The Conservative Papers » Oil

Obama’s Giveaway: Oil-Rich Islands to Russia

kalel — Fri, 04 May 2012 07:23:08 +0000

Exclusive: Joe Miller sounds alarm over deal to put land in hands of Putin’s Kremlin

The Obama administration, despite the nation’s economic woes, effectively killed the job-producing Keystone Pipeline last month. The Arab Spring is turning the oil production of Libya and other Arab nations over to the Muslim Brotherhood. Iraq is distancing itself from the U.S. And everyone recognizes that Iran, whose crude supplies are critical to the European economy, will do anything it can to frustrate America’s strategic interests. In the face of all of this, Obama insists on cutting back U.S. oil potential with outrageous restrictions.

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.

Now is the time for the Obama administration to stand up for U.S. and Alaskan rights and invaluable resources. The State Department’s maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return for giving up Alaska’s sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.

The Obama administration must stop the giveaway immediately.

Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action. Consequently, it is within the president’s power to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable. State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration and is currently confronting the Obama administration — and has been met by silence. I’m hoping this piece will help reinvigorate efforts to stop this handover.

Joe Miller was the 2010 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate from Alaska. He is a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran from the first Gulf War. A former judge, Joe graduated from Yale Law School and was later awarded an advanced economics degree from the University of Alaska. He is presently chairman of Restoring Liberty Alaska PAC and Restoring Liberty Action Committee. Follow Joe at Facebook and Twitter.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Newt: If this goes to the convention I can win

kalel — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:42:09 +0000

Newt says that if Romney can be stopped and this primary goes to the convention, he believes that he can indeed win the nomination:

Phase one has to be stopping Romney because the fact is if he gets 1,144 vote, he’s the nominee, fair and square — it’s over.

On the other hand, if as voters look at this — as happened last week, for example in Mississippi and in Alabama, as happened the previous week in Kansas — if people say, no, they don’t want Romney, then I think you get to a situation after June 26 where there is a 60-day conversation.

Santorum won’t have a majority, I won’t have a majority, Romney won’t, Ron Paul won’t — if that’s what happens, then we will have a real conversation about who can best beat Barack Obama. I think that most Republicans agree that if the key is to debate the president – he will have a billion-dollar campaign fund. If the key is who can take him on head to head, I think I am proving every day with this energy campaign, that I can take on Obama, that I can design strategies that put him in a huge disadvantage.

Here’s the full interview:

Source: therightscoop.comPopular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

The Obama Oil Embargo

kalel — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:52:32 +0000

From canceling oil leases in his second week in office to denying the XL Pipeline this year President Obama and his administration have offered up a non-stop assault on affordable energy. Now that high gasoline prices have come home to roost, the president is flailing around for an energy policy.

His recent attempts at energy policy include:

Nobody can do anything about high gasoline prices.
Maybe I should release crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
There is a lot of drilling that I haven’t been able to stop. Don’t I get credit for that?

The latest attempt is to blame everything on speculators. And why not? Previous polling shows that 80 percent of Americans believe petroleum price spikes are caused by speculation, which means no more than 20 percent believe it is caused by the fundamentals of supply and demand.

There are several flaws in “the speculators did it” theory. The first is why do they only do it occasionally? That is, why don’t speculators want to make unconscionable profits all the time?

Second, why do the index funds and all the other bad guys only speculate in oil? Where are the profiteering speculators in natural gas, whose current price is about half of what it averaged over the last decade?

Third, there are sophisticated traders on both sides of the petroleum markets. For every speculator who makes money on a trade, somebody else will lose money. Blaming speculators on continued price increases requires an endless string of chumps to take the other side of the speculators’ deals. If anybody should be the chumps, it should be the newbies from the insurance industry and hedge funds, but they are at the top of the most-wanted list.

Finally, for speculation to drive up prices, the speculators must either cause oil production to slow down (which they haven’t) or to pull oil off the market. If the flow of petroleum and its products remains unchanged, the price at the pump will not change. If petroleum is pulled off the market, which can happen even though there are limits to what can be stored, it will eventually come back on the market. And the question becomes, “When the oil comes back on the market, is the price higher or lower than when it was pulled off the market?” The price will only be higher if the amount supplied at that time is lower or the demand is higher. In either of those cases, speculators have helped moderate price fluctuations and will be rewarded with profits. If the price is lower, then the speculators did a bad thing and will be punished by losing money.

The real problem is that combating high gasoline prices requires a greater supply, and this administration’s policies have pushed the other way. It seems the administration does not really want lower gasoline prices. Steven Chu, Obama’s non-car-owning Secretary of Energy, famously said we need to get our gasoline prices up to the $8-$10/gallon level they are in Europe.

Unfortunately for the president, the voters want more gasoline and lower prices. So, in the time-honored Washington tradition, he creates a boogeyman and blames his energy failures on speculators.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Gas Prices Grow More Under Obama than Carter

alpineski — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 05:48:31 +0000

Marking the similarities between President Barack Obama’s time in office and former president Jimmy Carter’s is nothing new. But as of Monday, Obama has hit one more Carter benchmark – both saw gas prices double in their first term of office.

In fact, while just barely, Obama has seen an even higher gas price increase than Carter dealt with under his administration.

Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.

The National Republican Congressional Committee called attention to Obama’s recent “dishonorable distinction,” blaming the Democrats’ rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline as a major factor for skyrocketing gas prices.Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Israeli-US Air, Naval Forces Train for Energy War

kalel — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 07:29:18 +0000

Israeli, Greek and U.S. forces are in the midst of a drill in preparation for a possible war over Israel’s huge off-shore gas discoveries, which also may contain commercializable oil. Lebanon and Hizbullah have claimed the fields are in Lebanese territory and that they will “defend” the area against drilling by Israel.

IAF F-16

The week-long drill is simulating air-to-air combat and anti-submarine warfare and is taking place off the coast of Turkey, possibly signaling it not to interfere with Israeli energy operations in the Mediterranean Sea. The “enemy” forces will be similar to those of the Turkish air force, according to the Defencenet.gr website.

Joint exercises also will take place off the coast of Cyprus and at the port in Haifa, with the participation of the famed U.S. Sixth Fleet.

The United States and Israel also are preparing for a massive “Austere Challenge” exercise this summer involving thousands of soldiers from both countries.

Last week, a one-day drill included Israeli soldiers operating the Arrow, the Patriot, Hawk, Stinger, and Iron Dome batteries defense systems, according to DefenseProfessionals.com.

“The ability of the formation to bring together all the defense systems is amazing”, said U.S. Army Col. Stephen Richmond, head of the 10th Army Air and Missile Defense Command. “I’m very impressed with the capabilities presented here,” he was quoted as saying.

Russia is keeping a wary eye on the American-Israeli exercises and is staging its own war drill in a Syrian port, according to DEBKAfile. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned this week against a pre-emptive strike, which he said would violate international law.

A Russian guided missile destroyer reportedly sailed to the Syrian port of Tartus for an exercise with what DEBKAfile said is three-fold message for the United States that Moscow is supplying Syrian President Bashar Assad with defense systems, that the Russian and Iranian support of Assad will continue and that the deployment of the warship illustrates Moscow’s ability for a rapid response to foreign maneuvers.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Sugarcane Ethanol in Brazil: Innovative & Sustainable

alpineski — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:07:01 +0000

Brazil has achieved greater energy security thanks to its focused commitment to developing a competitive sugarcane industry and making ethanol a key part of its energy mix. In fact, Brazil has replaced more than half of its gasoline needs with sugarcane ethanol – making gasoline the alternative fuel. Many observers point to Brazil’s experience as a case study for other nation’s seeking to expand use of renewable fuels.

The Brazilian Success Story

The country first began using ethanol in vehicles as early as the 1920s, and the trend gained urgency during the oil shock of the 1970s. But, sugarcane ethanol’s popularity took off in 2003 with the introduction of flex fuel vehicles that run on either gasoline (which in Brazil also includes 20%-25% ethanol) or pure ethanol. More than 90% of new cars sold today in Brazil are flex fuel, and these vehicles now make up about half of the country’s entire light vehicle fleet – a remarkable accomplishment in less than a decade.

As a result, Brazilian consumers have a choice at the pump when they fuel their cars and most are choosing the sweeter alternative – sugarcane ethanol. Since 2008, total ethanol sales surpassed that of gasoline in Brazil, making gasoline the alternative fuel in the country and providing Brazilians with a more secure energy future.

To meet this rising demand for food and energy, the Brazilian sugarcane industry harvests over 600 billion tons of sugarcane each year using only about 2.9% of the country’s arable land. Maximizing that raw material, the industry produces 38 million metric tons of refined “table” sugar annually; seven billion gallons of ethanol; and enough electricity to power about 3% of Brazil’s needs.

All told, sugarcane is the number one renewable energy source in Brazil, supplying one-sixth of the country’s total energy requirements. Besides its diverse and secure energy matrix, the benefits of Brazil’s sugarcane program include:

Reduced Emissions – Environmental officials estimate the use of sugarcane ethanol in Brazil has reduced that country’s greenhouse gas emissions by some 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide since 1975.
Greater Economic Growth – Economists estimate that Brazil’s total economic output is 35% higher today than it would have been without the country’s focus on diversified energy production – from offshore oil to sugarcane ethanol production.

Relevance to the United States
Sugarcane ethanol could help reduce America’s dependence on oil from the Middle East, while helping to protect our environment.

By comparison, Brazil and the U.S. have both invested significantly in ethanol for more than 30 years. During that time, Brazil has diversified its energy options, eliminated its dependence on imported gasoline and cut government ethanol subsidies. Even though the U.S. is the world’s largest ethanol producer, it has only replaced less than 10% of America’s gasoline needs.

Sugarcane biofuels have the potential to reshape the world energy markets. More than 100 countries grow sugarcane, including the U.S., and many could repeat Brazil’s successful model. There’s room for growth as well. According to estimates by the U.N. Food Agricultural Organization (FAO), only 10% of the world’s land that is available and suitable for cane production is actually used for sugarcane cultivation.

(SOURCE)Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

You Can’t Fast Track Keystone XL by Denying Its Application

kalel — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:01:12 +0000

Several news outlets are reporting that President Obama will call for expediting the permitting process for southern part of the Keystone XL pipeline when he visits Cushing, Oklahoma, this week. Expediting the permitting process for a part of the pipeline is great, and the quicker we can move forward with Keystone the better, but can it really be considered expediting if the project should have already been approved?

The answer is no. President Obama rejected the original permit application for Keystone XL submitted by TransCanada. The entire pipeline project spans 1,700 miles and would bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to the U.S. The southern part of the pipeline, now called the Gulf Coast Project, does not require a presidential permit because it does not cross international borders. It only requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and nothing has changed with regards to this part of the project. It’s the same route TransCanada submitted to the State Department in 2008.

In other words, the President’s decision to reject the permit application has already unnecessarily slowed the process. It was the environmental activists’ relentless opposition to Keystone that persuaded President Obama to deny the permit application. In doing so, he blamed others for forcing him to take a decision, saying, “This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people.”

But the review by the State Department was thorough and complete. It studied and addressed risk to soil, wetlands, water resources, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and endangered species. Keystone XL also met 57 specific pipeline safety standard requirements..

Some of the concern of environmentalists and Nebraska residents has focused on the original route of the pipeline, particularly the area where the pipeline would cross the Ogallala Aquifer and the state’s Sand Hills region. Nebraska already has miles of natural gas, crude, refined products, and petrochemical pipelines crossing the state’s purportedly sensitive Ogallala Aquifer, including pipelines in the Sand Hills region.

Even so, if President Obama were sincere in his support of the pipeline, he could have approved the permit and allowed TransCanada and Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality to work on a reroute to satisfy landowners and state officials in Nebraska.

Furthermore, if President Obama were sincerely supportive of the pipeline, he would not have personally lobbied Senate Democrats to vote against an amendment that would have authorized construction of the entire pipeline.

Expediting the southern portion of Keystone XL is good because it will create jobs immediately and move oil from Cushing to the Gulf Coast as soon as 2013. But because of President Obama’s decision to reject Keystone’s permit application last year, we’re already behind. The President’s attempt to satisfy those upset about high gas prices while catering to his special interest groups isn’t going to cut it.Popular Posts:

Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Obama Wrong Again: Drilling Advocates Are ‘Founding Members of the Flat Earth Society’

kalel — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:04:02 +0000

President Barack Obama speaks in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 13, 2012. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

(CNSNews.com) – Besieged by poor approval ratings amid escalating gas prices, President Barack Obama compared supporters of increased drilling and critics of green energy subsidies with those who believed in a flat Earth that wanted to be stuck in the past.

Obama, speaking Thursday at Prince George’s Community College in Largo, Md., said that is in contrast to his vision for the future of an energy-independent America. Though this was an official presidential event, it had the flavor of a campaign event as he referenced Republican presidential candidates several time.

“Lately, we’ve heard a lot of professional politicians, a lot of the folks who are running for a certain office who shall go unnamed, they’ve been talking down new sources of energy,” Obama said. “They dismiss wind power. They dismiss solar power. They make jokes about biofuels. They were against raising fuel standards. I guess they like gas-guzzlers. They think that’s good for our future. We’re trying to move towards the future; they want to be stuck in the past.

“We’ve heard this kind of thinking before. Let me tell you something. If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society,” the president said to laughter.

“They would not have believed that the world was round. We’ve heard these folks in the past. They probably would have agreed with one of the pioneers of the radio who said, ‘Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.’ One of Henry Ford’s advisors was quoted as saying, ‘The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a fad,’” Obama said.

The invention of TV and invention of the automobile were not government subsidized as companies like the bankrupt solar panel firm Solyndra, and the bankrupt green battery maker Ener1, among other green energy companies that filed for bankruptcy after getting millions in subsidies from the federal government.

On Thursday, the national average price of gas was $3.82 per gallon for regular unleaded, according to AAA.

A New York Times/CBS News poll this week found Obama had a 41 percent approval rating, largely attributed to his handling of gas prices.

The American Petroleum Institute has called for the administration to rescind an East Coast offshore drilling moratorium, allow drilling in deep water in the Atlantic, which would allow for exploration along the West Coast and give companies access to the coastal plains of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The government has delayed drilling permits for offshore Alaska, despite leases being made available, according to the API.

“The administration says its policies have supported more development and that oil production is rising, but most of today’s production increases relate to projects begun before it came into office as well as to what is happening on state and private lands,” said Erik Milito, API’s group director for Upstream and Industry Operations, in a written statement. “Moreover, from 2009 to 2011, production from federal lands and federal waters combined declined significantly for both oil and natural gas.”

Obama went on to subtly reference GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s pledge to bring gas prices down to $2.50 per gallon.

“Every time prices start to go up – especially in an election year – politicians dust off their 3-point plans for $2.00 gas. I guess this year they decided, we’re going to make it $2.50,” Obama said. “I don’t know where – why not $2.40? Why not $2.10? But they tell the same story. They head down to the gas station; they make sure a few cameras are following them and then they start acting like we’ve got a magic wand and we will give you cheap gas forever if you just elect us.”

Again claiming he supports an “all of the above” strategy, he said domestic drilling has dramatically increased during his administration.

“We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made energy,” Obama said. “Yes, develop as much oil and gas as we can, but also develop wind power and solar power and biofuels. Make our buildings more fuel-efficient. Make our homes more fuel-efficient. Make our cars and trucks more fuel-efficient so they get more miles for the gallon.”Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

[Symposium on] The U.S. and Israel

kalel — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:20:58 +0000

by Daniel Pipes
March 6, 2012
Cross-posted from National Review Online: The Corner

With Washington, D.C., talking Israeli politics, National Review Online asked experts: “Going into a presidential-election year, what’s a sane, responsible Israel policy?” For the responses of the other eight respondents, click here.

Two premises shape my preferred U.S. policy toward Israel.

Negatively, the two countries have the same enemies and suffer from the same problems coming out of the Middle East, notably WMD, wars, terrorism, piracy, anarchy, tyranny, refugees, drug trafficking, counterfeiting, oil and gas disruptions, extremist ideologies, conspiracy theories, etc. More than that: they share enemies. Anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are first cousins, with one usually leading to the other.

Truman and Ben Gurion, with Abba Eban between them: Where it all began.

Positively, judging by such criteria as United Nations votes, bilateral commerce, intelligence cooperation, military alliance, intellectual influence, religious bonds, shared values, the U.S.-Israel bond is arguably the closest international tie in the world, making it what I call “the family relationship of international politics.” One revealing symptom: the two states can barely restrain themselves from interfering in each other’s affairs.

Together, these negatives and positives point to a self-evident policy conclusion: cooperate, seek synergy, work toward shared goals. Contra Obama, avoid daylight between the leaderships. Deal with differences quietly and effectively. Announce to all that the two governments agree on fundamentals and will not be divided.

Try this and see how existing problems, from the Iranian nuclear buildup to the Arab upheavals, start to look less formidable. (March 6, 2012)Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Source material can be found at this site.

Join the forum discussion on this post

Impact of Gas Price Increases

alpineski — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 05:03:36 +0000

In many of the Southern States, with a significant population of service-industry and agricultural sector workers earning wages at around the $8.75 – $10 per hour mark, the impact of rising gas prices is causing a large number to quit their jobs and file for unemployment or seek other types of State assistance.

Many of those who were just about making it from paycheck to paycheck when gas was in the high $2.90s are now finding that the additional $0.65 – $0.80 per gallon is that pivotal point when they would actually be better off drawing unemployment.

Here in coastal SC, with an economy that is substantially supported by the hospitality sector as well as major hospitals, many employers are faced with increasing numbers of employees “calling out” and “no shows” for duty shifts because the worker can’t afford the daily gas fill-up.

Many folks face a daily round trip of 50+ miles to get to and from their jobs. At 2-gallons per work-day that’s $1.60 per day x 6 days = almost $10 per week that “doesn’t exist” in their paychecks. That’s not factoring in the additional cost of food and household basics which inevitably reflect increased costs of distribution.

If gas continues to escalate as predicted then this trend of “forced unemployment” will only get worse.

Not thirty minutes ago did I catch a local news item where it was reported that most lower paid folks – mainly women as single heads-of-household – would actually be better off financially by filing for unemployment which, with other forms of assistance, would net them $75 – $125 MORE per week as compared with their average paycheck!

Another interesting consequence of increased gas costs and all that entails… a marked reduction of cable-tv Premium Service subscribers who are scaling back their “menus” with many settling for basic service in an endeavor to cover their monthly $40 – $60 per month “gas gap”.
Popular Posts:

Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)