Obama’s Interior Chokehold on America

Obama’s Interior Chokehold on America

By Jim
Adams

How could a bureaucratic bottleneck in the Gulf of
Mexico cost the U.S. economy nearly $20 billion and wipe out hundreds of
thousands of jobs as far away as Ohio, Pennsylvania and
California? Unfortunately, with this White House administration, anything is
possible.

President Obama recently announced yet another jobs
initiative — knowing all the while that one very simple action on his part
would indeed create new jobs, infuse federal and state budgets with billions of
dollars, and make us less reliant on imports. But that didn’t
happen.

On Oct. 12, 2010, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said,
“We’re open for business,” signaling that drilling for new oil in the Gulf of
Mexico would resume. But, Mr. Salazar has an odd interpretation of the words
“open for business.”

Eleven months after the Secretary’s announcement,
drilling in the Gulf remains near a standstill. The government has used every
stall tactic imaginable to delay permits and other administrative approvals that
would help our economy and put hundreds of thousands back to
work.

The Gulf
Economic Survival Team
(GEST) commissioned IHS Global Insight and IHS CERA
Inc. to quantify the economic impacts of the government’s slow pace of
permitting since lifting the moratorium. Their study revealed that the number of exploration plans and
permit applications are on par with levels in 2009 through early 2010, clearly
signaling the industry’s intent to return to full operations. Industry also has
invested billions of dollars in well containment technology to stop a
Macondo-size spill if it ever became necessary. So safety can no longer be
blamed for permitting delays.

That leaves the Department of the Interior. The
IHS study points to a backlog of project approvals. Despite their earnest
efforts to process the growing stack of applications, regulators on the front
line don’t appear to understand the new regulations that Washington D.C. has
foisted upon them.  The blame for this falls squarely on the shoulders of this
Administration’s politically appointed bureaucrats, who know nothing of the
complexities involved in safe and environmentally sound deepwater drilling.
Naturally, they don’t let expertise or experience get in the way, they just pile
on more regulations.

This politically minded bureaucracy comes at
tremendous cost.

The number of people who depend on a thriving oil and
gas industry is staggering. Another research study, by
Quest Offshore Resources, found that energy production in the Gulf of Mexico
employed 240,000 Americans in 2010. And not all of them worked directly for the
oil and natural gas industry, as oil rigs need everything from steel pipes to IT
support.

What’s more, the effects of the government’s continued
foot-dragging isn’t limited to the Gulf. The study’s authors found that for
every industry job tied to operations in the Gulf, three non-industry jobs are
reliant in sectors such as manufacturing, construction and real estate. And for
every three Gulf Coast workers, there’s one American employed elsewhere — in
New York, Michigan, California, Oklahoma, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois
and nearly every other state.

The Quest study also came to a distressing conclusion:
Had the Administration truly lifted the moratorium last October, the industry
would have created nearly 190,000 more jobs in the U.S. over a three-year
period. That would have meant 8,500 additional jobs in California, where
unemployment currently flirts with 12 percent; 10,000 more jobs in Pennsylvania
and Ohio, manufacturing-dependent states; and in the President’s home state of
Illinois, a total of 3,000 jobs.

Keeping Americans out of work. Denying struggling
state and local governments billions of dollars in additional revenue. Making us
more dependent on energy imports. Is this the change Mr. Obama says we can
believe in?

Or can we only believe in shovel-ready jobs if they’re
created by the alternative energy industry? Would we even be having this
yearlong debate if solar energy producers contributed more than $12 billion a
year in tax and royalty revenues to state and federal treasuries? What if hydro
energy producers accounted for $44 billion of GDP? The only thing separating
190,000 Americans from a paycheck and states from more than $7 billion in local
taxes is obvious: Political will.

President Obama talks about job growth, stimulating
the economy and investing in innovation that will lead the way forward, but
turns a blind eye to an obvious, if not practical, solution. Mr President: Lift
your de facto moratorium on energy exploration in the Gulf of Mexico; business
will safely do the rest.

Jim Adams is president and CEO of Offshore Marine
Service Association, which represents the owners and operators of U.S. flag
offshore service vessels and the shipyards and other businesses that support
that industry.

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 drilling moratorium causes major company to go bankrupt

Obama’s drilling moratorium causes major company to go bankrupt

Ed Lasky

 

On top of tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs
when Obama imposed a drilling moratorium by executive order (and fudging what
scientists and experts believed in order to justify his moratorium) now comes
news that Seahawk Drilling, a major publicly-held drilling services company, has
declared bankruptcy due to the sharp decline in Gulf drilling work.
From USA
Today:

Seahawk Drilling Inc. said it has filed for bankruptcy protection and plans
to sell its fleet of offshore drilling rigs to a competitor for $105
million.
Seahawk, which announced the deal with Hercules Offshore Inc. Friday, has
been hurt by a slowdown in Gulf of Mexico drilling after the BP oil spill last
April. The government halted drilling in deep waters and imposed tough new rules
that have curtained all energy exploration in U.S. waters.

Employees will be let go; shareholders are suffering big losses as the stock
plunges. Gulf communities have already been stricken by big job losses and
declines in state tax revenues. We have become even more dangerously dependent
on overseas sources of crude and prices have skyrocketed as Obama turned the
handle to the off position when it comes to Gulf oil drilling.
There has been a lot of damage caused by Barack Obama’s policies and there
will be a lot more to come as long as he is in office.

 

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

Obama’s Green Energy Myth

Obama’s Green Energy Myth

Posted By Rich Trzupek On June 28, 2010 @ 12:26 am In FrontPage | 20 Comments

President Obama’s attempt to turn the Deepwater Horizon disaster into an advertisement for alternative “green” energies and “cap and trade” legislation was so offensive that even Senator Diane Feinstein was forced to observe [1] that “the climate bill isn’t going to stop the oil leak.”

In a June 15 column [2] published by the New York Times, Peter Baker took that analysis a bit further:

“The connection to the spill, of course, goes only so far. While (Obama) called for more wind turbines and solar panels, for instance, neither fills gasoline tanks in cars and trucks, and so their expansion would not particularly reduce the need for the sort of deepwater drilling that resulted in the spill.”

This entirely reasonable and technically accurate statement enflamed the president’s cheerleaders over at Media Matters, where Fae Jencks [3] took Baker to task:

“While wind and solar energy may not fill cars’ tanks, it will power their batteries. What Baker fails to acknowledge is that by ensuring that ‘more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power,’ Obama would ensure that those vehicles are powered with clean energy rather than with electricity produced by fossil fuel plants.”

Those two sentences summarize the green nirvana that the president is trying to foist upon America. It’s a goal that’s entirely unachievable, because of a number of technical and economic realties that lie just below the surface of simplistic analysis.  It’s not surprising that a technically-illiterate blogger who posts at a site devoted to echoing this administration’s progressive agenda would make such an assertion, but it’s quite disturbing that the man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world would utter such foolishness.

Both wind power [4] and solar power [5] are more expensive – incredibly so in the case of solar – than either fossil power or nuclear power. Worse, you can’t count on either wind or solar as a reliable source of energy, since the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Accordingly, for each megawatt of wind and solar capacity we develop, another megawatt of back-up power, typically powered by fossil fuels, has to be in place. This redundancy adds to the already unacceptable cost of “green energy.”

Even if we ignore the economic aspects and accept the progressive proposition that the government has an infinite supply of money available to spend, the idea that the wind and sun can power our cars makes no sense. The reason that our vehicles use gasoline is that gas is a very efficient means to store energy. A gallon of gasoline, which weighs a little over six pounds, contains far more useful energy than the six pounds of the best batteries on the market. So, before you factor anything else in, gasoline’s weight to power ratio makes it the better choice in terms of energy efficiency. Will batteries improve over time? Sure they will, although modern, high-capacity batteries typically involve using materials that come with their own environmental hazards. Still, no battery that exists or that is being contemplated comes close to matching the energy storage capacity of gasoline.

Next, there are the unavoidable inefficiencies of the electric transmission system itself. America’s power grid is a wonder of modern technology and it’s obviously necessary to distribute the power we need to run our refrigerators and computers, light our homes and keep the pumps and motors that industry depends on turning. Yet, electric power distribution is hardly the model of efficiency. A significant portion of the energy generated by power plants is lost in distribution [6], due to voltage drops, resistant heating and other line losses. In many cases, moving energy around the nation via a network of thousands of miles of metal cables represents the best way to transmit power, but it’s hardly the most efficient way to do it.

Consider motor vehicles. By the time we work our way through all of the inherent, expensive and unavoidable inefficiencies of generating, transporting and storing so-called green power in the vain effort to fuel our transportation needs, we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that doing so would create more of a demand for power, not less. Or, to put the president’s proposition another way, if America somehow transformed itself into a nation in which the transportation sector was fueled entirely by electricity, we would be significantly less energy efficient than we are today. We can, and should, continue to develop hybrids, for that technology provides even more bang for our fossil fuel buck, without pretending that the ultimate source of power – crude oil – isn’t our best energy option.

Ultimately, if we can figure out a way to use as-of-yet undiscovered solar-powered catalysts to produce hydrogen inexpensively, we may free ourselves from the tyranny of fossil fuels altogether. Yet, as technology proceeds along those paths, we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be distracted by the promise of a green energy panacea.

The Big Lie used to justify drilling moratorium

The Big Lie used to justify drilling moratorium

Rick Moran

The Obama administration used the names of drilling experts to justify a ban on deep water drilling – despite the fact that 8 of these experts who were listed in the Interior Department report used as a basis for the moratorium say that their names had been used to justify a political decision:

When President Obama last month announced his six-month deepwater moratorium, he pointed to an Interior Department report of new “safety” recommendations. That report prominently noted that the recommendations it contained-including the six-month drilling ban-had been “peer-reviewed” by “experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” It also boasted that Interior “consulted with a wide range” of other experts. The clear implication was that the nation’s drilling brain trust agreed a moratorium was necessary.As these columns reported last week, the opposite is true. In a scathing document, eight of the “experts” the Administration listed in its report said their names had been “used” to “justify” a “political decision.” The draft they reviewed had not included a six-month drilling moratorium. The Administration added that provision only after it had secured sign-off. In their document, the eight forcefully rejected a moratorium, which they argued could prove more economically devastating than the oil spill itself and “counterproductive” to “safety.”

The Administration insisted this was much ado about nothing. An Interior spokesman claimed the experts clearly had been called to review the report on a “technical basis,” whereas the moratorium was a “comprehensive” question. Obama environment czar Carol Browner declared: “No one’s been deceived or misrepresented.” Really? We can only imagine the uproar if a group of climate scientists had claimed the Bush Administration misappropriated their views.

It gets worse.

The experts were certainly under the impression they were reviewing a comprehensive document, as some of the recommendations would take six months or even a year to implement. And the report they agreed to did address moratoria: It recommended a six-month ban on new deepwater permits. Yet Benton Baugh, president of Radoil, said that in at least two separate hour-and-a-half phone calls among Interior and the experts, there was no discussion of a moratorium on existing drilling. “Because if anybody had [made that suggestion], we’d have said ‘that’s craziness.’” 

The Obama administration is almost as good at “craziness” as they are at lying.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky

The President’s Oil Reserves Lie

The President’s Oil Reserves Lie

By Chad Stafko

Tuesday night, following a tour of the Gulf Coast area, the President of the United States addressed the nation regarding the state of the BP oil spill. In his speech from the Oval Office, President Obama spoke regarding our nation’s dependence upon oil and how we need to break that dependence. 

During his speech, the president made a statement that was blatantly false. The president noted, “We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserve. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”
We are not running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water. In fact, it is due to the president’s party of extreme environmentalists that BP had to drill some forty miles from the coastline in deep waters to extract oil. Imagine if this oil leak had happened in the shallow waters off of the East Coast or even, dare we say it, in the pristine ANWR region. How much easier it would have been to cap the leak and clean up the oil?
Consider our nation’s vast oil reserve resources that are currently unavailable for use due to government ownership of the land or outright bans on drilling in certain areas.
According to a June 2008 article in Kiplinger Magazine, the United States has enough oil reserves to power the nation for upwards of three centuries. That’s three hundred years, Mr. President. We are not running out of oil reserves — it’s just that those oil reserves have been declared off-limits due to decades of environmental lobbying of our politicians, especially those on the Left. This lobbying has driven the likes of BP and others out deep into the Gulf of Mexico to extract the nation’s needed oil.
Note the following statement from the article:
… untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.
Think about that.  The nations that currently hold us hostage by their massive oil production actually have far fewer reserves than our own nation. Put another way, some of the very nations on which we are dependent for oil are also the same nations that help to sponsor worldwide terrorism. Were we to extract our own oil, it would make our nation and the world a safer place. But isn’t a spotted owl more important than the safety of the world?
Among the areas the article mentions are the oil shale located underneath land in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. These lands are federally protected, but they alone could provide about two hundred years’ worth of oil for the nation. Others mentioned include oil reserves located under Montana and some reserves located on protected lands in Texas, California, Utah, and Kentucky.
In fact, our own government has acknowledged the vast oil resources available to us. In an April 2008 study conducted by the United States Geological Survey, the group began its press release with the following: “North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.”
The report acknowledges that the available oil reserves could be much larger, but the 3.0 to 4.3 billion figure represents oil recoverable right now with today’s technology. In fact, there may more than 100 billion barrels eventually recoverable with continued developments in the technology necessary to extract the oil.
Then there is the most famous government-blocked area of oil reserves, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuges (ANWR). With 10 billion barrels available, ANWR is the most accessible of the major untapped oil reserve locations in the United States, and claims are that this oil could be extracted in a way that would have minimal negative environmental impact. 
Yet with all of these resources, here we sit, importing oil at a feverish pace, and a significant portion of it from our enemies and those who support terrorist organizations around the world. And here we sit watching oil float towards our shores through unnecessary deep-water drilling when we could be drilling on dry land.
Yes, the president is correct when he calls for the need to use more alternative energy sources. Some of these may, in the long-term, actually be more efficient than the use of oil and be more readily accessible. However, until then, we would be wise to tap our God-given resources in the safest of areas first before we go drilling more than a mile beneath the ocean for the same fuel that is available on dry land.
Therefore, if we’re tossing all the blame towards BP for this catastrophic oil spill, then we’re ignoring other perpetrators. The reason BP and other oil companies are drilling 40-plus miles off the shoreline and more than a mile deep is because of the stranglehold that environmentalists have held on politicians and their resulting energy policies for decades.
Let’s use some common sense. Drill first on land, then in water. It’s really not that difficult.
Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest. He can be reached at stafko@msn.com.

