Category Archives: Energy Development

The Obama Administration’s War on Fossil Fuels Is Taken To a New Level (of absurdity)

Posted on September 29, 2011 | Leave a comment

If you were writing a fiction novel and used the latest example of the Obama Administration’s war on fossil fuels, your editor would tell you to take the example out because it was not believable.  But it seems that for the Obama Administration nothing is too absurd:  The Wall Street Journal in an editorial published on 29 September says:  “The U.S. Attorney for North

Image by TreeHugger.com

Dakota hauled seven oil and natural gas companies into federal court for killing 28 migratory birds that were found dead near oil waste lagoons”. The fine can be up to $15000 and up to six months in jail for each bird killed.    The WSJ adds:”Absurdity aside, this prosecution is all the more remarkable because the wind industry each year kills not 28 birds, or even a few hundred, but some 440,000, according to estimates by the American Bird Conservancy based on Fish and Wildlife Service data. Guess how many legal actions the Obama Administration has brought against wind turbine operators under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act? As far as we can tell, it’s zero.”

I guess the Attorney General is too busy covering up the Solyndra affair to go after the wind industry.

h/t Junk Science  See here

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Government Regulations, Green Jobs, Oil and Gas Exploration, Windpower

The Federal Government Should Not Be Financing “Renewable Fuels” Projects

Posted on September 27, 2011 | 1 comment

Much has been revealed in the recent weeks about Solyndra and the developing scandal that followed the bankruptcy of the company after having received a $523 billion dollar, low interest loan from the Obama Administration.  Much is yet to be learned, and it did not get advanced by the Top Officials of Solyndra pleading the 5th Amendment at the House of Representatives hearing on Friday 23 September.

The Institute for Energy Research condensed a report by ABC on the Solyndra fiasco in to 5 Reasons why the federal government should exit the finance business.  Those reasons are as follows:

“First, the government loaned Solyndra money at a really, really low interest rate—a mere 1.025 percent quarterly. In fact, this was the lowest rate provided for any green energy project.

Second, this low rate was in spite of “red flags” about the risk of investing in Solyndra. One outside rating agency rated Solyndra only a B+ and another rated Solyndra only as “Fair” for credit worthiness.

Third, Obama’s Department of Energy announced the loans before the due diligence was complete and even after auditors raised concerns. But this was not for lack of attention because even the President visited the plant and praised Solyndra as an example of the future of energy.

Fourth, according to ABC News, “Solyndra’s most prolific financial backer is George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who was a bundler of campaign donations for Obama’s 2008 race. Kaiser’s Argonaut Ventures and its affiliates have been the single largest shareholder of Solyndra, according to SEC filings and other records.” This connection alone should have caused pause for the federal government when considering an expedited loan arrangement.

And last, and in my mind, by far the worst, Kaiser and his Argonaut Ventures are first in line to recoup their investment in Solynda in bankruptcy proceedings. As ABC News explains, “Energy officials confirmed this arrangement, saying that private investors including Kaiser would first recoup their $75 million, then the U.S. government would have a chance to recover $150 million of its investment. If any money is left, the private investors and the U.S. government would divvy up the remainder in equal shares.”

In sum, the Obama administration rammed through a half billion loan on very favorable terms to a shaky company, run by a George Kaiser, one of President Obama’s largest fundraisers. If Kaiser and his company made money with Solyndra, they would keep the profits and if Solyndra failed, as in this case, they still get their money back while the taxpayer is left holding the bag.”

Any Questions?

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, cap and trade, CO2, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Green Jobs, sun and climate

CFL Bulb Prices Going Up

Posted on September 16, 2011 | Leave a comment

A Junk Science posting says that:

China has crimped the supply of rare earth metals causing CFL light bulbs to rise in price by 37% this year.

According to the New York Times report,

By closing or nationalizing dozens of the producers of rare earth metals — which are used in energy-efficient bulbs and many other green-energy products — China is temporarily shutting down most of the industry and crimping the global supply of the vital resources…

General Electric, facing complaints in the United States about rising prices for its compact fluorescent bulbs, recently noted in a statement that if the rate of inflation over the last 12 months on the rare earth element europium oxide had been applied to a $2 cup of coffee, that coffee would now cost $24.55…

China says it has largely shut down its rare earth industry for three months to address pollution problems. By invoking environmental concerns, China could potentially try to circumvent international trade rules that are supposed to prohibit export restrictions of vital materials.

If you haven’t already said your morning curses, don’t forget to condemn the 110th Congress for passing the incandescent bulb ban, George W. Bush for signing it, and the the 111th and 112th Congresses and Barack Obama for failing to reverse the ban.

One more green initiative that has gone wrong.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Domestic Energy, Energy Development, Environment, Government Regulations, Green Jobs

U.S.Chamber of Commerce to Pres. Obama–How to Create Jobs

Posted on September 8, 2011 | Leave a comment

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to President Obama and Congress on creating jobs.The letter’s purpose is stated as follows:

OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

The most immediate priority facing our nation is to create jobs for the 25 million Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or have simply given up looking for work.

To create jobs, we must enact policies that promote and sustain stronger economic growth. We must also address extraordinary fiscal and competitive challenges that are smothering growth and driving away jobs. At the same time, there are specific steps Congress and the administration can take right now to spur faster job growth in America’s private sector without adding to the deficit.

The letter has a number of sections. I have picked out one of them that relates to the Climate Change Sanity blogs theme:

2. PRODUCE MORE AMERICAN ENERGY

Let American energy workers and businesses responsibly develop all sources of domestic energy immediately. This will not only create jobs but will generate new government revenues, protect our energy security, and release us from the grip of some unfriendly governments.

                              Open offshore resources. Almost 190,000 new jobs could be created by 2013 if permitting in the Gulf of Mexico for offshore development returned to pre-moratorium levels. In Alaska, opening up energy production off the coast would create 54,700 jobs.

                              Expand access on federal lands. By expanding oil and gas exploration on federal lands, we could create 530,000 jobs, reduce imports by 44% by 2025, and increase government revenues by $206 billion.

                              Promote development of natural gas. Expanding the development of the nation’s massive shale gas deposits would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and help bring manufacturing back to the United States, especially in the chemicals and steel industries.

By 2020, natural gas production in Western Pennsylvania alone could create 116,000 new jobs, generate more than $2 billion in government revenues, and add $20 billion to the region’s economy.

                        Approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline connecting Canada to U.S. refineries in Texas would support 250,000 jobs, boost investment in the United States by $20 billion, and generate government revenues totaling $585 million.

Well said, and certainly in line with yesterday’s posting see here.

The other letter sections are as follows and worth reading:

  • Expand Trade and Global Commerce
  • Speed Up Infrastructure Projects
  • Welcome Tourists and Business Visitors to the U.S.
  • Speed Up Permits and Provide Regulatory Certainty and Relief
  • Pass Tax Incentives That Create Jobs While Increasing Revenues

cbdakota

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, CAFE Standards, cap and trade, Climate Models, Domestic Energy, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Government Revenues, Off Shore Resources, Oil and Gas Exploration, Peak Oil, Personal Automobiles, United Nations

One Billion Motor Vehicles And Peak Oil

Posted on September 7, 2011 | 1 comment

Oilprice.com noted that in August, Wards Auto published a story saying that World motor vehicle count now stands at 1 billion.  The U.S. still has the largest registration at about 240 million.   In the Oilprice.com blog, the author considers what 1 billion vehicles and the likelihood of even more being added in the next 25 years might mean. It is interesting reading.  He seems to favor governmental intervention to ameliorate supply (read PEAK OIL) versus demand for fossil fuels.   He says:

It is highly unlikely that there will be anything approaching 240 million registered vehicles in the U.S. 25 years from now. From the vantage point of 2011, it seems probable that many will not be able to afford to own and operate personal motor vehicles of the size and types we have today.

He thinks that the newly mandated CAFÉ standard is just what we need and that we will have to abandon 6 passenger cars and other large sized vehicles. He says:

  In the U.S. we are now facing standards requiring that cars achieve an average of 54.5 MPG 15 years from now. First will come all sorts of weight reductions, such as eliminating spare tires, and adding more plastic and aluminum parts. Engines will become more efficient and car bodies will become more aerodynamic.  Although these changes will be costly, it does not take much arithmetic to conclude that if energy costs are three or four times higher than they are today then mileage will become the key factor by which motor vehicles are judged.

Detractors of these new mileage standards are usually people who have little grasp, or prefer not to think about where real energy costs are going to be 15 years from now. They point out the advanced materials required to build a low-weigh, high mileage, vehicles will be so great that it will push cars beyond what many, if not most, can afford.  

Due to governmental interference, the U.S. is facing an artificial Peak Oil problem.   This artificial Peak Oil Problem is really a part of the Peak Energy Problem that governmental interference is causing.    We have a lot of fossil fuels.  The U.S has the largest reserve of fossil fuels in the world.  It is likely that North America could become energy independent.  Yes, no propping-up Venezuela nor other countries that don’t have our best interest in mind.   And what a break for our balance of payments.  Becoming completely energy independent might possibly be the wrong thing to do because the prices of crude oil could fall below our production cost thanks to the U.S. bringing on more production capacity.  I don’t want the government to dictate how much crude we should produce or purchase.  Let the market decide whether we produce or buy.

Peak Oil will come sometime, but not in the near future.  What the U.S. is facing is an ideological, artificial Peak Oil problem.   The Obama administration gives money to “renewable fuels” programs and tells us that we must do this to reduce the purchase of foreign crude.   How the government thinks they can do this with renewable fuels is beyond comprehension.  Renewable fuels, are now neither economic nor reliable enough to do that.  In fact, the electrical grid people that distribute the nation’s electricity have found it necessary to have fossil fuel powered back-up capacity equal to the wind or solar capacity.  The renewables can’t be scheduled, meaning their supply is too erratic to provide steady voltage and current.  The wind slows down or stops or the sun goes behind clouds and the former balance of supply and demand goes south. They have to have something as a backup to keep the lights on.  Their second argument is that fossil fuels not be used as combustion results in C02.   The fossil fuel back-up capacity blows that argument.  See here and here to read about the folly of renewable fuels.

The Radical Environmentalists fight every attempt to develop our resources.   Oil in Alaska, offshore oil, oil in the Baaken field, nuclear power, low cost coal,etc..  It doesn’t matter, they are against it.   They use global warming, polar bears, darter fish, left-handed ground squirrels  (I guess I made that one up) and one of my favorites–the Houston toad.    According to some reports only 300 Houston Toads remaining in the world and they have been placed on the endangered species list.  “A world without the Houston toad ... is not a world we can physically live in,” says Paul Crump, a reptile and amphibian keeper at the Houston Zoo who works with the small brown toads.  Who knew?  The world is on the way to a collapse. More dangerous issue than the Osama binLaden threat so lets get the Seal Teams to see nothing bad happens to those warty little buggers. (SARC).

Fracking and the oil pipeline from Canada are the causes du jour for the radical environmental crowd.   It is patently clear that they will only be satisfied when this country is reduced to a third world status.   And our Government supports their activities through the EPA and other departments.  God Bless Michelle Bachmann and her vow to eliminate the EPA if she is elected President.  If she is not, she should be given the job as the EPA Administrator.

We will run out of economically recoverable oil some day.  Same for natural gas, iron ore, etc.  But the many forecasts made by experts about when the oil peak would occur have always been vastly overstated.

We quoted The Oilprice.com author saying that in 15 years the price will be 3 to 4 times higher than today.  It could happen but only if we just sit back and let it happen.  For a more realistic assessment of the Peak Oil tipping point, lets look at what has been said on a WardsAuto.com posting titled “Oil’s Price Always Comes Down.”

Five years ago, I believed in the Peak Oil theory. It postulated that global oil production would peak in 2006, and the following shortage would send prices skyrocketing. Sure enough, in 2008 a barrel of oil shot up to $150.

But less than 12 months later, oil plummeted to less than $40 a barrel. Yes, the price now is back up to $100, but I no longer believe in Peak Oil. Here’s why:

Brazil recently discovered massive oil reserves off its coast that match or beat Saudi Arabia’s. Brazil will start tapping those reserves before this decade is out. In Iraq, infrastructure is being put in place to increase oil production six or seven times greater than today, potentially making it the largest oil producer in the world.

And in the U.S., a new drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing is the mother of all game changers. (My emphasis)  Texas wildcatters figured out a way easily extracting natural gas and oil from shale. Using high-pressure water and sand, they fracture the shale, releasing trapped gas. As a result, the U.S. has added 100 years of natural gas use (at current rates), and the price of natural gas has fallen to nearly half from its peak in 2008.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking as it’s also called, is controversial. Some environmentalists have seized on it as the next great danger to the planet. A documentary called “Gasland” probably will win an Academy Award for hysterically pointing out the dangers of fracking.

Of course, “Gasland” approaches its topic with the impartiality and evenhandedness of pseudo-documentaries such as “Roger and Me” and “Who Killed The Electric Car?” So far, fracking has been done mostly in the U.S., but it soon will spread to the rest of the world. (My emphasis) Before this decade is out, we are going to see vast increases in the amount of oil and natural gas available. And this will have enormous implications for the auto industry and policy planners.

Closing out is a good time to call for a lesson from “Minnesotans 4 Global Warming”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWiKvNDTjB4&feature=player_embedded

cbdakota

1 Comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, CAFE Standards, cap and trade, Climate Models, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment, Peak Oil, Personal Automobiles, Windpower

China Is Having Doubts About EVs

Posted on September 3, 2011 | Leave a comment

While the US government doesn’t seem to be reconsidering their push behind Electric Vehicles (EVs), ($7500 rebates for buyers of an EV), the Chinese government apparently is considering abandoning their plan of a singular focus on EVs to one of a much broader consideration of ways to reduce transportation fuel use.

From AutoblogGreen:

Beijing – and in some ways, the whole of China – had set out to leapfrog conventional engine technology by developing and manufacturing huge amounts of electric vehicles. In particular, the city had hoped its push to develop plug-ins would give it an advantage over the West in electric vehicle technology. But hopes and dreams don’t always jive with reality.

AutoblogGreen adds this:

Forbes presents a compelling story on this notion that China and its sole focus on electric vehicles don’t mix. Here’s a particularly striking excerpt:

Take Warren Buffett. In September 2008, the “Oracle of Omaha” took a 10-percent stake in BYD, the Shenzhen-based battery and vehicle maker, for $200 million. The move landed him on the cover of Fortune in 2009, inside the company’s e6 model with the now-famous caption, “Warren Buffett hasn’t just seen the car of the future, he’s sitting in the driver’s seat.”

But was he really sitting in the vehicle of future? Forbes says BYD has sold a grand total of 53 (!) e6s since March of 2010, with nearly all of those going to local taxi companies, which leads us to this question: How can a vehicle that doesn’t sell represent the future?

Letting the market place decide seems to have a supporter, but it is odd that it is the Chinese marketplace not the American.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment

Are The Customers There to Buy The Volt?

Posted on September 3, 2011 | Leave a comment

GM vaulted back from dismal July sales of 142 Volts to a rousing sales volume of 302 units in August. GM’s reason for the low volume seems a little tired as it is pretty much a repeat of last month.   From AutoblogGreen:

 GM spokesman Rob Peterson recently told AutoblogGreen that Volt production is whizzing along at “roughly 150 units per day,” so we’d assume it won’t be long before Volt sales creep up.

And FoxNews.com reports this:

Sales of the four-seat hatchback were hampered by a July shutdown of the Hamtramck, Michigan assembly line where it is built. The closure needed in order to retool the plant to increase production for the 2012 model year.

As a result, supplies at dealerships — where Volts reportedly sit on the lot for less than 10 days, about as quick as a car can be processed and turned around for a customer — have been tighter than usual.

Of the 2,395 cars that were produced in August, a GM spokesman tells FoxNews.com that a third are in transit and another 700 or so earmarked for dealers for use as demos as new markets for the car are added across the country. So, even with production up to steam, the supply chain isn’t quite at full speed.

Nevertheless, GM has repeatedly said that it will sell 10,000 Volts by the end of 2011, and reconfirmed that goal for this report. The total stands at approximately 3,772. (Error in this Fox Report-actual is 3172)

With over 7,500 built since production began in late 2010, many of which are tied up as demos, and production currently running at 150 cars a day, GM is certainly on track to build more than 10,000 cars by Christmas break, but are the customers there to buy them?

Ok, so they have built over 7500.  From that we subtract, 3172 sold and 700 used as demos.  This math, which may be too simple but it can’t be far off, says that 3678 Volts are unsold.  That is more than they have sold.    Repeating Fox News’s question “…but are the customers there to buy them?”

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in Alternative Energy, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment

CHEVY SELLS ONLY 125 VOLTS IN JULY

Posted on August 11, 2011 | Leave a comment

The competition between the Volt and the Nissan Leaf sales continues to be of interest, it seems, as the numbers are carried in a lot of automotive blogs.  The Leaf’s July sales were lower than in the previous month but at 931 they topped the Volts anemic July sales of 125.   Both Nissan and GM claim that the low year-to-date sales are due to lack of production and that the sales would be much greater had more cars been available.   A comment from Chevrolet Communication to the Torque News Blog said that “Our sales of 125 Volts this month are exactly what we anticipated to sell……”  .  and  that revamping  currently underway will allow them to have production capacity for Volts and Amperas (no specifics about the production capacity split): “…this year will increase to 16,000 units.   In 2012, global production capacity is expected to be 60,000 vehicles with an estimated 45,000 delivered in the United States.”  See here for more detail

This statement was challenged by Mark Modica, associate fellow at the National Legal and Policy Center, who said he found about 125 Volts for sale.

“I decided to call a few dealers within 75 miles of my location to determine what the true situation was. I stopped my research after finding that five of the first six dealers I called had Volts in inventory available for immediate sale. Two of the five dealers even had two each in stock. I can now safely assume that GM is, once again, not being entirely honest with its facts. The demand for the Chevy Volt is not as strong as GM would have us believe.”  See here for more detail.

Nissan has announced that they are going to increase the price of the 2012 Leaf from the current suggested price of $33,630 to $36,050.    I understand that the 2012 Leaf will come with a quick charge port that will allow battery charging in 30 minutes.  That should be a decided improvement, but I have often wondered how long the lines would be today, at the gasoline stations, if a fill up required 30 minutes.   See here for more detail

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment

Skeptics Ahead on Science but Lag on Politics/Media

Posted on July 30, 2011 | Leave a comment

The Skeptics are winning the science battle but are still running behind in the political /media arena.  What can we do to help?

SCIENCE

Scientists are abandoning the man-made global warming  (AGW) theory in increasing numbers.  They are recognizing the obvious:  The skeptic’s science is based upon observationally based science whereas the AGWers theory is based on computer projections.

Observationally Based Science versus Computer Projections

Amazingly, the AGWers will often say that the facts are wrong because their computer comes up with different answers.  This is most recently illustrated with respect to the recent reports on global sea level. From a WattsUpWithThat posting:

A few months ago a widely-publicized article by Houston and Dean was published in the Journal of Coastal Research (and on your site), noting that although sea-level is rising; the tide gauge data does not show any increased rate of rise (acceleration) for the 20th and early 21st centuries.  This augmented by a >).”>recent paper authored by an Australian scientist as well.

Houston and Dean (2011) considered only tide-gauge records with lengths greater than 60 years, noting that shorter record lengths are “corrupted” by decadal fluctuations.

Rahmstorf and Vermeer (RV) had previously reported on sea level change using their computer-aided program that provided different results of those of Houston and Dean.  RV attacked the Houston and Dean entry.  Houston and Dean responded to the RV criticism by saying:

RV link sea-level rise with temperature using a simple linear relationship with two free variables of opposite signs that allow them to “fit” any smooth data set. However, they are curve fitting, not modeling physics, so the approach cannot be used to predict future sea level.

A recent workshop of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2010) considered the semi-empirical approaches of Rahmstorf (2007), Vermeer and Rahmstorf (2009), and others and concluded, “No physically-based information is contained in such models …” (p. 2) and “The physical basis for the large estimates from these semi-empirical models is therefore currently lacking” (p. 2). Other recent studies show slowing or reversal of the sea level.  See

The AGWers Are Getting Desperate

For some 12 years, global temperatures have not shown any discernable trend upward to match the increasing amounts of atmospheric CO2.   At last the AGWers know the reason, its volcanoes or it might be China’s coal based power plant emission.   Certainly we can be grateful that the computers have resolved (well sort of) this issue.  So coal based power plants actually make the global temperatures cooler and all along we have been told just the opposite.

For more information read this link and if you want a laugh read this link.

POLITICS AND THE MEDIA

The Need For an Informed Public

For the nearly 10 years that I have been actively involved in discussions and reporting on global warming, I have always believed that the science was on the skeptic’s side.   In a status review of global warming prepared for some State Senators in 2003, I stated that being right about the science would probably not be enough to win this struggle with the AGWers.  For example, the taxing and regulating authority that would stem from enacting Cap and Trade legislation will drive the politicians.   I think the beginning of the end of AGW driven legislation will take place when the public began experiencing pain of the resulting financial burden.   But are we going to be reduced to third-world status as a nation before we can turn the ship of state around?

How can we avoid this national  destruction on the altar of the watermelon (red on the outside/green in the inside)  movement?

First principle should be that the people who are going to be asked to pay for these green programs be completely informed of the consequences of the regulations or legislation being enacted.  This is not happening now.

LEGISLATION

Let’s remember that the House of Representatives in 2009 passed legislation for imposing Cap and Trade on fossil fuel use.  The bill was over a thousand pages long.  The Democrat leadership pushed this massive attempt to bring the nation’s energy under the control of the Government without anyone fully understanding what was in the bill.  The committee chairmen said they did not know!!!!!!   In an attempt to mollify the unhappy conservatives, they agreed to have the bill read.  So those clowns hired a speed-reader.  I believe that a legislative rule should be enforced that requires no bill can be voted upon without a minimum of a week’s worth of legislative sessions following proposed law being published unless a ¾ vote in favor of suspending the rule is passed.   This would not impose a significant burden upon the members.  The objective would be to raise their constituents’ understanding and the legislators should not be afraid of doing that.    Fortunately, as you know, the Senate failed to pass companion Cap and Trade legislation and thus it was never enacted.

REGULATION

Regulations for Cap and Trade are being written by the EPA.  Yes, the EPA is writing regulations for legislation that could not get approval in Congress.  Part of the blame for this are five  of the nine members of the Supreme Court.

  Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007),[1] is a U.S. Supreme Court case decided 5-4 in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Despite the knowledge that this legislation could not get passed in Congress and despite the fact that CO2 was excluded from the Clear Air Act, the Supremes gave the EPA the authority to determine if CO2 were a threat and if so, to write regulations to control it.

The EPA used the 2007 IPCC Global Warming report as their  science basis.  The EPA  asked for comments on their study and then they ignored any response that said that AGW science was badly flawed.  People within the EPA that expressed doubt were told to be quiet.  The EPA found CO2 to be a threat and began writing regulations.  These regulations are vast and growing.

There is a little irony here in that the environmentalists want all sources of CO2 to be regulated.  The EPA does not want to do that because the enormity of the ensuing burden.   Every furnace exhausts CO2, every hospital, every mall,  almost everything that makes our nation go would have to be monitored and reported.  The regulation overload will quickly result in demands for changes.  In fact I believe the EPA worries that it would result in legislation taking CO2 out of the Clean Air Act again.

Here again, the straightforward thing would be for your representatives to inform you of what the impact on them will be.  Congress should limit the damage the Supreme Court and The Executive (EPA) Branches do when they usurp the Legislatures prerogatives,   by passing legislations that restores the balance of powers.

Any other suggestions?

THE MEDIA

We all value the freedom of the press as guaranteed in the US Constitution. However the media, by and large, is supportive of BIG GOVERNMENT versus more individual freedom and responsibility. So they practice a form of soft censorship themselves by only reporting one side of the story.   One would expect better of them.  Although their domination of “what is fit to print” has been somewhat weakened by the ubiquitous Internet, it still is the primary input of news and information for most of the citizens of the US.  If our citizens would do less American Idol and pay more attention to what the politicians are doing, it would have a salutary effect on the their personal well-being and the nation’s well-being.

Surely some part of their misguided reporting of climate science is because they are not trained scientifically.  They apparently are too lazy or too intimidated to try to research the issues.  A science reporter from a newspaper in my area has obviously no curiosity or no understanding of what a millimeter is.  He reported about the danger of calving Antarctic Ice that would raise sea level several millimeters per year.  Recently he did a fairly straightforward report on the transfer of State Climatologist title from one PhD to another.  The one surrendering the title is a notable skeptic and frequent co-author of papers with other notables such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.   At the end of the report about the transfer, the reporter took a cheap shot at the skeptic saying that the skeptic was know to be a member of a group that was part of another group that once received money from Exxon.  If the reporter had any level of curiosity he could find out that the most of Exxon’s grant money is for groups that are working on alternative energy.  If the reporter believes funding by an advocate of a particular position is wrong, then why not then report on monies granted by Greenpeace, of the World Wildlife Fund to AGW scientists and groups. Secondly, the grants of money by AGW groups swamp the piddling amount the skeptics receive.  These grants are governmental and NGOs supplied and they total into the billions.  See these reports for further information about the distribution of monies.Here & here & here.

One suggestion is that you keep up with the skeptic blogs like WUWT, Ice Cap, Climate Depot, Heartland, Climate Audit, Science, etc and I hope, Climate Change Sanity and spread the information widely.

Also write to the newspapers.  Tell them when they are off base.  Suggest things they should look into.

If you have some thoughts on all of this, let me know.

cbdakota

Leave a comment

Posted in AGW, cap and trade, Climate Models, Energy Development, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, United Nations

Obama Plans to Nationalize the Energy Companies

Posted on July 13, 2011 | 4 comments

This Administration’s actions lead me to believe that President Obama is planning to nationalize the energy companies.  When will he do this?   When gasoline hits somewhere around $10 per gallon as some predict it will this year.  See, see. Maybe you think that if gasoline prices get that high, he wont be re-elected?  That is why he will act.  His narrative will be that he had to do it to save the country. Many of our citizenry will applaud his actions. Unfortunately the idea that the government is everyone’s safety net is becoming too engrained.  If gasoline does not reach $10 in his first term and he gets a second term (and a Democrat majority in Congress, a real possibility if Obama is re-elected) he will wait until then.

Demonizing Energy Companies

So you think that this not something Obama and the Democrats would do.  They nationalized most of the automotive industry and got a way with it.   Obama Care is the first step on the way to nationalizing the Health Care industry.  The Congressional Democrats have long advocated nationalizing the Energy companies as have their echo chamber, the mainstream media. See, see, see, see. President Obama is not standing on the sidelines but rather is leading the charge against energy companies.

What Are The Signs

What is going on is an all out assault on the US energy companies by all of Obama’s administration.  Coal is being regulated out of business.  By managing permitting, Oil can’t increase the supply of crude domestically or from neighbors like Canada which will result in higher crude oil prices.  Natural gas re-emergence, resulting from fracking making available vast quantities of domestic gas, is facing the EPA and other environmental groups that want to outlaw or severely restrict the use of fracking.

And the Administration seems to want to reward our foreign foes or competitors while penalizing domestic Energy Companies.    What other conclusions can be derived from the way this President and his allies are conducting business?

The US has plenty of energy.  A recent study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) determined that the USA has the world’s most abundant supply of fossil fuels.  The fuel resources counted were oil, coal and natural gas and all were equilibrated to the energy in barrels of oil equivalent  (BOE). The Chart below has the top seven nations from the study.

Nation Total Fossil Fuels in BOE
United States 973    billions of barrels equivalent
Russia 955                     “
China 474                      “
Iran 328                      “
Australia/New Zealand 315                      “
Saudi Arabia 309                      “
India 227                      “

Data from CRS Report “US Fossil Fuel Resources”:Issued 30Nov2010

We have the resources but President Obama does not want to use them.   All this leads to the obvious conclusion that the President is trying to create a “crisis” so he will, as Rahm Emanuel would say, “never let a crisis go to waste.”   Which brings us back to how will he use this crisis.  I believe it will be to nationalize the US energy companies.  If that happens, don’t be deluded into thinking that the Government will be able to provide us with “low prices”.  The private energy companies, e.g. BigOil, are motivated to innovate ways to locate and exploit reserves at the lowest cost possible.  They represent private enterprise at its best.  Don’t expect nationalized oil to provide this leadership or low prices.   Likely there won’t be any benefit to our economy, or boost in jobs and I suspect President Obama knows this.  The reason then must be the ultimate goal of socialists—– redistribution of wealth.

It is hoped, that the following discussion will help one understand the battle the Energy Companies are facing.

OIL

Another investigation is underway to find out if Big Oil (e.g. Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, Conoco-Phillips) is manipulating the prices.   That Big Oil has been exonerated in all of the previous investigations, and will be in this one, is not the main issue here.  The Liberals know that this technique plants seeds of doubt in the publics mind. Typically, their accusations get all the headlines and the acquittal is seldom mentioned.

If Big Oil is driving up the prices how do they do it?  The American Petroleum Institute (API) listed the 20 Largest Oil and Gas Companies based upon their 2009 oil reserves.  It shows that 72% of the world’s oil reserves are owned by nations (not privately owned companies) such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Libya.  The biggest US Company to make the list was Exxon-Mobil at #17.   The Exxon-Mobil reserves as a percent of the world reserves are 0.68%.  Think about this situation where the OPEC type state owned companies have reserves 100 times greater than Exxon-Mobil.  Do you really believe that Exxon-Mobil is able to dictates the price of crude to OPEC?   Of course they can’t do that.

Well, there are those obscene earnings, right?  In 2010 the earnings as a percent of sales for Oil and Natural Gas was 5.7%.  Compare that to 19.4% for Beverages and Pharmaceuticals; 17.3% for Computers; and ALL MANUFACTURING was 8.5%.  So the average for manufacturing was 8.5% and Oil and Gas came in with 5.7%.    So, yes, their earnings are large but not out of line with their sales, in fact they are coming in lower than the average manufacturing business.  And further, U.S. oil and natural gas companies tax rates are considerably higher than the average manufacturing company. In 2010 income tax expenses (as a share of net income before income taxes) averaged 41.1 percent for Oil and Natural Gas companies compared to 26.5 percent for the average  S&P Industrial company.

Domestic oil production could make a real change in supply and it would significantly reduce our balance of payments deficit.  Further it would reduce the income of those countries that use the money to make problems for the US—Iran, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, etc.  It is said that Venezuela’s Chavez needs oil above $40 per barrel to have money to support his dictatorship.   And his friend President Obama wants to see the price much higher than $40, too.

Classic wrong headedness is illustrated by diddling over access to Canada’s rich tar sands.  From the IBD posting “China has its eye on Canada’s oil”:

Together, the U.S. and Canada have enough oil and natural gas locked up in shale formations, tar sands, Alaska, the Canadian Arctic and the Outer Continental Shelf to make OPEC pound sand. But we won’t drill for ours and apparently; we don’t want Canada’s.

With more than 170 billion barrels, Alberta has the world’s third-largest oil reserves, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and ahead of Russia and Iran. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to nearly triple to 3.7 million by 2025. The only question is, will this crude be flowing south to U.S. refineries or west for export to China?

At issue is the Keystone XL pipeline, parts of which have already been built, that would bring Alberta oil to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. The pipeline also could transport oil extracted from shale formations in the Rocky Mountain West.  The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the region, dubbed the Persia of the West, may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, six times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, and enough to meet U.S. oil needs for the next two centuries. By 2015, oil executives and industry analysts say, the oil-rich lands of the West, including North Dakota’s booming Bakken formation, could produce 2 million barrels a day, more than the pre-Deepwater Horizon production rate in the Gulf of Mexico.

Environmental groups oppose Keystone XL on the grounds that tar-sands extraction harms the environment through water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and potential pipeline leaks. The State Department, which must approve any pipeline entering the U.S. across international borders, has withheld its approval pending a final decision Nov. 1.  The Chinese aren’t waiting. Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific Coast province of British Columbia. Alberta Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove met this month with Sinopec and CNOOC, China’s other big oil company, and representatives of China’s banks.

While the U.S. dithers with concerns about “dirty oil” from Alberta’s rich tar sands, energy-hungry China makes Ottawa an offer it might not refuse. Memo to Washington: Pipelines can run west as well as south.

It is not that the President does not know that the laws of supply and demand are important to price of commodities.   When he pulled the stunt of releasing 30 million barrels of crude from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), my guess is that his intent was twofold.  Maybe he thought that OPEC would see it as a threat that he would permit additional releases from the SPR if they did up their production and thus reduce crude prices.  As the 30 million only amounted to two days of US crude requirements, it’s likely they were not too worried.  Probably the real reason was to signal that things were out of control and he was trying one of the possible levers to stop the “runaway” gasoline pricing.

COAL

The US has the largest coal resources in the world. It is inexpensive relative to other fossil fuels and it is abundant. Coal is used to produce 45% of the nation’s electricity.    While electricity is very dependant on coal, coal is highly dependent on electricity as 93% of all US coal is used to generate electricity.  But Obama wants to put coal use in the past tense.   Obama announced before he was elected that he was going to put coal out of business and he means to do just that.  He is using the EPA to put very stringent emission restrictions on coal based electrical power plants.  The price increases for the ratepayers in the Mid-Western US States are going to be ugly.

A posting in the TownHall blog, “Clearing the Air”:

EPA’s proposed “mercury and air toxics” rules for power plants are built on the false premise that we are still breathing the smog, soot and poisons that shrouded London, England and Gary, Indiana sixty years ago. In reality, US air quality improved steadily after the 1970 Clean Air Act was enacted.

EPA’s “most wanted” outlaw is mercury. But for Americans this villain is as real as Freddy or Norman Bates. To turn power plant mercury emissions into a mass killer, EPA cherry-picked studies and data, and ignored any that didn’t fit its “slasher” film script. As my colleague Dr. Willie Soon and I pointed out in our Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily articles, US power plants account for just 0.5% of mercury emitted into North American’s air; the other 99.5% comes from natural and foreign sources.

Energy analyst Roger Bezdek estimates that utilities will have to spend over $130 billion to retrofit older plants, under the measly three year (2014) deadline that EPA is giving them………, On top of that, utilities will have to spend another $30 billion a year for operations, maintenance and extra fuel for the energy-intensive scrubbers and other equipment they will be forced to install.

Many companies simply cannot justify those huge costs for older power plants. Thus Dominion Power, American Electric Power and other utilities have announced that they will simply close dozens of generating units, representing tens of thousands of megawatts – enough to electrify tens of millions of homes and businesses.

Electricity costs are set to skyrocket, just as the President promised. Consumers can expect to pay at least 20% more in many states by 2014 or shortly thereafter. According to the Chicago Tribune, Illinois families and businesses will shell out 40-60% more! How’s that for an incentive to ramp up production and hire more workers? How’s that “hope and change” working out for families that had planned to fix the car, save for college and retirement, take a nice vacation, get that long-postponed surgery?

For a mid-sized hospital or factory that currently pays $500,000 annually for electricity (including peak-demand charges), those rate hikes could add $300,000 a year to its electricity bill.

And it’s not just private businesses that will get hammered. As the Chi Trib notes, if the Chicago public school system wants to keep the lights on and computers running for two semesters, by 2014 it will get hit for an extra $2.7 million it doesn’t have, to pay for skyrocketing electricity costs.

Carry those costs through much of the US economy – especially the 26 states that get 48-98% of their electricity from coal-fired power plants – and we are talking about truly “fundamental transformations.” Millions will be laid off, millions more won’t be hired, millions of jobs will be shipped overseas – and millions will endure brownouts, blackouts and social unrest.

The Chairman of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Jonathan Samet implies there is no limit to the EPA authority according to a Junk Science Posting “Samet” No End To EPA Air Regulations:”

What Samet is saying is that there is no scientific basis for EPA not continually reducing manmade air emissions until there aren’t any. As Samet points out, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA could literally regulate us out of any sort of industry without regard to the consequences.

Classic doublespeak by those who are  our “betters” that want us to use mercury laden lights that are much more expensive than low cost incandescent bulbs (that they are banning) when Energy Secretary Steven Chu said “ We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their money.”

Natural Gas

Fracking technology involves pumping high-pressure water, sand and some chemicals into a borehole to create fractures in the shale formations in which natural gas and oil resides.  The fracturing of shale makes paths for the gas and oil to move to the collection piping and up to the surface.   This technology has been used by the oil and gas producers for some while but recently fracking has been used to tap massive quantities of natural gas. The quantities are so large that some estimates of the available natural gas are said to be equal to a 200-year supply for the US.

But the Obama administration never sleeps when it comes to seeking ways to deprive the nation of new supplies of energy.  The EPA has begin to study fracking:  National Review Online’s “The Fracas about Fracking” raises concerns about the likelihood of the study providing a fair review or a predetermined outcome which will reflect unfavorably on the practice of fracking:

In deciding on a policy on fracking, we should not wait for a congressionally mandated EPA report on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water, due in 2012. A congressional hearing held in May revealed fatal flaws in what was supposed to be a definitive, vigorously peer-reviewed study. For one thing, it will be an inside job from the EPA; the study’s review panel excludes anyone with professional expertise in current industry practices or the technology of hydraulic fracturing. Under the current administration, industry experts, like highly credentialed professors of petroleum engineering, are assumed to be shills for greedy enterprises.

The EPA study has some other serious defects. It will cherry-pick only four wells, out of hundreds of thousands, for full forensic analysis, and it has excluded representatives of state regulatory agencies — which have six decades of experience in regulating this practice, which began in 1948 — from its review panel. Nor do the researchers seem aware of the difference between, on one hand, models of the assumed effects of hydraulic fracturing and, on the other, physical measurements of the results of hundreds of actual fracking treatments. To learn the fundamentals of this issue, the EPA would have to bother to speak with experts on the technology.

The study seems designed to substantiate a predetermined conclusion: that hydraulic fracturing poses grave risks. Therefore the EPA must either assert regulatory control on all drilling using this technology, or issue a “temporary” moratorium — as in the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf spill — until further study is complete. If fracking is delayed or discontinued, massive resources will remain untapped, hundreds of thousands of jobs will not be created, and billions of dollars of potential federal, state, and local tax revenues will be lost.

And some thoughts about this study from the American Thinker “Obama continues his war on cheap American Energy”:

Even if the panel should somehow miraculously decide that fracking is safe, there is a history of Obama appointees rewriting decisions from panels evaluating the safety of energy development, so as to change the outcomes to suit Obama’s biases against cheap and abundant (and American) energy. When the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling platform Macondo sprang a leak, a panel’s conclusion regarding the safety of offshore oil drilling was doctored by White House political appointee Carol Browner (or someone operating under her authority) to make it appear that the panel of experts endorsed a moratorium on offshore drilling. When this manipulation of science was brought to light, many members of the panel objected to the distortion of their views and disavowed the “report”.

Stacking panels with ideological soul mates is Barack Obama’s modus operandi. If that does not work to accomplish his goals, creative re-writing is the next step. There is always one more trick in Obama’s pocket that he can use to keep us away from cheap, abundant and American energy.

There are some things we can do—–you probably know what they are.  Anyway, I will list some in my next blog.

cbdakota

4 Comments

Posted in AGW, Alternative Energy, cap and trade, Electric Vehicles, Energy Development, Environment, Windpower