Obama Administration Shuts Down Oil Drilling Out West

Last Friday, Barack Obama’s Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.

The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.

The move is sure to rankle Republicans, who say President Obama’s grip on fossil fuel drilling in federal lands is too tight.

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management cited environmental concerns for the proposed changes. Among other things, it excised lands with “wilderness characteristics” and areas that conflicted with sage grouse habitats.


U.S. Could Be Energy Independent By The End Of The Decade, Says Oil Executive

Harold Hamm, the founder and CEO of Continental Resources, which is the 14th-largest U.S. oil company, spent a few minutes of exclusive one-on-one time with the president at the White House recently. He told President Obama that America has enough oil within its borders to “replace OPEC.”

The President told Hamm, “Oil and gas will be important for the next few years, but we need to go on to green and alternative energy.” The President went on to say that Energy Secretary Chu has assured him that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.

Hamm wants to know, “Even if you believe that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development?” saying that the U.S. could be “completely energy independent by the end of the decade. We can be the Saudi Arabia of oil and natural gas in the 21st century.”

Given the state of affairs in the Middle East, I have to wonder what the president is thinking. Getting the U.S. free of Middle Eastern oil is, or should be, a primary goal for the sake of national security. To produce the oil and natural gas believed to be available in our own country is in our national interest for more than national security reasons. North Dakota, which is on pace to surpass California in oil production in the next few years, has the nation’s lowest unemployment rate at 3.5%. The economy in the state is expanding so fast that there is a housing shortage in the state, primarily due to oil production.

Mr. Hamm told the Wall Street Journal that if Washington allowed more drilling permits for oil and natural gas on federal lands and federal waters, “I truly believe the federal government could over time raise $18 trillion in royalties.” That is more than the U.S. national debt.

But this administration is not interested in freeing the United States of its reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Despite his speeches, this president is not really interested in creating jobs that don’t fall into the category of green, union or government jobs. Furthermore, this president is not interested in lowering the national debt.

President Obama has said all along that he hopes to take our nation down the same path as Spain with its “green economy.” Spain, the place that has lost 2.2 jobs for every “green job” it has created and whose unemployment rate, which is calculated separately by the National Statistics Institute, amounted to 20.9% in the second quarter of 2011 – the highest among industrialized nations.

I do not believe that the United States should abandon its quest to find or develop clean and alternative forms of energy. However, until we find one or more that works and are profitable, we will need to continue to rely on and improve on the sources of energy that we have.

If there are elections next fall, we need to elect a president and a congress that supports both paths.

EPA Blocks Oil Drilling in Alaska

In his weekly address on Saturday, President Barack Obama said that “there’s no silver bullet that can bring down gas prices right away,” but that one thing America can do is pursue “safe and responsible production of oil at home.”

Apparently, the pursuit of “safe and responsible production of oil at home” is something we “can do,” but is something his administration will not allow.

Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied Shell Oil Company’s plan to drill its initial exploratory test in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea. A ruling by the Environmental Appeals Board of the EPA has ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project.

Fox News reports that the EPA is withholding necessary air permits because of a one square mile village of 245 people, 70 miles from the off-shore drilling site.

At stake is an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil. That’s how much the U. S. Geological Survey believes is in the U.S. portion of the Arctic Ocean. For perspective, that represents two and a half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline throughout its 30-year history. That pipeline is getting dangerously low on oil. At 660,000 barrels a day, it’s carrying only one-third its capacity.

Production on the North Slope of Alaska is declining at a rate of about 7 percent a year. If the volume gets much lower, pipeline officials say they will have to shut it down.

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. The Interior Department issues air permits to oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.

According to the US Geological Survey, the Artic Regions of the world hold 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resources.

It’s a shame that the President is interested in pursuing “safe and responsible production of oil at home” in words alone.

An Idea To Help Our Energy, Employment, Security and Economic Problems (In One Easy Step)

With the crisis in Japan and the Middle East in turmoil, many Americans have been taking a look at our nation’s energy policy only to find that we don’t have one. That is but one of the major problems our nation faces today.

Congress should pass legislation that would allow for the exploration and retrieval of oil and natural gas on all Federal lands. We need alternatives to carbon fuels, but until we develop one that works well and is not cost prohibitive, we have to stay with what we’ve got.

We already know from previous exploration that there is a vast amount of oil and especially natural gas in the United States. I believe that if given the urgency that it deserves, our nation could be producing from those fields before this decade is over. With luck, that would be soon enough and with even more luck, it would happen earlier than that timeframe. Of course there would have to be serious legislation to keep the EPA from slowing the process, but that could be possible with enough public support.

With the instability of Middle Eastern nations, with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez’s dislike for the United States government and with the turmoil in Mexico, our supply of oil is in constant jeopardy. We should have acted on this problem when Jimmy Carter stated there was a problem, but we did not. We can no longer wait to protect ourselves from the potential of oil being cut off by one or more of those sources.

Aside from the national security issue that would be solved with this process, there would be hundreds of thousands of jobs created. These jobs would come from not just the oil companies that would be doing the drilling, but at the refineries and laying the necessary pipelines that would be needed to move the oil and natural gas to the locations where it is needed for processing. Jobs would be created in industries that manufacture the equipment to lay the pipelines and the pipelines themselves. That all trickles down to the stores those workers would be shopping at with their new salaries.

If the leaders were to think a little outside the box when creating this legislation, why not (since it would be a new source of revenue) take every licensing fee collected from the oil/natural gas industry for the right to explore and/or drill on Federal lands and all of the royalties that the government would normally collect from the oil produced and apply it directly to the Social Security Trust Fund! I suspect that could solve the problem of Social Security’s financial problems without raising taxes or the retirement age.

I would further require of each oil company that is granted the right to drill that they be required to make serious efforts in the areas of affordable alternative energy.

This wouldn’t solve all of our nation’s problems, but it would make us more secure as a nation, provide a lot of jobs for Americans and go a long way toward solving the problem with Social Security.

Of course there would need to be legislation preventing Congress from stealing the money that would be dedicated to Social Security. If I were a Republican in Congress, I would make my first priority to introduce legislation that would end the “borrowing” from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. By doing so, I would not only show the people of America which party is serious about the issue. I know it would take a few years for our elected officials to wean themselves off that income, but it can and should be done.

More Gore

Do you think the mainstream media doesn’t want folks to know how much money Al Gore is making off his global warming scam?

Before you answer that question, consider a couple points:

In 2000, when the former Vice President lost the election, he was reported to have a net worth of between one and two million dollars. By the time Bush left office, Gore was worth well over $100 million.

Last year, Al Gore told Congress as the House was considering cap-and-trade legislation,

“Every penny that I have made, I have put right into a non-profit deal, Alliance For Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge. And Congresswomen, if your, if, if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you do not know me.”

Recently, Gore purchased a $9 million mansion in the luxurious hills of Montecito, California, recently, and there is a good chance you did not hear about it. You can see photos here.

With the exception of the Los Angeles Times and Fox News, America’s media couldn’t care less. You think it might be because the Gore-loving press wouldn’t want people to consider the possibility that all of his global warming hysteria was really about lining his wallet and not saving the planet?

Where did the money come from? Was this purchased by his non-profit corporation, and if so, how does he get away with that? Did he sell some of his Google or Apple stock? How “green” is this house? Are there solar panels and windmills to power this facility? If not, what are their plans?

Don’t you think SOMEBODY from the media should be asking these questions?

Al Gore Continues To Get Rich With Global Warming Scheme

Americans willing to look at the manmade global warming debate with any degree of impartiality and honesty are well aware that those spreading the hysteria have made a lot of money doing so, and stand to gain much more if governments mandate carbon dioxide emissions reductions. However, conceivably few are better positioned to financially benefit from this scam than former Vice President Al Gore, a fact that the mainstream media will surely not share with Americans any time soon.

Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, one of which is himself, but he set it up so that the average citizen can’t afford to play on Gore’s terms.

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management (GIM), through which he and others pay for carbon offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe.

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through GIM – he buys stocks.

Well, isn’t that special?

GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.

Clearly, GIM is poised to cash in on carbon trading. The membership of CCX is currently voluntary. However, if the day ever comes when federal government regulations require greenhouse-gas emitters — and that’s almost everyone — to participate in cap-and-trade, then those who have created a market for the exchange of carbon credits are in a position to control the outcomes. And that moves Al Gore front and center.

Goldman Sachs has commissioned the World Resources Institute (affiliated with CCX), Resources for the Future, and the Woods Hole Research Center to research policy options for U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases. In 2006, Goldman Sachs provided research grants in this area totaling $2.3 million. The firm also has committed $1 billion to carbon-assets projects, a fancy term for projects that generate energy from sources other than oil and gas. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley committed to invest $3 billion in carbon-assets projects. Citigroup entered the emissions-trading market in May, and Bank of America got in on the action in June.

The former Vice President’s pals at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stand to gain by approving Gore’s carbon-trading enterprise. The IPCC has devised what it says is a scientific measure of the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.

How convenient!

In June 2006, the World Bank announced that it, too, had joined CCX, saying that it intended to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing emission credits through CCX. The bank says its credits would contribute to restoring 4,600 hectares of degraded pastureland in Costa Rica. Somehow, CCX has figured out that this is an amount equivalent to 22,000 metric tons of emission that the bank calculates are created by its activities.

The World Bank now operates a Carbon Finance Unit that conducts research on how to develop and trade carbon credits. The bank works with Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Spain to set up carbon-credit funds in each country to purchase emission credits from firms for use in developing countries. In addition, it runs the Carbon Fund for Europe helping countries meet their Kyoto Protocol requirements. These funds are traded on the ECX (half of which is owned by CCX, itself a creature of Al Gore’s firm, GIM).

So, as Gore travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us it’s okay because he’s buying carbon offsets, he’s actually purchasing these investments from himself.

Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into the Global Warming scam. Al Gore really is perpetrating a scheme that could end up being much more costly to Americans than anything Ken Lay did at Enron. As if that’s not bad enough, our media are totally complicit rather than doing their jobs exposing the scam. And that wouldn’t have anything to do with companies (such as General Electric) that own major portions of the media (in GE’s case, can you say NBC, MSNBC, A&E, USA network, Bravo, the Weather Channel, and more) standing to make huge profits from “green energy” and cap and trade from their other divisions.

If Al Gore is successful with his schemes, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more “green” than most of the earth. That would be the green of major cash flow. And the only green in this for you and me is the kind that accompanies envy.

Meanwhile, a complacent media, operating with eyes tightly closed, actually promote Gore’s operations rather than hounding him over his financial conflicts of interest.

Global Warming? Not So Fast

Computer hackers obtained more than 1,000 private e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities have been openly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

The authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated. Indeed, we are looking the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

One of the highly disturbing series of emails show how scientists have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. There are emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

Some of the leaked documents show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their computer programs, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

Another shocking revelation of these documents is the way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.

If Vice President Gore has made a statement condemning the actions of the scientists, some of whom shared his Nobel Peace Prize, it hasn’t been anywhere that I have seen. You have to remember that Al Gore, for all his zeal in wanting to save the planet, stands to make a ton of money in “green technology” if the world continues to follow his preaching. That is why, for him, “The debate is over.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.

“Science will guide us, period,” Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.), said in February “Science will guide our committee and we will have a robust debate on what that science says.” That was February.

Today, however, Sen. Boxer said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,'” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

Where is the outrage in the American press? There was a time when a story like this would get more attention than a bloody carcass in a school of sharks. Now, unless you watch FOX or listen to talk radio or read the blogs, you only have been given a few details and most of that is slanted. The British and Canadian press coverage of the story is a lot more extensive than their American counterparts.

Where is the outrage in Washington? I cannot believe that ALL of our elected officials have been bought off by special interests with lots to gain by pursuing this policy of man made global warming. Is Sen. Inhofe the only one concerned?

Where is the outrage in the scientific community? By not rising up and denouncing these frauds, the remaining scientists, in all fields around the world stand to be tainted by this scam. There was a time when you could believe in science. Apparently, those times are over.

Instead of outrage, we find the administration and the Senate pushing ahead with Cap and Trade. The President still planning to attend the conference and has already announced a major commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the Conference on climate change in Copenhagen later this month.

I would suggest that, before we agree to spending $145 Trillion (yes, that’s what they are saying it will cost to “fix” the problem) and trashing a large portion of our economy, we might want to take a fresh look at the data being used to drive the decision making.

The reason the Progressives in charge won’t slow the progress, I suspect, is that the issue is not about a clean environment or climate change and it never has been. It was, and still is, about control and redistribution of wealth.