“We didn’t have the green thing back in my day.”

THIS IS REALLY GOOD! SEND TO ALL YOUR
KIDS & GRANDKIDS
In the line at
the store, the young cashier told the older woman that she should
bring her own
reusable grocery bags because
plastic bags weren’t good for
the

environment…….
The woman
apologized and explained,
“We didn’t have the green thing back
in my day.”
The clerk responded,
“That’s what’s caused our problems today.
Your generation wasn’t green and
did not care enough to save our environment.”

He was right, that
generation didn’t have the green thing in its day.

Back
then
, they  returned their milk
bottles, soda bottles and beer
bottles to the store.

The store sent them back to
the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled,
so it could use the
same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But they didn’t have the green thing
back in that customer’s day.
In her day, they walked up stairs, because they
didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building.
They walked to the grocery
store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower
machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she was right. They didn’t have the green thing in
her day.

Back then, they washed the baby’s diapers because
they didn’t have the throw-away kind.

They dried clothes on a line, not in an
energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts – wind and solar power really did dry the
clothes.

Kids got hand-me-down
clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new
clothing.

But that old lady is right,
they didn’t have
the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the  house – not a TV
in every room.

And the TV had a small screen the size of a
handkerchief, not a screen the size of the state of Montana .

In the
kitchen
, blended
and stirred by hand because they didn’t have electric machines to do everything for
you.

When they packaged a
fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion
it,
not Styrofoam or
plastic bubble wrap.
Back
then
, they didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline
just to cut the
lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power.

They exercised by working so they
didn’t need to go to a health club
to run on treadmills that operate on
electricity.

But she’s right, they
didn’t have the green thing back then.
They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty
instead of using a cup or a plastic
bottle every time they had a drink of water.

They
refilled

their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the
razor blades in a razor
instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got
dull.
“But they didn’t have the
green thing back then.”
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and
kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a
24-hour taxi service.

They had one electrical outlet in a
room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances.
And they didn’t need a computerized gadget
to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out  in space in order to
find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn’t it sad that the current
generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn’t have the green thing
back then?

‘Just words,’ Mr. President?

‘Just words,’ Mr. President?

Ed Lasky

 

Are these ‘just words,” President Obama?
Barack Obama

“Under my plan of cap and trade plan makes electricity rates will necessarily
skyrocket”‘; “coal powered plants, natural gas, you name it..whatever the plants
were…they will have to retrofit their operations..that will cost money and
they will have to pass those costs onto consumers”

And are these just
words?

So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can – it’s just that it
will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that
greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

Your Interior Secretary, who has done your bidding and placed one roadblock
after another in the way of developing our own massive energy resources, stated
in 2008
that he was opposed to opening up off-shore areas to new oil and gas
drilling even if the price per gallon of gasoline hit $10 per gallon.
Mr. President-are these ” Just Words”?
Also, President Obama, your Secretary of Energy (who, like Salazar, has been
busy trying to turn off the spigot to our own oil and gas supplies), called for
gasoline to cost $8
per gallon-
to push it up to European levels
Mr. President, are these “Just Words”?
Thank you in advance, Mr. President, for the answers I am sure are coming and
will be prefaced by “let me be clear”.

Obama Nixes Safe Drilling

Obama Nixes Safe Drilling

By Jeffrey
Folks

 

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar was in Houston this weekend talking with oil
executives who are eager to start drilling again in the Gulf of Mexico. That may
sound like progress, but after the meeting Salazar said that nothing had
changed. He was not ready to approve any new drilling.
Despite everything that energy companies have done to devise advanced
containment systems, Salazar is unwilling to issue a single new permit. Systems
constructed by the nonprofit Marine Well Containment Company and other entities
are now able to handle a flow equal or greater than that experienced during the
Deepwater Horizon accident last summer. But that’s not enough for Salazar, who
stated
that
even the most advanced systems have “limitations on water depth and
barrel-per-day containment capacity.”
Well, yes. Any system that could be devised would have limitations on depth
and per-barrel capacity. But that’s not the point, as Mr. Salazar must know. The
question is whether the new systems are able to handle the sorts of accident
that might actually take place. Not the worst scenario that someone from the
Interior Department could dream up. Combined with safely protocols now in place,
the new containment equipment can do just that.
So why no permits for new drilling? It appears that the Obama
administration is more interested in kowtowing to environmental donors in
advance of the 2012 election than it is in controlling energy prices. Even with
a federal court order
to decide
on new drilling in the Gulf by March 20, the Obama administration
remains obdurate.
By refusing to grant a single deep-water permit in the Gulf, Obama has shut
down access to one third of America’s oil supply. With Libyan oil fields now
closed indefinitely and with uncertainty about future production elsewhere in
the Middle East, it is a dreadful time to be shutting down America’s oil fields
as well. Turmoil in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, or Iraq would drive the price of
oil up above $150 a barrel, at the very least. A prudent policy would be to
increase domestic production in light of uncertainty abroad.
Some Americans are already paying $4 a gallon for gas, but this is not just
because of what’s happening in the Middle East. Government action on Gulf
drilling permits would immediately calm the oil markets and bring down prices,
even though new production would not come on line for several years. But instead
of reducing prices, Obama seems is intent on driving them up.
It’s not just the Gulf of Mexico that is off limits. Obama opposes drilling
anywhere offshore, including in the rich arctic region which is known to hold
billions of barrels of oil reserves.
Just as bad, in his FY2012 budget Obama proposes
cutting
$4.4 billion of annual tax deductions for oil and gas drilling –
deductions for depreciation and amortization that date back to 1913. Those tax
deductions help energy companies pay for exploratory projects that then result
in lower energy costs for all Americans. At a time when Obama is throwing away
$100 billion on risky alternative energy boondoggles, a number of which have
already gone bankrupt, he wants to end those modest tax advantages that actually
result in the production of large quantities of new energy. That sort of
accounting only makes sense to a politician.
Obama, in fact, is doing everything possible to curtail domestic energy
production, and yet he says that
“our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security.” If reliance on
foreign oil puts America at risk, why not produce more oil at home? New drilling
techniques including fracking, horizontal drilling, and deep-water drilling now
make it possible to do just that, but Obama opposes all of these.
If the President knows that dependence on foreign oil threatens our
national security and that new drilling techniques can increase
domestic supplies, why is he intent on destroying our domestic oil and gas
industry?
America is going to need new oil and gas production in a big way. In a new
report
, Charles T. Maxwell, the dean of U.S. energy analysts, has gone on
record saying that regardless of what happens in the Middle East, oil prices are
going up, way up. In a Barron’s interview Maxwell stated that oil
prices will hit $300 by 2020. Maxwell arrives at this number by way of a
straightforward calculation. By about 2015 global oil production will peak, but
demand will continue to increase on a global basis.
That leaves Americans paying $12 a gallon for gas, which is just about what
Obama has said he wants. That certainly will help to end our dependence on
foreign oil. The problem is there won’t be anything to take its place.
At $12 a gallon, we won’t be driving around much in large SUVs or in small
SUVs, either. Nor will we be enjoying cheap air fares or discounted cruises. The
cost of transporting goods will triple, as will the cost of heating homes,
schools, and offices. And those who think that solar and wind will take the
place of fossil fuels are sadly mistaken.
As Maxwell points
out
, solar energy now supplies one tenth of one percent of America’s energy
needs. Even with massive subsidies — the kind of subsidies that have already
bankrupted the Spanish economy — solar and wind will never supply more than a
small percentage of America’s energy needs. Since Obama, through EPA
restrictions, is busy sabotaging coal and natural gas as well, and since America
has no serious nuclear program underway, we are left with nothing.
Only a president who is extraordinarily stupid would fail to see this.
Conclusion: Obama is either extraordinarily stupid, or he is willing to trade
America’s national security for the support of
environmentalist donors who are key to his re-election. Whichever it is, we’re
in trouble.
Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and article on
American culture.

Obama’s Energy Power Grab

Obama’s Energy Power Grab

Posted By Rich Trzupek On December 30, 2010 @ 12:43 am In FrontPage | 9 Comments

The USEPA announced its intention to deliver yet another body blow to the power and petrochemical industries, piling on another layer of unneeded, unwanted and economically disastrous regulations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States. Before we consider the agency’s latest move, let’s take a moment to consider all that has been done and will be done in the name of fighting the non-existent problem of global warming. States and the feds are already moving forward with at least six major regulatory programs designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels and thus decimate the energy sector:

  • New CAFÉ  Standards – This is arguably the least bad of the bunch, because the due date for the new 35.5 miles per gallon Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard is at least a few years out (2016). Nonetheless, the new CAFÉ standard [1] will make automobiles more expensive – as even the White House admits – less safe (lighter cars don’t do as well in accidents as compared to heavier ones) and will do almost nothing to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Renewable Portfolio Standards – More than thirty states, encompassing about three quarters of the population of the United States, have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards [2]. These standards require using ever decreasing amounts of electricity generated by the combustion of fossil fuels.
  • Regional Trading Programs – States in three parts of the country, the east coast, the west coast and the midwest, have formed partnerships to create regional cap and trade programs. The east coast cap and trade program [3] has been up and running for two years. The west coast and midwest programs will “go live” in the near future.
  • Permitting of Greenhouse GasesRecent USEPA guidance [4] directed state permitting authorities to treat greenhouse gases as regulated pollutants when considering the construction of new major sources and major modifications to existing sources. Permitting authorities are further directed to apply the Best Available Control Technology standard to the control of greenhouse gases from these sources.
  • New Ambient Air Standards – The USEPA’s new ambient air standards [5] for “traditional” air pollutants are so ridiculously low that it’s virtually impossible for any new facility to comply with them. This is thus a back-door way of ensuring that no new fossil fuel fired power facilities can be built.
  • New Hazardous Air Pollution Rules – The USEPA’s new rules limiting emissions of hazardous air pollutants from industrial boilers [6] are also draconian. Again, the net effect will be to ensure that new industrial boilers powered by fossil fuels are just about impossible to construct.

So, contrary to what environmental groups and leftist politicians would like you to believe, we’re already doing an awful lot to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel use – far too much in my opinion – and we will continue to pay the economic price for these disastrous policies. Yet, the USEPA isn’t content. They have decided to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and that legislative framework demands the construction of even more regulatory layers. The latest will be New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) which will, for the first time, create numerical limits on greenhouse gas emissions generated by fossil fuel burning power plants and oil refineries.

Despite the use of the adjective “New” in the acronym, NSPS standards apply to both new and existing sources of air pollution emissions. Typically, the agency uses a specific date in time to distinguish between new and existing sources. Sources built before the cut-off date have one emission limit to meet and sources built after have a different, more stringent limit. Given the record of Lisa Jackson’s USEPA so far, we can expect that the agency will adopt greenhouse gas emission limits on existing sources that will force some facilities to close and the rest to spend billions in retrofits. And the new source limit? Expect that to be so ridiculously low that nobody will even think of building a fossil fuel fired power plant or new oil refinery in the United States ever again. Of course, given the list of the other onerous regulatory initiatives provided above, building new energy or petrochemical infrastructure is no longer a feasible option anyway.

USEPA announced its intention to develop greenhouse gas emission limitations for the power sector and oil refineries as part of two proposed settlement agreements [7] between the agency and several states and environmental groups who filed suit against the USEPA over greenhouse gas issues. As part of the settlement agreements, USEPA promises to have greenhouse gas emission limitations in place for the power industry by May 2012 and limitations on petroleum refineries in place by November 2012. The agency describes this as a “common sense approach” to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and maintains that it is setting “a modest pace” in developing this massive new regulatory structure. More amazingly, USEPA administrator Lisa Jackson had this to say [8] about developing new greenhouse gas standards:

 

 

We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change,” Administrator Lisa Jackson said. “These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home.

This is of course the same Lisa Jackson who believes that the Clean Air Act is solely responsible for American economic growth [9] over the last forty years. This latest statement by the delusional director shows that she’s drifted even farther into a green fantasyland. Eliminating America’s ability to use a cheap, domestically plentiful source of energy to power industrial growth isn’t going to attract a dime of private investment. Undercutting America’s ability to turn crude oil into refined products isn’t going to create one good job at home. Jackson is spinning yarns, utilizing all the right buzzwords, like threats to “health and welfare,” “attract[ing] private investment,” and “creat[ing] good jobs,” but those words are as hollow and meaningless as any ever uttered by the most cynical of professional politicians. The actions of Jackson’s USEPA and Congress’s continued unwillingness to rein her agency in guarantee that economic recovery and job creation will continue to be an impossibility as long as the Obama administration is in charge.

Preventing development of domestic oil resources

Preventing development of domestic oil resources

Peter Wilson

The New York Times editorial, A New Day for Wilderness, describes the Department of Interior’s reversal of a Bush administration agreement that barred 250 million acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management from being given wilderness status (“one of the sorrier blots on George W. Bush’s sorry environmental record,” writes the Times.) 
The Times paints this action as a victory for “Utah’s fragile wild lands” and describes Interior as “an agency that historically has been sympathetic to oil and gas companies and other commercial interests.”   No mention is made of the trend under the Obama administration of using federal agencies to circumvent the wishes of Congress, the courts and the people.  The Heritage Foundation describes it well in its Morning Bell:
The ability of the Obama Administration to step up their leftist agenda even after it was thoroughly “shellacked” at the polls is not an accident….This will be the fight of 2011: the unelected central planning “experts” of the Obama Administration versus the newly elected House of Representatives and state and local governments.
Heritage describes the actions of three agencies: HHS’s price controls, the EPA’s carbon finding, the FCC’s net neutrality regulations.  We can add Interior to this list. 
What is worrisome about the deal is that in Utah and Wyoming 70% of the Green River Formation oil shale deposits are on federal land.  These reserves are the largest oil shale deposits in the world, holding an estimated 1.5 trillion barrels of oil equivalent.
Although it takes an act of Congress to designate a wilderness, Interior has a tool at hand that does not require Congressional approval; it can designate a “Wilderness Study Area,” which places the land off-limits until Congress comes to a decision about its status.  Interior could potentially close off Green River to any commercial activity unless Congress takes action.  Furthermore, the Times reports, leases already granted on federal lands might be rescinded, adding insecurity to companies considering investing in oil shale development.
Our National Parks and wilderness areas are national treasures that ought to be protected.  Adding millions more acres of high plains to the lands that are forever wild, locking up their enormous resources, would impose enormous economic costs that our nation can ill afford.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/preventing_development_of_dome.html at December 30, 2010 – 11:22:56 AM CST

Morning Bell: Obama Will Make You Pay More at the Pump

Morning Bell: Obama Will Make You Pay More at the Pump

Posted By Rory Cooper On December 29, 2010 @ 8:45 am In Energy and Environment | 30 Comments

“What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you’re paying for that, right now?” This was a question asked of the president at a press conference [1] in August…of 2006. The president was George W. Bush. In fact, it was a question that was asked in one way or another regularly during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency, regardless of where energy prices stood at that moment.

In May 2004, The New York Times reported [2] that congressional Democrats “were stepping up pressure on the Bush Administration to ease gasoline prices,” when prices were still under $2/gallon. In April 2005, at another press conference, a journalist stated [3]: “Mr. President a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of social security, gas prices…” In 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) exclaimed [4]: “Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled…They are too cozy with the oil industry” after she drove one less-than-energy-efficient block to a press conference at a local Exxon station.

In 2008, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “blasted [5]” the president for rising gas prices on his (and her) watch. In July 2008, ABC News asked [6] the president what was his “short term advice for Americans about gas prices?” repeating a nearly identical question asked at a February 2008 press conference. In April 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said [7] gas prices were “the number one issue facing America today.” Read the rest of this entry »

Al Gore’s Green Blasphemy

 

Al Gore’s Green Blasphemy

Posted
By Rich Trzupek On November 23, 2010 @ 12:45 am In FrontPage | 10
Comments

Back in 1994,
vice-president of the United States Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote that
started us on the long road of taking American farms out of food production and
converting them to fuel production. While conservatives and libertarians argued
at the time that subsidizing ethanol production made no economic or
environmental sense, Gore and his green allies were certain that bio-fuels
would solve all the nation’s woes. Sixteen years later, Mr. Gore has apparently
seen the light, admitting that America’s rush to embrace corn
ethanol has been something of a mistake.

Here is what
Vice President Al Gore had to say [1] about his role in subsidizing
ethanol, while speaking at the Farm Journal conference back in 1998:

I was also
proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was under attack in the
Congress — at one point, supplying a tie-breaking vote in the Senate to save
it. The more we can make this home-grown fuel a successful, widely-used
product, the better-off our farmers and our environment will be.

Contrast that
with what the vice-president is quoted as saying in this report from Fox [2], statements he made while
he was attending a recent green energy conference held in Athens, Greece:

It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation
ethanol. First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion
ratios are at best very small. One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I
paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee,
and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa
because I was about to run for president. The size, the percentage of corn
particularly, which is now being (used for) first-generation ethanol definitely
has an impact on food prices. The competition with food prices is real.

While it’s
nice to hear that the hero of the environmental movement has embraced reality,
Gore’s conversion has come far too late. When Gore cast his critical vote in
1994, the bio-fuels industry produced about 1.4 billion gallons of ethanol each
year from less than fifty plants. Sixteen years
later
[3], as a direct result of government subsidies and tax
breaks, over a hundred new corn ethanol plants have been built and the amount
of ethanol produced in the United States has increased by almost an order of
magnitude, topping
10.5 billion gallons
[3] in 2009. Private investors have
invested tens of billions of dollars to build today’s massive corn ethanol
infrastructure and the government has invested tens of billions more to ensure
that it remains in place. Had Gore faced facts in 1994, the public and private
sectors could have used those funds more wisely and more profitably elsewhere.
But now? Having made this huge investment, the pain of admitting defeat,
suffering our losses and walking away from corn ethanol may be too much to
bear.

Congress has
to decide whether or not to renew the current $7.7 billion corn-ethanol subsidy
by the end of the year. On the one hand, it seems madness to prolong a fuel
industry that – at best – can only generate a bit more energy than it consumes
(and more often less), that takes cropland out of food and feed production and,
as result, raises the prices and lowers the availability of food. A 2007 Department of Agriculture report [4] clearly
outlined the effects of subsidizing corn ethanol: a steady decrease in food
production, concurrent decreases in agricultural exports and rising costs of
food products.

As distasteful
as it may be to bite the bullet and end corn-ethanol subsidies, the alternative
may be even more unpalatable to Congress. Demanding that the corn-ethanol
industry stand on its own two feet would result in the closure of dozens of
plants, the loss of thousands of jobs, writing off billions of dollars of
losses and finding new sources of petroleum to replace the billions of gallons
of ethanol that Americans put in their gas tanks each year. Both options are
painful, and while a free market advocate like me would advocate cutting our
losses, learning a painful lesson and moving beyond ethanol, Congress may not
be so inclined. The benefits of ending the ethanol subsidy are long-term and
market-driven. Few politicians are motivated to action by that big a picture,
particularly when the short-term damage can be so devastating to their careers.
How can even the most staunchly conservative farm-belt congressman face his
constituents after voting to end ethanol subsidies? If and when subsidies end,
farm income will drop, the property value of farms will plummet and thousands
of workers employed in the ethanol industry will find themselves on the
streets, looking for work in the worst economic climate since the Great
Depression.

The fact that
Al Gore has finally come to grips with corn-ethanol reality is a remarkable
development, but his conversion has probably come far too late to be of any
real value. The policies that he promoted throughout much of his political
career have come home to roost and the economic damage that those policies have
done is undeniable. Gore – more than anyone else – helped to create the
renewable energy monster that saps our nation’s resources and undermines our
prosperity today. Having profited handsomely from those efforts, the ex-vice
president’s belated mea culpa has fallen incredibly flat.

Science Czar’ Admits the Big Green Lie

‘Science Czar’ Admits the Big Green Lie

Posted By Christopher C. Horner On April 14, 2010 @ 8:33 am In Environment, News, Politics | 89 Comments

The video vault has now provided us another glimpse [1] into the fever swamp occupied by President Obama’s moonbat science czar John Holdren. Holdren of course is the man brought in to put a scientific imprimatur on the Left’s latest excuse for much of its economic agenda, wrapped as it is in the cloak of averting environmental crisis.

First, the merely good news arising from Holdren’s odious openness: it floated to the surface just in time for my new book [2] coming out Monday (but available for pre-order now, before today’s ’s Ways and Means Committee “green jobs” hearing causes a run on them! Really.). In these pages Holdren, Carol Browner and a few others receive close inspection, particularly in Chapter 3 “Van Jones Was No Accident: Obama’s Radicals” (also relevant to this discussion is Chapter 6, “Green Eggs and Scam: The Wholesale Fraud of ‘Green Jobs’”).

More on all of that, including some pretty startling internal documents, in a few days.

Now for the even better news. As detailed in “Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America [2]“, Holdren is a longtime global-cooling-then-warming alarmist who’s also on record advocating the constitutionality of sterilizing [3] the public through the drinking water supply to address the “population crisis” when it reaches the point that his kind believe is just  too much to bear.

As is also detailed, he and his ilk like to see (and shriek) crisis pretty much everywhere they look, and transparently as an excuse for their real obsession with massive government usurpations of individual liberties — or, ahem, Power Grabs [2]. So to them that point where statist seizures are urgently required is always right…about…nnnow.

Read the rest of this entry »

Getting Gas Wrong

Getting Gas Wrong

Posted By Rich Trzupek On April 8, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage | 9 Comments

In an economy full of problems there are still a few high points. One of them, as you may have noticed if you pay attention to your utility bills, is that natural gas prices are relatively low. Back in mid-2008, natural gas prices hit record highs. The market reacted as it is supposed to: exploration took off, production increased and now, almost two years later, the cost of natural gas has stabilized [1] at a comfortable level, amid normal seasonal variations. We shouldn’t have to worry about this sector of the economy, but there is a dark cloud looming on the horizon in the form of yet another environmental initiative that the Obama administration is pushing forward, one that has the potential to cut domestic natural gas production, cost us jobs and revenue and force energy prices upward.

There is quite a bit of natural gas and oil trapped in shale and rock formations located thousands of feet underground. The tried and true technique of “hydraulic fracturing” has been used for about sixty years to coax these hydrocarbons to deep wells, where they can be recovered. In simple terms, hydraulic fracturing fluids are pumped down into a deep well under pressure. The fluid consists mostly of water and sand, with a small amount of other chemicals. As the pressurized fluid is distributed along a horizontal plane, it creates micro-fractures in the rock holding the natural gas. The sand particles hold these fractures open, allowing gas to flow along the path of least resistance up into the borehole of the well.

There are more than a million natural gas wells that utilize hydraulic fracturing in the United States. About ninety-five per cent of natural gas wells in the country use this form, or an analogous form, of reservoir enhancement to recover energy. The process is an important – some would say vital – piece of the puzzle if the nation is going to maintain some degree of energy independence. However, the technology caught the attention of Barack Obama’s EPA, which recently confirmed [2] that it is “studying the issue [3]”. When uttered by members of this administration those three words generally sound rather ominous and this is no exception. “Studying the issue,” whatever the issue, typically means more regulations, more restrictions and higher costs. When it comes to a part of our economy as vital as the energy sector, one has to wonder: how many more studies and subsequent “recommendations” can we afford?

