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  Furthermore, the Times reports, leases already granted on federal lands might be rescinded, adding insecurity to companies considering investing in oil shale development.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: at December 30, 2010 – 11:22:56 AM CST

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

Dear Employees:

 Dear Employees:

   As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the
fact that Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and
government fees will increase in a BIG way..
    To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to
increase by about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now
due to the dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of
our employees instead.
    This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family
here and I didn’t know how to choose who would have to go.
   So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and
found sixty ‘Obama’ bumper stickers on our employees’ cars and have
decided these folks will be the ones to let go.  I can’t think of a more
fair way to approach this problem.  They voted for change…… I gave
it to them.
    I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

Record oil prices speculation-driven, not supply: Opec

Record oil prices speculation-driven, not supply: Opec

Posted online: Friday , January 04, 2008 at 0003 hrs

Jan 3 Opec is not responsible for soaring oil prices and will only consider boosting output when it meets on February 1 if there’s a supply shortage, group members said on Thursday after prices reached a record $100 a barrel on Wednesday.

Libya and Qatar said the price was driven by unrest in the Middle East and Africa and by investors buying commodities and oil as a hedge against inflation caused by the decline of the US dollar. The 13-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) has no effect on the price, the countries said.

“Oil consumers should stop passing on the buck to Opec,” Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya’s National Oil Corp, said by phone from Tripoli on Thursday.

“If they want to ease the impact of high oil prices on the economy, they should cut their taxes on energy, take action to reduce the tension in Iraq and Iran, and invest more in petroleum production.” Prices are “more likely to increase and exceed $100, than they are to decrease,” he added.


Call for curb on speculators to stop oil hitting $150 a barrel