The Energy President

[okie52]

Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:
The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell notes that a planned lease sale, which the administration canceled last year, will now be put off until at least 2018. As you might expect, Republicans were not impressed with the decision:

The president's actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs. [Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee] The announcement continues the president's election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America.
Finally, given that this is the Obama administration, you won't be surprised to learn that oil and gas exploration is not the only aim of the survey:
In addition to assessing how much oil and natural gas is in the area, seismic testing would help determine the best places for wind turbines and other renewable energy projects, locate sand and gravel for restoring eroding coastal areas, and identify cultural artifacts such as historic sunken ships.
The Post reports that environmentalists are already opposing the survey which, conveniently, won't begin until after the election.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/30/Atlantic-Oil-And-Gas

[okie52]

At a time when we need all of the energy we can find, increasing access to domestic sources of oil and natural gas would enhance our energy security. The United States has enough oil and natural gas resources to power 65 million cars for 60 years and heat 60 million households for 160 years. In fact, with increased access and U.S. State Department approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, 100 percent of America’s liquid fuel needs could be met by the United States and Canada. Energy security is attainable.

And that figure only accounts for areas where the industry has been able to fully explore. There could be even more oil and natural gas reserves in areas where the government has restricted access. Cutting-edge technologies also allow the industry to access resources previously thought unreachable.

For example, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana has 4 billion barrels of undiscovered oil—25 times the original estimate in 1995. In the Gulf of Mexico, technological advances have increased government estimates from 9 billion barrels of oil in 1987, to 45 billion barrels in 2006. You can learn more about resources in your state by clicking on this interactive map.

Despite polls showing that the majority of Americans support increased access, many lawmakers are slowing, delaying or outright prohibiting resource development through a slow-permitting pace, burdensome tax increases and costly, redundant regulations.

These delays and proposals mean lost jobs, less energy to the market and less tax revenues for state and federal treasuries. Conversely, more access could create 1.4 million jobs, generate $765 billion in government revenue and provide an additional 10.3 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) by 2030. Learn more about Washington’s energy and budget choices here.

http://energytomorrow.org/security/access/?gclid=CIjY94GM5bECFWIaQgodSSgAWA#/type/all

[okie52]

Obama's Energy Policy: Death By A Thousand Cuts
Christopher Helman, Forbes Staff

This is good for America.



This is a guest editorial by Mike Cantrell, president of the Domestic Energy Producers’ Alliance

What sounds like the title of an Alfred Hitchcock movie is actually the Obama Administration’s strategy to kill America’s oil and natural gas production. And it should scare the living daylights out of us all.

Christopher Helman
Forbes Staff
President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, have all made it clear they want to make fossil fuels more expensive. And after their failed attempt to crush fossil fuels in one fell swoop with cap and trade legislation, they’ve turned to federal agencies to impose a long list of selective and foolish regulations on America’s oil and natural gas producers.

Of course each of these regulations on their own won’t be the death of fossil fuels. But combined, they’re setting the stage for a chilling ending that will mean the loss of millions of jobs, billions in tax revenue and weaker national security.

Speaking of Hitchcock, let’s talk about birds. The Administration sued seven oil companies for the deaths of 28 birds in North Dakota. The maximum penalty per dead bird is a $15,000 fine and six months in jail. Meanwhile, the Administration is in the process of fast-tracking wind energy development across the United States and providing legal protection to wind operators that kill an estimated 440,000 birds a year. Fortunately, North Dakota Federal judge Daniel Hovland had the good sense to dismiss the complaint saying “To be consistent, the government would have to criminalize driving, construction, airplane flights, farming, electricity and wind turbines … and many other every day, lawful activities.”

Sound absurd? There’s more. In 2010, the EPA slapped a remediation order on a natural gas producer in Texas while the state’s oil and gas regulation agency was still conducting tests regarding alleged water well contamination. After testing was complete, the contamination was found to be naturally occurring and in no way related to drilling. But the EPA’s arbitrary and shameful actions proved the agency can target any company at random and force them to clean up, at their own expense, a problem they had nothing to do with.

And more costly regulations are on the horizon with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services now considering the addition of 100 Texas species to the endangered species list. It’s estimated that one species alone, the dune sagebrush lizard, could cost oil and natural gas producers, and state and private royalty owners hundreds of millions of dollars over the next ten years.

But perhaps most troubling could be the reporting of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions on oil and gas facilities in the field. And at what cost? Training, consulting fees, data tracking and ultimate reporting will cost one large independent an estimated $10-$20 million per year. The EPA definitions and thresholds will encompass the smallest to the largest domestic producers.

And to what end? Take your pick – regulatory cap and trade, curtailment, or a new carbon tax. The Obama administration will do through regulation what they could not accomplish through legislation.

In looking for a hint of energy policy that benefits Americans one can reference the administration’s release of 30 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during the Libyan crisis that cost the taxpayer millions of dollars and lowered the price for about a day.

Or you could look to the Administration’s decision to deny the Keystone XL pipeline permit. That decision not only deprives American consumers of oil from a friendly neighbor, Canada, but also means most of the 500,000 bbls per day of oil from the massive Bakken field in North Dakota and Montana will continue to be transported by truck or rail at a much higher cost; ultimately resulting in higher gasoline prices. Of course it’s just a coincidence that Berkshire Hathaway, run by Warren Buffett, one of Obama’s biggest supporters, owns the railroad transporting significant amounts of that oil.

So who’s the ultimate victim in this tale of mounting regulation? The American people. The administration knows that by increasing regulation, it also increases the cost of doing business and ultimately, the price consumers pay at the pump. And by making fossil fuels artificially expensive, they’re clearing the path for their friends in the so-called “green” energy industry.


What’s even more alarming is that all of this comes at a time when America’s abundant supply of oil and natural gas could play a significant role in solving our nation’s most pressing problems—unemployment, debt and national security. For the first time in 62 years, America is a net exporter of petroleum products, and we now count natural gas reserves in centuries. Obviously, we’re now considerably less dependent on foreign oil. America is also benefiting from the $86 million a day that oil and natural gas companies pay to the federal government in taxes, royalty payments and fees. The industry currently supports 9.2 million jobs and, with the right government policies in place, it’s poised to create an additional 1.4 million jobs by 2030.

Any way you slice it, the Obama Administration is out of touch with reality. Let’s just hope this opportunity for a stronger economy and energy independence doesn’t end up like Janet Leigh in Hitchcock’s most famous scene—in a big house with a knife sticking through it.

The writer, Mike Cantrell, is president of Oklahoma City-based Domestic Energy Producers’ Alliance, a unique grassroots approach to domestic onshore energy advocacy and education. DEPA’s mission statement: “We are an alliance of producers, royalty owners, oilfield service companies as well as state and national independent oil and gas associations representing the small businessmen and women of the energy industry. We are devoted to the survival of U.S. crude oil and natural gas exploration and production.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/03/06/obamas-energy-policy-death-by-a-thousand-cuts/2/

[okie52]

Judge Throws Out Criminal Case Against Oil Companies For Killing Birds At Drilling Sites

Last summer the U.S. Department of Justice, acting on allegations made by agents of the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service, brought criminal indictments against three oil companies operating in the Bakken shale oil field of North Dakota. Brigham Oil & Gas, Newfield Production, and Continental Resources were charged with violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Brigham was charged with unlawfully killing two mallards, Newfield with killing two mallards, one northern pintail and one red-necked duck. Continental was charged with killing one bird called a say’s phoebe. All of the birds, according to the Wildlife Service investigation, fell victim to the oil companies’ “reserve pits” – basically big holes dug into the ground to collect wastewater and mud from drilling operations. Birds can get into these ponds when they’re not properly netted, get covered in oily muck, and die.

Is having birds die in your reserve pits a criminal act? The government seems to think so. Or maybe the DOJ was just looking for reasons to hassle oil companies working to develop the biggest oil field in the nation. That was sure the way it seemed to Harold Hamm, the billionaire founder of Continental Resources, the biggest player in the Bakken. In a statement Tuesday, Hamm said, “Continental Resources has been operating in North Dakota for more than a quarter of a century. We are good stewards of the land and make it a priority to follow all existing laws and regulations. This has been a costly and time-consuming case that has inhibited our ability to increase our nation’s energy independence, strengthen our economy and create jobs.”

On Tuesday, Judge Daniel Hovland of the U.S. District Court in North Dakota sided with Hamm and the other oil companies, granting their motion to dismiss the charges. The ruling is an interesting one, regardless of how much you may hate oil companies or love birds.


In dismissing the Government’s case against the oil companies, Judge Hovland stated that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 is far too vague to justify the indictments. Is inadvertently killing birds in drilling operations something the nation ought to criminalize? If so, Congress needs to rewrite the law to state that explicitly. But Judge Hovland makes it clear he doubts Congress would ever do such a thing, because it would criminalize huge swaths of everyday behavior. He writes that if the Act’s concepts of “take” or “kill” were read to prohibit any activity that could accidentally result in a dead migratory bird (even such common ones as pigeons and starlings), “then many everyday activities become unlawful” such as cutting brush and trees, and planting and harvesting crops, driving a vehicle, owning a building with windows, or owning a cat. Add to that the bird-killing activities of airplanes, power lines, wind turbines.

According to the same U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, here’s some estimates on how many birds die from human activity each year.

Birds crashing into …Aircraft: millions

Wind turbines: 33,000

Windows: 100 million killed

Communication towers: 5 million to 50 million killed

Power lines: 10,000 to 174 million

Cars: 60 million

Then there’s pesticides, which kill another 72 million a year, and oil field wastewater pits like the ones in the Bakken, that do in some 2 million. That’s minor compared with the devastation brought by felines, which eradicate hundreds of millions. According to the agency, Wisconsin alone figures that within its borders cats kill 39 million birds a year.

“In summary,” writes Judge Hovland, “the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as broadly interpreted by the Government, offers unlimited potential for criminal prosecutions” and cannot be used to criminalize “lawful commercial activity.”

Will this opinion have some implication on the DOJ’s eventual prosecution of BP for the Deepwater Horizon explosion? A precedent in the government’s favor would have made it that much easier to add the deaths of all those seabirds to the litany of charges to be brought against BP

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/01/18/judge-throws-out-criminal-case-against-oil-companies-for-killing-birds-at-drilling-sites/2/

[okie52]

Bump for Icky

[TitoMorelli]

http://www.beldar.org/.a/6a00d834515edc69e2017616f7c0a9970c-500wi

[okie52]

http://www.beldar.org/.a/6a00d834515edc69e2017616f7c0a9970c-500wi

Heh...he has a new car now.

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/sail_car.jpg

[pphilfran]

Heh...he has a new car now.

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/sail_car.jpg

Years ago a buddy of mine ran out of gas near Altus...they rigged up a sail out of a blue poly tarp and sailed all the way back to Lawton and parked in front of my house...shoulda took a pic...

[okie52]

Now that would have been something to see on the highway.

[diverdog]

Years ago a buddy of mine ran out of gas near Altus...they rigged up a sail out of a blue poly tarp and sailed all the way back to Lawton and parked in front of my house...shoulda took a pic...

You know you can sail an ice boat 100 kts per hour in 20 knot wind.

[hawaii 5-0]

Everytime I got out into the surf I get smacked around by the waves.

It's much worse than getting smacked around on this Bored.

I always wonder to myself, "Why can't someone efficiently harness this energy?"

MoonPower !!!

5-0

[okie52]

Everytime I got out into the surf I get smacked around by the waves.

It's much worse than getting smacked around on this Bored.

I always wonder to myself, "Why can't someone efficiently harness this energy?"

MoonPower !!!

5-0

Wave energy!!!

[okie52]

Obama's anti-energy agenda kills jobs

By STEVE FORBES | 10/26/11 10:36 PM EDT

His reelection campaign in full swing, President Barack Obama is blaming obstinate congressional Republicans for his failure to advance a jobs plan in an economy that’s averaged 9 percent unemployment and crossed the $1 trillion deficit threshold for the third straight year.

Members of Congress on both the right and the left, however, stopped Obama’s American Jobs Act in its tracks. They recognized it for what it was: a glorified repackaging of tax increases that have rightly failed several times before. Undaunted, the White House and some of its strongest allies are coming back for more — adamant that the jobs landscape and our economy would improve if only Congress would pass a national energy tax.

Thirty-seven House Democrats and 14 of their Senate colleagues this month sent separate letters to the bipartisan supercommittee calling for an end to industry “subsidies” they claim would save the government $21 billion over 10 years.

Before beginning the eye roll for defending Big Oil, consider this: The influx of revenue expected from rolling back these fossil-fuel “subsidies” — close to $90 billion when factoring in the effects on related industries — is actually a national energy tax that will likely come straight from the pockets of American consumers.

By definition, government imposes a tax on an activity or product to discourage, not incentivize, it. Why, then, would the administration repeatedly target one of the only industries that’s actually creating jobs?

This blatantly contradicts the president’s pro-jobs rhetoric.

If the administration were serious about deficit reduction and accelerated job growth, it would partner with our domestic energy producers to help increase their employment base — which now encompasses more than 9 million affiliated jobs — by letting them expand their output. This, in turn, would expand their gross domestic product contribution, which averages $1 trillion annually.

Instead, Obama has cast the industry as a ruthless competitor for taxpayer handouts. If this seems exaggerated, take it from the president himself, in his address to a joint session of Congress last month.

“Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies?” Obama asked. “Or should we use that money to give small-business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both.”

What the president knows, but fails to divulge in making his case, is that U.S. oil and natural gas companies do not receive taxpayer subsidies. The provisions he’s targeting for repeal are the same tax credits and deductions available to a broad swath of other U.S. companies — including a domestic manufacturing credit and a measure to prevent double taxation on income earned abroad.

If the White House has a reasonable explanation for how raising taxes on one industry without broader tax reform can create jobs, I’ve yet to hear it.

Real tax reform that closes loopholes in favor of lower rates is an idea that I support wholeheartedly. That’s why I have long advocated the flat tax. In fact, I recently endorsed and continue to advise Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who is now proposing his own version of the flat tax.
Repealing tax credits and deductions for only one industry, however, is the opposite of tax reform. It’s a classic Washington game of using the Tax Code to pick winners and losers.

Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset Listen
Critics will predictably counter that the oil and gas industry, as a pillar of strength in an otherwise bleak economy, shouldn’t hesitate to pay more taxes.

This is preposterous. U.S. oil and gas producers now pay the federal government more than $86 million a day in taxes, royalties and fees.

The industry is taxed at an effective rate of 41 percent. For comparison, the average tax bracket for industrial companies is 26 percent. The oil and gas industry pays its fair share.

If the president were really interested in creating jobs and economic growth, he would support more domestic energy production rather than punitive tax increases.

Allowing domestic producers to responsibly develop abundant energy in offshore and onshore deposits, according to a recent Wood Mackenzie study for the American Petroleum Institute, would create more than 1 million jobs nationwide; channel an estimated $800 billion in additional government revenues; and contribute 10 million more barrels of oil and natural gas per day by 2030. Opening more areas in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic and Alaskan coastlines would allow companies to bring jobs back to the United States — instead of having to look abroad for investment opportunities.

Most Americans realize that additional government spending will not stimulate permanent job growth. If it did, stimulus Parts 1 and 2 would have cured our employment ills long ago.

If the administration were serious about job growth and deficit reduction, it would stand down from its “jobs” plan that would only further handicap an industry that stands ready to contribute thousands of new jobs.

Otherwise, cue the collective grumbling at the gas pump.

Steve Forbes is chairman of Forbes Media and author of “How Capitalism Will Save Us.”




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66918.html#ixzz23j5YJkFN

.

[soonercruiser]

Obama seems to have "Plenty of Energy" to play golf, attend fund raisers, and politic.
"So little time" to hold meeting with his economic advisors, or lead like an executive.
:crushed: