‘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”.

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.

Hot Air about Wind Power

Hot Air about Wind Power

By Paul Driessen
The Washington Times | 8/6/2008

T. Boone Pickens is being lionized for his efforts to legislate a transformation to “eco-friendly” wind energy.

We need to “overcome our addiction to foreign oil,” he insists, by harnessing wind to replace natural gas in electricity generation, and using that gas to power more cars and buses.

If Congress would simply “mandate the formation of wind and solar corridors,” provide eminent domain authority for transmission lines, and renew the subsidies for this energy, America can make the switch in a decade.

Mr. Pickens’ $58-million media pitch makes good ad copy, but his policy prescriptions would bring new energy, economic, legal and environmental problems – and a price tag of more than $1.2 trillion.

Wind contributes more every year to our energy mix, but still provides only 1 percent of our electricity – compared to 49 percent for coal, 22 percent for natural gas, 19 percent for nuclear and 7 percent for hydroelectric.

We can and should harness the wind, but 22 percent of our electricity by 2020 is far-fetched. Wind power is intermittent, unreliable and expensive (even with subsidies). Many modern turbines are 400 feet tall and carry 130-foot, 7-ton, bird-slicing blades. They operate at only 20 percent 30 percent of rated efficiency – compared to 85 percent for coal, gas and nuclear plants – and provide little power during summer daytime hours, when air-conditioning demand is highest, but winds are at low ebb.

Using wind to replace all gas-fired power plants would require over 300,000 1.5-megawatt turbines, covering Midwestern “wind belt” agricultural and wildlife acreage equivalent to South Carolina.

Building and installing these turbines requires 5 to 10 times more steel and concrete than is needed to build nuclear plants to generate the same electricity more reliably, says Berkeley engineer Per Peterson. Add in steel and cement needed to build transmission lines from distant wind farms to urban consumers, and the costs multiply.

Wind thus means more quarries, mines, cement plants and steel mills to supply those materials. But greens oppose such facilities. So the Pickens proposal could mean letting existing power plants rust, and importing steel and cement, instead of oil.

Since adequate wind is available only three to eight hours a day, we would also need more gas-fired generating plants that mostly run at idle, kicking in whenever the wind dies down. That means still more money, cement, steel and gas – and still higher electricity prices.

A successful oilman, speculator and corporate raider, Mr. Pickens’ large natural gas holdings position him to make billions from selling gas for backup electricity generation – especially if drilling bans remain in effect, keeping gas prices in the stratosphere. Launching the enterprise with the backing of federal mandates and subsidies minimizes his financial risk and attracts semi-free-market investors, by putting the risks for his scheme on the backs of taxpayers and rights-of-way owners.

Mr. Pickens says we can’t drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. That’s true only if we keep our best prospects off-limits to drilling. Open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf, and the situation changes dramatically.

We have enough oil, natural gas, oil shale, coal and uranium to provide power for centuries. We have a growing consensus that we need to drill, onshore and off.

Unfortunately, greens and Democrats refuse to support these options – no matter how soaring energy prices batter poor families, workers, Meals on Wheels, small businesses, and automobile, airline, tourism, chemical and manufacturing industries.

A single 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant would reliably generate more electricity than 2,800 1.5-megawatt intermittent wind turbines on 175,000 acres. Permitting more nukes would meet increasing electricity demand for our growing population and millions of plug-in hybrid cars.

Coal offers centuries of affordable, reliable fuel for electricity and synthetic gas and oil, with steadily diminishing emissions. Between 1970 and 2006, coal-fired electricity generation nearly tripled – while nitrogen oxide emissions remained at 1970 levels, sulfur dioxide pollution fell nearly 40 percent below 1970 emissions, and fine particulates declined to 90 percent below 1970 levels.

That leaves Climate Armageddon as the primary rationale for wind power.

Al Gore, James Hansen and various legislators claim fossil fuels are destroying the planet. But 32,000 scientists have signed the consensus-busting Oregon Petition, saying they see “no convincing scientific evidence” that humans are causing catastrophic climate change. Other experts note we have far higher priorities, the economic costs of climate bills like Warner-Lieberman would be staggering, and the global CO2 and climate benefits of U.S. economic suicide would be imperceptible.

China is building two new coal-fired power plants every month, to power electricity-hungry homes and businesses. India too is charging ahead with hydrocarbon-based energy. Both are rightly more concerned about saving people from poverty than from speculative climate chaos.

It’s increasingly obvious why Mr. Gore, Mr. Hansen and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have become shriller by the day. People are catching on that their hot air is no basis for economy-killing cap-and-trade rules or ecology-killing forests of wind turbines.

We need all of our energy resources. We need to safeguard access to the opportunities created by abundant, reliable, affordable energy – from all sources – as a fundamental right of people the world over.


Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”

Rock the House: What should Republicans do now? It’s on…Culberson: Every day on the House floor this week

Drill!

Drill!

By Michael Reagan
FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/7/2008

Americans are worried. Americans are angry. Soaring gas prices are seriously crippling our economy and hitting us where it hurts the most — in our pockets.

We have a right to be angry, but anger is no longer enough. It’s time for rage — good, old American rage aimed at those elitist Democrats who prefer to see the folks beggared by soaring fuel prices rather than take the action this very real economic crisis demands.

Drill.

We know that the law of supply and demand is what’s causing gas prices to soar, but merely knowing the ultimate cause of the crisis is not enough. We need to know why the most obvious remedy — one that promises to increase supply — is being studiously avoided by the powers that be, the leadership in Congress.

Once Americans become aware of that reason, get out of the way because they will be at the gates of Capitol Hill armed with pitchforks and scythes like enraged villagers marching on Dracula’s castle, determined do wreak vengeance on the very people who refuse to act in the way current circumstances clearly demand.

The steady increase in gas prices can be stopped dead in its tracks, and rolled back to less onerous levels literally overnight. The Democrats in Congress have in their hands the magic wand they could easily wave, but they arrogantly refuse to use it. And so we continue to pay the price for their refusal to help their fellow Americans when they have the power to do so.

All they need to do is lift all moratoria and restrictions on domestic, offshore and Alaskan drilling for oil. That’s all. A quick wave of that magic wand is all that’s needed. But they will not act, and for that they must be made aware that they will pay a steep price at the polls for their refusal to act when action is desperately needed.

Make no mistake about it, the liberals in the House and Senate — in the pockets of the super-rich environmentalists who scarcely conceal their contempt for their fellow humans, activists who won’t be happy until every automobile is driven from America’s roads and highways — simply will not come to our aid.

As Marie Antoinette is said to have remarked about her starving subjects who were demanding bread, “Let then eat cake,” many of our elected Democratic members of Congress are in effect saying of Americans, “Let them ride bikes.”

In their contemptuous sophistry their spokesmen sneer that opening the gates to domestic and offshore drilling would not yield results for 10 years. That excuse for inaction is insultingly deceptive. While it will take years to see our domestic supply of petroleum begin to take up the slack, the very declaration that the floodgates will be opened and America is on he way to independence from foreign oil will strike fear into the hearts of OPEC and the speculators who have driven the price of oil skyward.

Their reaction would be instantaneous — they would increase production to the fullest extent possible, motivated by the knowledge that their stranglehold on supply faces its eventual demise, and gas prices at the pump would fall.

As economist Lawrence Kudlow wrote in his column, “An America First Energy Plan,” “As soon as you say, ‘End the drilling moratoriums,’ it is precisely those traders who will start selling oil contracts — long before the first offshore oil barrels are delivered to market. If they see presidential leadership on oil and shale drilling, they will rapidly turn a bull market into a bear market.”

A partial answer to our immediate problem is at hand. The steady increase in pump prices can be halted and prices somewhat rolled back to a more acceptable level. Yet those environmentalist-controlled Democrats are turning their backs on the voters who sent them to Washington and coldly refusing to lift a finger to help the American people, preferring instead to lay the blame for the problem on big oil, speculators, and every place but where it belongs: on themselves.

If that doesn’t enrage you, nothing will.

If this continues, the payback will come in November, when people drive them from office, unless they do what needs to be done: Drill, Drill, Drill!


Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.

You Can’t Fuel All of the People All of the Time

Food Report Critical of Biofuels

Food Report Critical of Biofuels

Rick Moran
A new report out today on the worldwide food shortage castigates the west and especially the United States for their biofuels policies which the report says has exacerbated the crisis without much of a savings in crude oil:

“The energy security, environmental and economic benefits of biofuels production based on agricultural commodity feed stocks are at best modest, and sometimes even negative,” says the report, prepared by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. “Alternative approaches may be considered that offer potentially greater benefits with less of the unintended market impact.”
The Agriculture Department’s own longtime chief economist, Keith Collins, who retired in January, said that ethanol was the “foot on the accelerator” of corn demand – an essential feed for animals, as well as a part of many diets – and merited renewed debate. He said Congressional mandates for ethanol would require farmers to grow more corn for conversion to biofuel, at the expense of feed corn and other food crops.
“You’re building in tremendous increase in demand,” said Mr. Collins, who emphasized that he was not necessarily against ethanol. “It’s an increase that is going to feed into food prices.”
The United Nations report, the global agriculture outlook through 2017, said prices for farm crops will remain substantially higher over the next decade because of fundamental changes in demand, though they will gradually decline from current highs.
Because the recent spike in crop and food prices has been caused in part by temporary factors like drought, the report predicted that prices should decrease as weather conditions return to normal and crop yields improve.

In the meantime, we are driving up the cost of grain by feeding our cars rather than feeding people.

There are alternatives to using grain in biofuels. Switchgrass is increasingly being adopted by some countries who are seeing less acreage devoted to growing grains. However, the amount of energy per unit compared to grain is not as great for switchgrass so it is likely that the bulk of biofuels will still come from corn.

 

If I Were a Terrorist

Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President.

This email came in three parts:
Part 1
In just one year .  Remember the election in 2006?
 Thought you might like to read the following:
 A little over one year ago:

 
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

 
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

 
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

 
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

 Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what’s handed to him.
  Quote of the Day……..‘My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.’ — Barack Obama

 Part 2:
Taxes…Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
Taxes under Clinton 1999                   Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400             Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000          Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250          Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800       Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000       Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750     Married making 125K – tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.
PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
      Read this:
Boy am I confused.  I have been hammered with the propaganda that it
is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again
until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.  I
have included the URL’s for verification of all the following facts.
1.      $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year by state governments.     Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2.      $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3.      $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
 4.     $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
 5.      $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
 American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
 8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:
9.  $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
10.  The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  In particular,
 their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
11.  During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens
from Terrorist Countries.  Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin
and mariju ana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:  http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12.  The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total
cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of  between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
13.  In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances
back to their countries of origin.
14.  ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million
Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.’
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. 
 
Why are we THAT stupid?
If this doesn’t bother you then just delete the message.  If, on the other
hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you
forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in
Washington, D.C. – five times a week for as long as it takes to restore
some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.