The President’s Oil Reserves Lie

The President’s Oil Reserves Lie

By Chad Stafko

Tuesday night, following a tour of the Gulf Coast area, the President of the United States addressed the nation regarding the state of the BP oil spill.  In his speech from the Oval Office, President Obama spoke regarding our nation’s dependence upon oil and how we need to break that dependence. 

During his speech, the President made a statement that was blatantly false.  The President noted, “We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserve.  And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean — because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”
We are not running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.  In fact, it is due to the President’s party of extreme environmentalists that BP had to drill some 40 miles from the coastline in deep waters to extract oil.  Imagine if this oil leak had happened in the shallow waters off of the East Coast or even, dare we say it, in the pristine ANWR region.  How much easier it would have been to cap the leak and clean up the oil.
Consider our nation’s vast oil reserve resources that are currently unavailable for use due to government ownership of the land or outright bans on drilling in certain areas.
According to a June 2008 article in Kiplinger Magazine, the United States has enough oil reserves to power the nation for upwards of three centuries.  That’s three-hundred years, Mr. President.  We are not running out of oil reserves, it’s just that those oil reserves have been declared off limits due to decades of environmental lobbying of our politicians, especially those on the Left.  This lobbying has driven the likes of BP and others out deep into the Gulf of Mexico to extract the nation’s needed oil.
Note the following statement from the article:
“…untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.”
Think about that.  The nations that currently hold us hostage by their massive oil production actually have far less reserves than our own nation.  Put another way, some of the very nations in which we are dependent upon oil are also the same nations that help to sponsor worldwide terrorism.  Were we to extract our own oil, it would make our nation and the world a safer place.  But, isn’t a spotted owl more important than the safety of the world?
Among the areas the article mentions are the oil shale located underneath land in Colorado, Wyoming, and in Utah.  These lands are federally protected, but they alone could provide about 200 years worth of oil for the nation.  Others mentioned include oil reserves located under Montana and some reserves located on protected lands in Texas, California, Utah, and Kentucky.
In fact, our own government has acknowledged the vast oil resources available to us.  In an April 2008 study conducted by the United States Geological Survey, the group began its press release with the following, “North Dakota and Montana have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil in an area known as the Bakken Formation.”
The report acknowledges that the available oil reserves could be much larger, but the 3.0 to 4.3 billion figure represents oil recoverable right now with today’s technology.  In fact, there may more than 100 billion barrels eventually recoverable with continued developments in the technology necessary to extract the oil.
Then there is the most famous government-blocked area of oil reserves, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuges (ANWR).  With 10 billion barrels available, ANWR is the most accessible of the major untapped oil reserve locations in the United States and claims are that this oil could be extracted in a way that would have minimal negative environmental impact. 
Yet, with all of these resources, here we sit, importing oil at a feverish pace and a significant portion of it from our enemies and those who support terrorist organizations around the world.  And, here we sit watching oil float towards our shores through unnecessary deep-water drilling when we could be drilling on dry land.
Yes, the President is correct when he calls for the need to use more alternative energy sources.  Some of these may, in the long-term, actually be more efficient than the use of oil and be more readily accessible.  However, until then we would be wise to tap our God-given resources in the safest of areas first before we go drilling more than a mile beneath the ocean for the same fuel that is available on dry land.
Therefore, if we’re tossing all the blame towards BP for this catastrophic oil spill then we’re ignoring other perpetrators.   The reason BP and other oil companies are drilling 40+ miles off the shoreline and more than a mile deep is because of the stranglehold that environmentalists have held on politicians and their resulting energy policies for decades.
Let’s use some common sense.  Drill first on land, then in water.  It’s really not that difficult.
Chad Stafko is a writer and political consultant living in the Midwest.  He can be reached at stafko@msn.com
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers