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 is Failing Alinksy and Dukakis

Obama is Failing Alinksy and Dukakis

by Thomas Del Beccaro

The longest days of summer are proving to be even longer days for Obama.  His approval ratings are mired in the mid 40s, primaries herald losses for Democrats and the Gulf Oil spill is turning out to be more slippery for Obama than BP.  All in all, Obama is failing both Alinsky and Michael Dukakis and the Democrats are headed toward losing the House.

obamamirror-1

In 2009, Obama chose confrontational politics.  He appointed Rahm Emanuel, known more for his hard ball tactics than his diplomacy, for his Chief of Staff.  Out of the gate, he pushed through a “stimulus” bill along partisan lines instead of seeking a bi-partisan solution, i.e. a mixture of tax cuts, regulatory relief and federal spending in lieu of pure deficit spending.  Obama then proceeded to push Cap and Trade and Health Care – again along strictly partisan lines.  In doing so, his administration spoke more than disparagingly of those opposing his policies.  To many, Obama was outright demonizing his opponents much like Saul Alinksy would advocate.

As the calendar turned onward, and the economy predictably failed to turn upward, the Democrats and the Obama Administration received the shock of a Kennedy lifetime when the otherwise barely known Scott Brown pulled off a stunning victory by taking the “Kennedy seat” away from the Democrats and giving it back to the people.  Unbowed by such political tea leaves, and warnings from prognosticators, Obama pushed the Health Care Bill through along partisan lines and with the promise that people will be able to keep their existing health care.  Now nearly 60% of Americans want that bill repealed and that is before the emerging stories about not being able to keep their existing health care, based on the regulations being written, have begun to take hold.

Then came the Gulf Oil spill.  At first, Obama nearly ignored the emerging problem.  Since then, he “sued” BP and alternatively claimed he was in control but that there was nothing he could really do.  It is rather known, at this point however, that he could have easily waived the Jones Act to allow non-union remediation efforts and he could have accepted foreign help that would have reduced to scope of the spill.  So bad is his performance that even his most staunch supporters on the far Left have questioned his ability to command.

All of which bring us back to Alinksy and Dukakis.

Alinksy’s methodology is meant for an insurgency and is dependent on ideological confrontation.  It is not one that fares well with half measures.  Yet over the last year Obama has drawn derision on the Left for being able to achieve only half measures even though the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House.

As for Dukakis, he famously campaigned for the Presidency asserting that that election was about “competency not ideology.”  While the Country never had to endure Dukakis’ brand of competency back in the late 1980s, they have seen Obama’s failures first hand.

The Presidency, however, is not about an insurgency, it is about building consensus.  It is also non-ideological to the extent that it requires its Commander in Chief to effectively deal to crises and day-today problems – competently.  Obama is demonstrating his lack of experience and ability along with his lack of historical understanding and ability to learn about the Presidency.  In the final analysis, likely to be made this fall and in 2012, it is those failures that will define Obama and the Democrats.