive, symbolic reduction in the price, but he insists a daily flow of our own oil form our numerous sites (which he now has off-limits) would have no effect on oil prices (no link, just common sense economics); the man who lied when claiming unemployment would never go above 8%, and who now lies every day about the real unemployment numbers; the man who lied when he claimed to barely know the unrepentant, racist, anti-American terrorist that helped start his political career; the man who lied when he claimed no one would lose their doctors or health plan under his healthcare bill; the man who lied about “shovel ready” jobs; the man who lied, along with many others, about his supposed birth certificate; the man who lied when he claimed he did not vote three times to let infant survivors of abortion die of neglect, forbidding their treatment; the man who lied when he swore to uphold the Constitution, and has belittled it, complained of its “constraints”; and who has ignored it by taking private property and giving it to his union thug friends (GM); or using recess appointments when the Congress is not in recess, or deciding he has the right to kill Americans at will; or start wars with an OK from the UN, but no Congressional approval; the man who lied when he swore to uphold our laws, and then appointed a black supremacist who is intent on ignoring any civil rights violations against whites; who is intent on protecting every national border but America’s from harm; who has been a willing accomplice in the scheme to defraud Americans into giving up their borders and Second Amendment gun rights, but has succeeded in getting American agents killed instead (and their underhanded roles have been discovered); the man who lied about not taking money from lobbyists and giving us a more transparent government;
CONTINUED: http://www.westernjournalism.com/how-many-times-has-obama-lied-to-the-american-people/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=7dabcd9c57-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
CONTINUED: http://www.westernjournalism.com/how-many-times-has-obama-lied-to-the-american-people/?utm_source=Western+Journalism&utm_campaign=7dabcd9c57-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Obama & British PM Agree to Release Oil Reserves
During a meeting between President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday, the two world leaders discussed the idea of releasing emergency oil reserves, Reuters reports.
It is now being reported that the two have come to an agreement over the release of strategic oil stocks.
“A formal request from the United States to the UK to join forces in a release of oil from government-controlled reserves is expected ‘shortly’ following a meeting on Wednesday in Washington between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, who discussed the issue,” Reuters reports.
However, Reuters notes that tapping the SPR could “antagonize allies in Europe, several of whom remain unhappy over last year’s action and are unlikely to back another release,” according to the report.
CONTINUED: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-cameron-talk-releasing-oil-reserves/
Strategic oil reserves are supposed to be for real emergencies, not so Obama can win political points and cover up his disasterous energy policies!
~Lynn
It is now being reported that the two have come to an agreement over the release of strategic oil stocks.
“A formal request from the United States to the UK to join forces in a release of oil from government-controlled reserves is expected ‘shortly’ following a meeting on Wednesday in Washington between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron, who discussed the issue,” Reuters reports.
However, Reuters notes that tapping the SPR could “antagonize allies in Europe, several of whom remain unhappy over last year’s action and are unlikely to back another release,” according to the report.
CONTINUED: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-cameron-talk-releasing-oil-reserves/
Strategic oil reserves are supposed to be for real emergencies, not so Obama can win political points and cover up his disasterous energy policies!
~Lynn
Monday, September 26, 2011
Fracking facts: pros, cons and issues
It has long been known that shales contain oil and gas but it is only within the last decade that the development of two technologies has made the extraction of gas from shale an economic proposition:
•The first of these is the ability to drill horizontally from an initial deep vertical bore.
•The second is the development of a process called ‘hydraulic fracturing’ .
Hydraulic fracturing is the use of a fluid made up of around 90% water carrying a load of sands, chemicals and sometimes diesel oil and forcing it into shales under high pressure, causing them to fracture and release the gas they contain.
This is the process from whose name the brute industrial tag of ‘fracking’ has been hacked.
To extract shale gas, you drill one or two miles down into the shale band, and then turn the drill head to bore horizontally for up to the same distance. This obviously increases the exposure of available shale to the well. A series of explosive charges in a perforated pipe are then detonated in the stretch designated for fracking, starting the fissuring of the rock for the hydrofracturing that then follows – directed into the new cracks, forcing them more widely apart and extending them.
Shale is hard and pretty impermeable so breaking it up in this way is the only means of releasing the gas it contains.
The gas then flows along the bore and escapes upwards to the well head.
The chemicals that are part of the water borne material injected into the rock include benzene – a known carcinogen that destroys bacteria that might otherwise clog up the fissures created in the rock.
Areas of gas carrying shales are known in the industry as ‘shale plays’ – as opposed to ‘shale explorations’. The difference between the two is that the risk of ‘shale plays’ not containing extractable gas is lower.
CONTINUED: http://forargyll.com/2011/09/fracking-facts-pros-cons-and-issues/
•The first of these is the ability to drill horizontally from an initial deep vertical bore.
•The second is the development of a process called ‘hydraulic fracturing’ .
Hydraulic fracturing is the use of a fluid made up of around 90% water carrying a load of sands, chemicals and sometimes diesel oil and forcing it into shales under high pressure, causing them to fracture and release the gas they contain.
This is the process from whose name the brute industrial tag of ‘fracking’ has been hacked.
To extract shale gas, you drill one or two miles down into the shale band, and then turn the drill head to bore horizontally for up to the same distance. This obviously increases the exposure of available shale to the well. A series of explosive charges in a perforated pipe are then detonated in the stretch designated for fracking, starting the fissuring of the rock for the hydrofracturing that then follows – directed into the new cracks, forcing them more widely apart and extending them.
Shale is hard and pretty impermeable so breaking it up in this way is the only means of releasing the gas it contains.
The gas then flows along the bore and escapes upwards to the well head.
The chemicals that are part of the water borne material injected into the rock include benzene – a known carcinogen that destroys bacteria that might otherwise clog up the fissures created in the rock.
Areas of gas carrying shales are known in the industry as ‘shale plays’ – as opposed to ‘shale explorations’. The difference between the two is that the risk of ‘shale plays’ not containing extractable gas is lower.
CONTINUED: http://forargyll.com/2011/09/fracking-facts-pros-cons-and-issues/
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Will Angry Left Sacrifice Obama In '12 Election?
Suddenly, liberal op-ed writers are trashing — even lampooning — Barack Obama as a one-term president ("one and done"). Centrist Democrats up for re-election in 2012 openly worry about inviting a kindred president into their districts, lest the supposed new pariah lose them votes.
Left-wing think tanks, environmentalists and academics vent their anger against Obama for supposedly being too soft on Republicans, and too ready to compromise with right-wingers. But what really caused the left-wing falling-out, less than three years after the hope-and-change crush on Barack Obama? For now, polls.
Obama's popularity has fallen to little more than 40% approval. Suddenly, Democrats worry the public anger could be contagious. It might infect them as well, in the way a sinking George W. Bush hurt congressional Republicans up for re-election in '06.
Yet the left cannot fairly blame Obama. After all, he rammed through on a strictly partisan vote the century-old liberal dream of a federal takeover of health care — something that Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton never could do. Keynesians never dreamed that a president could actually borrow $5 trillion for domestic spending in less than three years.
The Obama administration even tried to shut down a brand-new Boeing aircraft plant on the shaky argument that the company might thereby be hiring fewer union workers somewhere else.
For environmentalists, Obama kept oil producers out of new fields in Alaska, the American West, the Gulf and other offshore sites. Hundreds of billions in borrowed federal money went to failed "wind and solar" plants to jump-start "millions of green jobs."
CONTINUE READING:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584924/201109151814/Will-Angry-Left-Sacrifice-Obama-In-12-Election-.htm
Left-wing think tanks, environmentalists and academics vent their anger against Obama for supposedly being too soft on Republicans, and too ready to compromise with right-wingers. But what really caused the left-wing falling-out, less than three years after the hope-and-change crush on Barack Obama? For now, polls.
Obama's popularity has fallen to little more than 40% approval. Suddenly, Democrats worry the public anger could be contagious. It might infect them as well, in the way a sinking George W. Bush hurt congressional Republicans up for re-election in '06.
Yet the left cannot fairly blame Obama. After all, he rammed through on a strictly partisan vote the century-old liberal dream of a federal takeover of health care — something that Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton never could do. Keynesians never dreamed that a president could actually borrow $5 trillion for domestic spending in less than three years.
The Obama administration even tried to shut down a brand-new Boeing aircraft plant on the shaky argument that the company might thereby be hiring fewer union workers somewhere else.
For environmentalists, Obama kept oil producers out of new fields in Alaska, the American West, the Gulf and other offshore sites. Hundreds of billions in borrowed federal money went to failed "wind and solar" plants to jump-start "millions of green jobs."
CONTINUE READING:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584924/201109151814/Will-Angry-Left-Sacrifice-Obama-In-12-Election-.htm
Friday, July 8, 2011
Another stunning stimulus success
In other governmental meddling news, TheDC's Neil Munro reports: "The White House decision to sell 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has failed to stop the upward march of oil prices, or to stimulate the economy. Prices for crude oil and gasoline dipped on the June 23 announcement, but have subsequently risen because expanding economies in Asia and South America are bidding up the market price, according to oil industry analysts. President Barack Obama's sale 'did not make a damn bit of difference,' said Dan Kish, vice president for policy at the Institute for Energy Research. Eight days after the announcement, 'the price of oil was higher than it was the day he announced' the release of oil from the reserve, Kish
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Expert: Obama's Tapping of Oil Reserves Helped China More
China and other foreign markets likely benefited more than American drivers after President Obama tapped the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve to relieve price pressure, according to US News and World Report.
"Yes, the government can reduce the price of oil by suddenly releasing 30 million barrels from our reserves, but it does not help the United States in any way. Even if it reduces the price of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon and saves the average consumer $6 a month, it does so over the entire world, not just in our country," says financial analyst David Marotta, president of Marotta Wealth Management in Charlottesville, Va.
"Oil is bought and sold on a world market," said Marotta in his memo to clients. "So long as a free market exists for oil, the market will price oil appropriately. And the only effect of releasing our oil reserves is to lower world oil prices."
CONTINUED: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/oil-strategic-reserve-china/2011/07/05/id/402574?s=al&promo_code=C8EB-1
"Yes, the government can reduce the price of oil by suddenly releasing 30 million barrels from our reserves, but it does not help the United States in any way. Even if it reduces the price of gasoline by 10 cents a gallon and saves the average consumer $6 a month, it does so over the entire world, not just in our country," says financial analyst David Marotta, president of Marotta Wealth Management in Charlottesville, Va.
"Oil is bought and sold on a world market," said Marotta in his memo to clients. "So long as a free market exists for oil, the market will price oil appropriately. And the only effect of releasing our oil reserves is to lower world oil prices."
CONTINUED: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/oil-strategic-reserve-china/2011/07/05/id/402574?s=al&promo_code=C8EB-1
Saturday, May 14, 2011
On Gas Prices, Obama Should Lead or Get Out of the Way
If we'd increased drilling 10 years ago things wouldn't be so bad today
By Jim Adams
Posted: May 13, 2011
Jim Adams is president and CEO of Offshore Marine Service Association, which represents the owners and operators of U.S. flag offshore service vessels and the shipyards and other businesses that support that industry.
Nearly a decade ago, the retail price for regular gasoline rose 26 cents per gallon in eight weeks to an all-time high of $1.75 per gallon. The government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) was tasked with an "Inquiry into August 2003 Gasoline Price Spike." We were waging the War on Terror, labor unions were striking, hurricanes threatened oil rigs while terrorists threatened refineries, demand for energy was creeping to a new high, and international markets drew down their inventories.
Sound familiar?
READ ON: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/05/13/on-gas-prices-obama-should-lead-or-get-out-of-the-way
By Jim Adams
Posted: May 13, 2011
Jim Adams is president and CEO of Offshore Marine Service Association, which represents the owners and operators of U.S. flag offshore service vessels and the shipyards and other businesses that support that industry.
Nearly a decade ago, the retail price for regular gasoline rose 26 cents per gallon in eight weeks to an all-time high of $1.75 per gallon. The government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) was tasked with an "Inquiry into August 2003 Gasoline Price Spike." We were waging the War on Terror, labor unions were striking, hurricanes threatened oil rigs while terrorists threatened refineries, demand for energy was creeping to a new high, and international markets drew down their inventories.
Sound familiar?
READ ON: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/05/13/on-gas-prices-obama-should-lead-or-get-out-of-the-way
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
How long will we allow them to keep us dependent on foreign oil??????
EPA Rules Force Shell to Abandon Oil Drilling Plans
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Obama's media
April 11, 2011
Have you ever asked yourself the question: How in the world does Barack Hussein Obama get away with the things he does and the decisions he makes without even a peep from the mainstream media?
Obama has sat back and watched the price of gasoline double since he took office; he put 87,000 oil workers in the gulf out of work with an arbitrary stroke of the pen and doubled the national debt without a word of explanation. The press reported nothing more than his brilliance in these matters.
With the help of the wicked witch of San Francisco, he destroyed the best health-care system in the world while ignoring the will of the people. He sent U.S. Air Force equipment and personnel to bomb Libya without congressional approval, and the press heralded him as a great humanitarian. Never mind that half the world believed he should return his Nobel Peace Prize. Where was the critical analysis from the press so essential to a free and open democracy?
Mr. Obama spent hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars taking his wife to New York for "Date Night," wiped out secured creditors at General Motors while pouring billions of dollars into union-thug accounts. He even cracked jokes at the expense of handicapped children from the Special Olympics. All that didn't even raise as much as an eyebrow from the New York Times.
Of course, the press would not think to bring up one of Barack Hussein Obama's BFFs, Jeff Immelt from G.E. Immelt and his company received billions of dollars in loans and tax refunds while creating billions of profit for his corporation. The same crony Mr. Obama appointed to the Economic Recovery Advisory Council and the White House Council on Jobs. The same one! Yet the "journalists" at Time and Newsweek make no mention of the connection. Wouldn't you say there is at least a whiff of conflict of interest in that General Electric and Immelt are big donors to Barack Hussein Obama?
I don't have enough column space to mention the dozens of stupid or nefarious things this president has done without a peep of explanation as to why. Can any of us ever forget our president bowing the the Saudi king or state he had "been to all 57 states." I doubt there is one Marine who will ever forget when Mr. Obama referred to the Marine Corps as the Marine CORPSE. Unless those Marines now serve in the press.
If memory serves, I never saw any scrutiny of the president filling his Cabinet with tax cheats, appointing 32 czars who report only to him or how the president could summarily fire the head of a public company with the simple stroke of the executive pen. Nope, not a mention.
You would think some of the greenie weenies from the left over at the New York Times or MSNBC would have mentioned the inherent hypocrisy of burning 9,000 gallons of jet fuel on Air Force One to plant a tree on Earth Day, wouldn't you? But once again, not a peep.
Of course, who could ever forget the brilliant move of our grand leader when he ordered Air Force One, accompanied by fighter jets, for the famed joy ride, flying so low over downtown Manhattan it caused widespread terror and rekindled very bad memories for its citizens. Now that for sure should have made the headlines, don't you think? It didn't.
So why is he allowed to get away with all of this?
Just ask Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Who could ever forget when Bill Clinton decided to hold Barack Hussein Obama accountable for what were clearly inaccurate statements and flat-out lies. Here is a little excerpt from the town-hall meeting:
BILL CLINTON: "You [Barack Obama] said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004, and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
He went on to refer to Barack Obama as a kid.
That was the same town hall Mr. Clinton pointed out the slurs Barack Obama directed at Hillary about being the "senator from Punjab." Mr. Clinton was viscerally angry for the lies and distortions and made it clear. He dared to challenge the lack of honesty coming from the upstart from Chicago.
What did that get Mr. Clinton?
The charge of being a racist. How ironic considering many dubbed Clinton our first "black" president. Mr. Clinton was painted with this brush by many Obama worshippers in the press and Team Obama. How dare Clinton attempt to hold the junior senator from Illinois accountable. How dare Clinton raise a standard of honesty against the anointed one. The media had already chosen the next president. Who in the world did Bill Clinton think he was to question the one who walked on water? The chosen bearer of "hope and change"?
Mr. Obama will not be held accountable now or in the future for the same reason everyone in America backed off after that town-hall meeting – including challenger John McCain who would not question Obama for fear of being deemed a racist as well, the most feared smear in America.
As we get closer to the next election, expect to see this Obama tactic reappear.
Just imagine for a moment what George W. Bush would have been put through if he had made the same mistakes or unconstitutional moves. George Bush stopped playing golf when the troops were on the ground. Mr. Obama began. But I won't belabor the point. The double standard exists, and its seems we are all powerless to challenge it.
I only hope this election America becomes color blind to racism. The recent visit with Al Sharpton on the same week Obama launched his 2012 re-election bid was not a coincidence. These events were planned by design – a design that has made this president the "Kevlar President."
Our only hope is America will judge Mr. Obama in November of 2012 by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.
Craig R. Smith is an author, commentator and popular media guest because he instantly engages audiences with his common-sense analyses of local, national and global trends. Serving as CEO of Swiss America for over 25 years, Craig understands that Americans want solid answers to the tough questions and that real leadership begins with servanthood. Craig's most recent book is "Crashing the Dollar: How to Survive a Global Currency Collapse," which he co-authored with Lowell Ponte. For media interviews please call Bronwin Barilla at 800-950-2428.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=285565
Have you ever asked yourself the question: How in the world does Barack Hussein Obama get away with the things he does and the decisions he makes without even a peep from the mainstream media?
Obama has sat back and watched the price of gasoline double since he took office; he put 87,000 oil workers in the gulf out of work with an arbitrary stroke of the pen and doubled the national debt without a word of explanation. The press reported nothing more than his brilliance in these matters.
With the help of the wicked witch of San Francisco, he destroyed the best health-care system in the world while ignoring the will of the people. He sent U.S. Air Force equipment and personnel to bomb Libya without congressional approval, and the press heralded him as a great humanitarian. Never mind that half the world believed he should return his Nobel Peace Prize. Where was the critical analysis from the press so essential to a free and open democracy?
Mr. Obama spent hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars taking his wife to New York for "Date Night," wiped out secured creditors at General Motors while pouring billions of dollars into union-thug accounts. He even cracked jokes at the expense of handicapped children from the Special Olympics. All that didn't even raise as much as an eyebrow from the New York Times.
Of course, the press would not think to bring up one of Barack Hussein Obama's BFFs, Jeff Immelt from G.E. Immelt and his company received billions of dollars in loans and tax refunds while creating billions of profit for his corporation. The same crony Mr. Obama appointed to the Economic Recovery Advisory Council and the White House Council on Jobs. The same one! Yet the "journalists" at Time and Newsweek make no mention of the connection. Wouldn't you say there is at least a whiff of conflict of interest in that General Electric and Immelt are big donors to Barack Hussein Obama?
I don't have enough column space to mention the dozens of stupid or nefarious things this president has done without a peep of explanation as to why. Can any of us ever forget our president bowing the the Saudi king or state he had "been to all 57 states." I doubt there is one Marine who will ever forget when Mr. Obama referred to the Marine Corps as the Marine CORPSE. Unless those Marines now serve in the press.
If memory serves, I never saw any scrutiny of the president filling his Cabinet with tax cheats, appointing 32 czars who report only to him or how the president could summarily fire the head of a public company with the simple stroke of the executive pen. Nope, not a mention.
You would think some of the greenie weenies from the left over at the New York Times or MSNBC would have mentioned the inherent hypocrisy of burning 9,000 gallons of jet fuel on Air Force One to plant a tree on Earth Day, wouldn't you? But once again, not a peep.
Of course, who could ever forget the brilliant move of our grand leader when he ordered Air Force One, accompanied by fighter jets, for the famed joy ride, flying so low over downtown Manhattan it caused widespread terror and rekindled very bad memories for its citizens. Now that for sure should have made the headlines, don't you think? It didn't.
So why is he allowed to get away with all of this?
Just ask Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Who could ever forget when Bill Clinton decided to hold Barack Hussein Obama accountable for what were clearly inaccurate statements and flat-out lies. Here is a little excerpt from the town-hall meeting:
BILL CLINTON: "You [Barack Obama] said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004, and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."
He went on to refer to Barack Obama as a kid.
That was the same town hall Mr. Clinton pointed out the slurs Barack Obama directed at Hillary about being the "senator from Punjab." Mr. Clinton was viscerally angry for the lies and distortions and made it clear. He dared to challenge the lack of honesty coming from the upstart from Chicago.
What did that get Mr. Clinton?
The charge of being a racist. How ironic considering many dubbed Clinton our first "black" president. Mr. Clinton was painted with this brush by many Obama worshippers in the press and Team Obama. How dare Clinton attempt to hold the junior senator from Illinois accountable. How dare Clinton raise a standard of honesty against the anointed one. The media had already chosen the next president. Who in the world did Bill Clinton think he was to question the one who walked on water? The chosen bearer of "hope and change"?
Mr. Obama will not be held accountable now or in the future for the same reason everyone in America backed off after that town-hall meeting – including challenger John McCain who would not question Obama for fear of being deemed a racist as well, the most feared smear in America.
As we get closer to the next election, expect to see this Obama tactic reappear.
Just imagine for a moment what George W. Bush would have been put through if he had made the same mistakes or unconstitutional moves. George Bush stopped playing golf when the troops were on the ground. Mr. Obama began. But I won't belabor the point. The double standard exists, and its seems we are all powerless to challenge it.
I only hope this election America becomes color blind to racism. The recent visit with Al Sharpton on the same week Obama launched his 2012 re-election bid was not a coincidence. These events were planned by design – a design that has made this president the "Kevlar President."
Our only hope is America will judge Mr. Obama in November of 2012 by the content of his character and not the color of his skin.
Craig R. Smith is an author, commentator and popular media guest because he instantly engages audiences with his common-sense analyses of local, national and global trends. Serving as CEO of Swiss America for over 25 years, Craig understands that Americans want solid answers to the tough questions and that real leadership begins with servanthood. Craig's most recent book is "Crashing the Dollar: How to Survive a Global Currency Collapse," which he co-authored with Lowell Ponte. For media interviews please call Bronwin Barilla at 800-950-2428.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=285565
Monday, March 21, 2011
WTH…Interior Dept Gives Approval to Brazilian Oil Company’s Gulf of Mexico Deep Water Facility
Yes, as he continues to hold up drilling permits for U.S. oil companies in the Gulf.
(Reuters) — The U.S. Interior Department said on Thursday it gave final approval for Petrobras to use the first ever deepwater floating production storage facility in the Gulf of Mexico. The facility will be used when the company begins oil and natural gas production at its Chinook-Cascade project in the near future, the department said. Petrobras is based in Brazil.
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/wth-interior-dept-gives-approval-to-brazilian-oil-company%e2%80%99s-gulf-of-mexico-deep-water-facility/
(Reuters) — The U.S. Interior Department said on Thursday it gave final approval for Petrobras to use the first ever deepwater floating production storage facility in the Gulf of Mexico. The facility will be used when the company begins oil and natural gas production at its Chinook-Cascade project in the near future, the department said. Petrobras is based in Brazil.
http://randysright.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/wth-interior-dept-gives-approval-to-brazilian-oil-company%e2%80%99s-gulf-of-mexico-deep-water-facility/
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Morning Bell: Obama’s Anti-Drilling Agenda
President Obama’s oil spill commission will release its long-awaited final report this morning, recommending new government regulations and limits on drilling. These conclusions could shape the future of the oil industry — and impact our nation’s energy policy for years to come.
The commission’s primary focus was determining the cause of the spill. Last week it revealed that errors by BP, Transocean and Halliburton contributed to the blowout of the Macondo well, resulting in the deaths of 11 people and the worst spill in history.
But the commission’s members have decided to go a step further. The anti-drilling measures recommended in their report would take America in the wrong direction. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Obama picked five members who lack expertise in drilling and have a history of donating to Democrats. One member leads the Natural Resources Defense Council.
READ MORE: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/11/morning-bell-obamas-anti-drilling-agenda/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
President Obama’s oil spill commission will release its long-awaited final report this morning, recommending new government regulations and limits on drilling. These conclusions could shape the future of the oil industry — and impact our nation’s energy policy for years to come.
The commission’s primary focus was determining the cause of the spill. Last week it revealed that errors by BP, Transocean and Halliburton contributed to the blowout of the Macondo well, resulting in the deaths of 11 people and the worst spill in history.
But the commission’s members have decided to go a step further. The anti-drilling measures recommended in their report would take America in the wrong direction. This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Obama picked five members who lack expertise in drilling and have a history of donating to Democrats. One member leads the Natural Resources Defense Council.
READ MORE: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/11/morning-bell-obamas-anti-drilling-agenda/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Friday, September 3, 2010
ConservativeActionAlerts.com
Tea Party Turning Into A Tidal Wave
Written by CAA Opinion on September 02, 2010, 05:18 PM
http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/997
The defeat of Alaska's Lisa Murkowski by a little-known conservative lawyer is the latest evidence of a tidal wave building that may sweep aside an out-of-touch establishment. "We the people" won't be ignored.
Shays' Rebellion, an uprising of 1,200 farmers led by one Daniel Shays, angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786, prompted Thomas Jefferson to write to James Madison that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America.
A more peaceful rebellion is now occurring across the country, and we believe it's a good thing for America. Considering the excesses of this administration and Congress and their abuse of power to the point of ignoring the Constitution itself, it's also a very necessary thing, an idea whose time has come.
With her concession, Sen. Murkowski became the third incumbent to bite the political dust this season, joining Utah Sen. Bob Bennett and Pennsylvania party switcher Arlen Specter. The old argument about seniority and influence no longer flies among voters who increasingly believe, as Jefferson did, that government is best which governs least.
Joe Miller, a 43-year-old Yale-educated lawyer, West Point graduate and Gulf War veteran, was a little-known Fairbanks attorney before he was endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express.
The former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, who knows a little about shaking up the establishment, has become a political power, riding and leading a wave of political discontent with the country's current direction that manifested itself last Saturday at Glenn Beck's "Restore Honor" rally on the National Mall. Palin is woman, hear her roar.
Miller called for slashing federal spending while running for office in a state where federal money plays a huge role in driving the economy. As has happened around the country, the people are telling their government: Don't help us anymore; we can't afford it.
Murkowski was seen by the Tea Party Express as being on the side of big government. Miller targeted her for her support of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a vote Murkowski said she came to regret.
Certainly energy-rich Alaska has fallen victim to the administration's war on fossil fuels. Vast oil reserves remain locked up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, though a tiny portion only the size of Reagan National Airport in Washington would need to be developed. Murkowski was the most senior Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but it didn't seem to help.
Offshore reserves in the Chukchi Sea have similarly been placed off-limits in the name of protecting a polar bear population that is thriving and not endangered. Miller has said he would work to get more federal lands into state hands where it can be developed. Saving the earth can wait; saving our jobs comes first.
Murkowski was a state legislator when she was appointed by her father, Frank Murkowski, in 2002 to the Senate seat he was giving up to become governor. Miller and the Tea Party Express called the Murkowskis a royal dynasty that had to go.
Voters have had enough with political dynasties and virtual lifetime tenure for incumbents, and Alaskans decided there was no more a "Murkowski seat" than there was a "Kennedy seat" in Massachusetts, where Scott Brown produced a similar upset.
America was born through a popular uprising that didn't like taxation without representation. It may be reborn from an aroused people unhappy with both their taxation and their representation.
Written by CAA Opinion on September 02, 2010, 05:18 PM
http://conservativeactionalerts.com/blog_post/show/997
The defeat of Alaska's Lisa Murkowski by a little-known conservative lawyer is the latest evidence of a tidal wave building that may sweep aside an out-of-touch establishment. "We the people" won't be ignored.
Shays' Rebellion, an uprising of 1,200 farmers led by one Daniel Shays, angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786, prompted Thomas Jefferson to write to James Madison that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America.
A more peaceful rebellion is now occurring across the country, and we believe it's a good thing for America. Considering the excesses of this administration and Congress and their abuse of power to the point of ignoring the Constitution itself, it's also a very necessary thing, an idea whose time has come.
With her concession, Sen. Murkowski became the third incumbent to bite the political dust this season, joining Utah Sen. Bob Bennett and Pennsylvania party switcher Arlen Specter. The old argument about seniority and influence no longer flies among voters who increasingly believe, as Jefferson did, that government is best which governs least.
Joe Miller, a 43-year-old Yale-educated lawyer, West Point graduate and Gulf War veteran, was a little-known Fairbanks attorney before he was endorsed by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Express.
The former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, who knows a little about shaking up the establishment, has become a political power, riding and leading a wave of political discontent with the country's current direction that manifested itself last Saturday at Glenn Beck's "Restore Honor" rally on the National Mall. Palin is woman, hear her roar.
Miller called for slashing federal spending while running for office in a state where federal money plays a huge role in driving the economy. As has happened around the country, the people are telling their government: Don't help us anymore; we can't afford it.
Murkowski was seen by the Tea Party Express as being on the side of big government. Miller targeted her for her support of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a vote Murkowski said she came to regret.
Certainly energy-rich Alaska has fallen victim to the administration's war on fossil fuels. Vast oil reserves remain locked up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, though a tiny portion only the size of Reagan National Airport in Washington would need to be developed. Murkowski was the most senior Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but it didn't seem to help.
Offshore reserves in the Chukchi Sea have similarly been placed off-limits in the name of protecting a polar bear population that is thriving and not endangered. Miller has said he would work to get more federal lands into state hands where it can be developed. Saving the earth can wait; saving our jobs comes first.
Murkowski was a state legislator when she was appointed by her father, Frank Murkowski, in 2002 to the Senate seat he was giving up to become governor. Miller and the Tea Party Express called the Murkowskis a royal dynasty that had to go.
Voters have had enough with political dynasties and virtual lifetime tenure for incumbents, and Alaskans decided there was no more a "Murkowski seat" than there was a "Kennedy seat" in Massachusetts, where Scott Brown produced a similar upset.
America was born through a popular uprising that didn't like taxation without representation. It may be reborn from an aroused people unhappy with both their taxation and their representation.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Obama wants 15 Million Dollars for "Expert" Oil Commission
Obama wants 15 Million Dollars for "Expert" Oil Commission
By Connie Hair, Human Events
The White House asked Congress late Wednesday for $15 million -- a whopping $2.5 million per month for six months -- to fund their expert commission of academics to study the Gulf oil-rig explosion and the disastrous spill that followed.
In a letter to Congress, which was obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag requested the money to fund the work of the “National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.”
While tens of thousands are put out of work by Obama’s six-month Gulf deep water drilling moratorium -- and people lose generational legacies of work pulling their livelihoods out of the sea with their bare hands from fishing nets and crab traps -- the president is spending more money in a month on his academic commission to study the issue than any one of these hard working families will make in a lifetime of real work.
Read More and Comment:
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/obama-wants-15-million-dollars-for-expert-oil-commission/
By Connie Hair, Human Events
The White House asked Congress late Wednesday for $15 million -- a whopping $2.5 million per month for six months -- to fund their expert commission of academics to study the Gulf oil-rig explosion and the disastrous spill that followed.
In a letter to Congress, which was obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag requested the money to fund the work of the “National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.”
While tens of thousands are put out of work by Obama’s six-month Gulf deep water drilling moratorium -- and people lose generational legacies of work pulling their livelihoods out of the sea with their bare hands from fishing nets and crab traps -- the president is spending more money in a month on his academic commission to study the issue than any one of these hard working families will make in a lifetime of real work.
Read More and Comment:
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/obama-wants-15-million-dollars-for-expert-oil-commission/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