Why is the EPA studying hydraulic fracturing? For environmental reasons of course. Scattered, unconfirmed and wholly anecdotal claims that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated drinking water in a few locations across the nation spurred the EPA into action. From a scientific point of view, it’s hard to understand why the EPA would lend any credibility to these tales, much less allocate $1.9 million dollars to take another look at a technology that has been studied to death, not only by the oil and natural gas industries, but by the EPA itself. A 2004 EPA study concluded that hydraulic fracturing didn’t present any threat to human health and the environment, but of course that was George W. Bush’s EPA, so any of its decisions are subject to a Barack Obama do over.

There are a number of reasons why it’s just plain silly to spend almost two million dollars to reconfirm what we already know. Chemically, as noted above, hydraulic fracturing fluid is overwhelmingly water and sand (or ceramic, or some other inert solid used to keep rock pores open). Other chemicals, which are often proprietary, represent a very small fraction of the whole. Geologically, the formations holding the gas and oil are located thousands of feed underground, under layers of different strata, while drinking water aquifers are typically no more than a few hundred feet below ground. The natural gas recovered, like the fracturing fluid, will naturally follow the path of least resistance and flow to the bore hole that’s been drilled for that purpose, rather than try to find a tortuous path through all of the layers of rock and sediment containing it. Plus, consider this: even as the EPA looks at ways to restrict an important means of producing energy, they’re simultaneously developing regulations that encourage another segment of the power industry to inject chemicals deep underground without the kind of relief valve that a bore hole represents. Carbon storage and sequestration is the leading, EPA approved way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. In this case, carbon dioxide is injected deep underground at high pressures, but because there is no well to relieve the pressure, it’s free to find fractures that will carry it, and any contaminants from the stack gas that remain, into aquifers.

The Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) of EPA’s Science Advisory Board [4] is in charge of studying hydraulic fracturing. The EEC has sixteen members [5], fourteen of which are academics and two of which are consultants. Not a single industry expert sits on the committee. The energy industry will be free to comment on the committee’s work of course, but is Obama’s EPA likely to pay serious attention to experts who represent evil corporate interests?

According to a study conducted by IHS Global Insight [6], a ban on hydraulic fracturing would cost the United States $374 billion in lost Gross Domestic Product by 2014, would result in the loss of about 3 million jobs and would require a sixty per cent increase in imported oil and natural gas to make up the difference. Placing restrictions on the fluids that can be used for hydraulic fracturing would be slightly less painful, but painful enough. In that scenario, IHS’s study foresees a $172 billion reduction in GDP, 1.4 million jobs lost and a thirty per cent increase in energy imports.

It should be noted that hydraulic fracturing is already regulated on the state and federal levels. Studying the practice once again will lead to one of two results. Either the EPA will conclude that existing regulatory protections are sufficient, which doesn’t seem likely given this administration’s record when it comes to environmental issues, or the EPA will deem it necessary to pile another layer of crippling regulations onto an industry that has been one of the few bright spots in a floundering economy.

Oil in the Western USA and Obama is pushing Ethanol DUH!

Subject: Fw: oil – you better be sitting down when you read this!

 By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!! 

GOOGLE it, or follow this link.  It will blow your mind. 

 http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911 

Here’s an interesting read, important and verifiable information : 

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer;  how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?”  Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle East put together.”  Please read below. 

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big.  It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana …… check THIS out: 

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable…. at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion. 

“When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..” says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst. 

“This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years,” reportsThe Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  It’s a formation known as the Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’  It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada.  For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end.  Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves….. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels.  And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL! 

That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.  And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from 2006! 

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World 

Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006 

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels.  OnAugust 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling? 

They reported this stunning news:  We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates: 

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia 

- 18-times as much oil as Iraq 

 - 21-times as much oil as Kuwait 

 - 22-times as much oil as Iran 

- 500-times as much oil as Yemen 

- and it’s all right here in the Western United States . 

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY? 

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped.  That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post. 

Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find?  Think again!  It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists? 

Got your attention yet?  Now, while you’re thinking about it, do this: 

Pass this along.   If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you complain about gas prices – by doing NOTHING, you forfeit your right to complain. Copy and paste to your e-mail

Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers