The Coming EPA War on American Energy

It is the calm before the storm election. 

Maybe "calm" isn't the right word.  Have you seen the photos of the Romney rallies?  This one is from Pennsylvania today:

It looks rather like folks in Pennsylvania might have heard about Obama's new EPA agenda.

Certainly everyone in coal country should pay attention to this unleashed EPA.  The agenda is just chilling and is certain to doom the American economy for good. 

From Forbes:

Titled “A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013: Numerous Obama EPA Rules Placed on Hold Until After the Election Spell Doom For Jobs and Economic Growth”, it lists and describes new rules concocted over the past year ranging from additional restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, tougher water guidelines and tightening of the ozone standard. Taken together, they will further drive up pump prices, impose construction bans on local communities, and cripple oil, natural gas and coal production.

In sum, Larry Bell outlines what we can expect:

Greenhouse gas regulations will be so regulated as to basically eliminate coal.  The emissions standards will apply to even the smallest church, school, and farm.  "The cow tax" will apply to some 37,000 farms and affect 90% of the livestock population in the United States.

(Think that'll drive up your food and energy prices much?)

There's more:

The EPA is just one of some fourteen bureaucracies working to regulate and eliminate hydraulic fracking.  The EPA will dramatically expand the Clean Water Act and increase regulatory burdens on the states.  There will also be an expansion of regulations on storm-water systems which will require expensive retrofitting on storm water sewers and severely increase the cost of future development.  New gasoline regulations will limit the amount of sulfur in gasoline which Bell says will add at least nine cents per gallon to your gas bill.

Add to this list the Boiler MACT:

EPA’s Boiler MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas. The rule has been projected to reduce U.S. GDP by as much as 1.2 billion dollars and destroy nearly 800,000 jobs.

Can't wait to see what THAT does to the unemployment numbers.

There's also a "Cement MACT" which could close 18 plants and cost 80,000 jobs.

Read Bell's article because there are many more regulations there including the infamous Farm Dust regulations and cooling tower regulations.

If just half of these kick in we are still in a world of trouble.

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air:

 Coal miners and coal powered plants already have a big problem, as we have pointed out repeatedly. But it looks like those problems may grow by several orders of magnitude in the coming months if the current White House occupant remains in office. The President has already been seen to bristle at criticism from his own Left flank over how he hasn’t done enough for the environmentalists who can’t understand why the oil companies are still in business four years later. Unrestrained by the need to win another election – having a lot more “flexibility,” as you might hear from Vladimir – these folks can really run amok.

Even the most far left liberal has to see that these regulations will be the death of American business and energy development.  We must have a strong petroleum industry and this will never happen under these expensive and burdensome regulations.  You can't fill your gas tank with wind, and you can't charge your electric car without electricity (which relies, of course, on coal).  Our power grid is already strained and in trouble. 

We can't afford another term of Obama unleashed.

(H/T:  Hot Air)

Governor Jindal Has Some National Energy Suggestions for Obama

In his weekly address, Obama attempted to perpetuate the myth that he is trying to bring down gas prices and make your life easier:

“I’m going to keep doing everything I can to help you save money on gas, both right now and in the future,” Obama said. “I hope politicians from both sides of the aisle join me.”

He myopically says "we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices," leaving the impression that his pet green energy projects are our only answer; that and to quit using so much oil.

If he is sincere in reaching across the aisle to lower energy prices he might take a look at Governor Jindal's suggestions for a clear national energy policy.

In Monday's Wall Street Journal, Jindal outlines an energy policy driven by opening drilling fields, a more rational tax code, and reversing "a series of cabinet-level decisions that are at odds with a strategy of affordable domestic energy production." 

Governor Jindal refers to Steven Chu, for example, who advocated raising gasoline prices to European levels.

Additionally, Jindal calls for Obama to approve the Keystone pipeline:

Finally, the president should announce today that he's going to reverse his decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. This pipeline would produce 20,000 construction jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs, and it would provide a much-needed transportation line between oil refineries along our Gulf Coast and production facilities in Canada, not to mention the booming Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota. Our friends to the north have been reliable and steadfast trading partners, and the president should be making this pipeline decision on policy grounds instead of cheap political appeals to his liberal base.

While Obama would like to have us believe he is trying to lower gas prices and claims that drilling is at an all time high, Jindal disagrees:

While the president is quick to tell anyone who will listen that domestic oil production is higher today than at any time since 2003, that's not the whole story. The truth is that today's production levels are not based on anything this president has done, but on the decisions made by private companies before he took office. And much of this production is taking place on private land.

Even Mary Landrieu understands this.  Obama's claim is disingenuous. 

Jindal spoke about this last month in attempting to explain the slow permitting process in the Gulf.   Permits are still lagging and people down south are hurting. 

It's clear there is much this president could do to lower energy prices and in turn boost the American economy yet instead he has opted to prop up failing green energy companies, threaten us with cap and trade, and use increasingly stringent EPA regulations to shut down coal power plants. 

That's not a national energy policy; that's an economy crippling plan sure to drive investors away and put the burden on the average American consumer.

How Long Before the EnviroWackos Come Out on This One?

Not long at all, actually, as indicated in the comments following the article.

Plans to construct a $220 million pipeline that will transport gasoline and diesel from the Valero St. Charles Refinery in Norco to a pipeline hub 139 miles away in Mississippi are on track to begin this summer, company officials said last week. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, a Houston pipeline transportation and energy storage company that has about 550 employees in Louisiana, announced last September that it would build and operate the pipeline in a joint venture with Valero Energy Corp.

The proposed pipeline will cross Lake Pontchartrain which is making some people nervous. 

And anytime you say "wetlands" people get nervous:

The pipeline, expected to be in service by 2013, will have an initial capacity of 110,000 barrels per day, with the ability to expand to more than 200,000 barrels per day. The anticipated impact in the Louisiana coastal zone, a 5.3 million-acre area that includes 40 percent of the nation's coastal wetlands, involves the excavation of about 24 acres of wetlands and uplands and 38 acres of water bottoms.

I guess Darryl Hannah will appear any time now.

Maybe we'll get lucky and the libs won't hear about this one.

Gas Prices Are Rising and Obama is Sticking With Solar

In a speech last week at a New Hampshire community college, Obama called for an end to subsidies for oil companies:

“You can either stand up for the oil companies, or you can stand up for the American people,” Mr. Obama said. “You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean-energy future.” 

Wow.

I bet that makes folks down on the Gulf coast feel all nice and fuzzy.

While I've never been a big fan of Senator Mary Landrieu, she does at least understand the problems down on the Gulf with regard to drilling and the Obama moratorium (via Hot Air):

I want to say that, despite the Administration’s arguments that are laid out, that you all are all guns blaring and green lights for drilling, the facts that I checked, and if you disagree tell me, only 21 permits for offshore drilling have been issued by this date. In 2010 there were 32 permits. I just left the annual conference of LOGA, which is Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, Mr. Secretary, yesterday. They are beside themselves with not being able to get their permits processed and to answer you, Mr. Franken, let me just say Exxon and Shell may be making record profits but according to a study recently done by the Greater New Orleans, Inc., 41% of our oil and gas independent operators and service companies, I’m not talking about Exxon and Shell that have operations all over the world, I’m talking about companies in the Gulf Coast, in Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. Let me tell you what the studies show about their profits: 41% of them are not making a profit at all, 70% have lost significant cash reserves, 46 have moved operations away from the Gulf, and 82% of business owners have lost personal savings as a result of this slow down.

There's more at the link, including video, but suffice to say that the folks down south are hurting.   I guess it is their misfortune that they are sitting on millions of gallons of oil rather than having the foresight to open a solar panel company, get a loan from the government, and go broke that way.

Either way, they lose.

With an end to subsidies, your price at the pump will necessarily go up:

The CRS [Congressional Research Service] says there are two ways of looking at the impact of the tax increases: 1) They will increase gasoline prices and dependence on foreign oil; or 2) They will and should increase gasoline prices, because gasoline is “artificially inexpensive.”

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) gave the GOP response today with a focus on energy exploration:

“Though the president now claims to support ‘all-of-the-above,’ he has consistently blocked American energy production, most recently by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. In addition to that, he has restricted drilling in offshore areas while encouraging other countries, including Brazil, to expand their own exploration. And while the president says oil production alone can’t solve our problems, his administration has proposed costly regulations that would hurt the supply of other domestic sources. Instead of placing his bet on American-made energy and the workers who produce it, President Obama has wasted taxpayer dollars on Solyndra and other unproven technologies.

But, Obama's plan is to stick with solar.   We'll see how that works out for him.  I mean, the last time I checked, my car ran on gasoline.

I guess I could always get a Volt.  Or maybe not.

The Spin Begins

My mother said to me the other day, "I'll be so glad when this election is OVER!  It seems like it's been going on for a year!"

I hate to tell her, but it hasn't even started yet.  We've only been dealing with the Republican primary so far.  Just wait until the general election! 

True, Obama has been campaigning for re-election since 2008, but only now are we beginning to see general election 2012 ads cropping up on television.

I've even seen a few "Obama 2012" stickers on a couple of cars in town.  Whenever I see those bumper stickers I just can't fathom it.  Given this man's record, how can anyone still support him?  I tried to get Mr. SIGIS to explain it to me but he couldn't.

It's true that much of the population depends on the liberal mainstream media to inform them.  Much of the general population just doesn't care - they hate politics and politicians and will vote however their editorial page tells them to vote.  In truth, the number of political junkies like me (and you - you're reading this, aren't you?) are much lower in number than those who just vote blindly.

Yet still.  Consider Obama's first campaign ad.  Investor's Business Daily fact checks the energy statements in the ad:

The Obama re-election campaign is already shaping up as the most deceitful in American electoral history. "For the first time in 13 years our dependence on foreign oil is below 50%," the commercial declares, accompanied by goose-bumpy music.

Major economic downturns, in fact, unfailingly produce declines in oil imports. And so do higher gas prices — which went from an average of less than $2 a gallon at the time Obama took office to nearly $4 in the middle of last year and remain well above $3 today.

How could gasoline demand not drop with so many people out of work, businesses dying and jittery investors sitting on a trillion dollars?

Of course "our dependence on foreign oil" is lower.  It's not because we're producing more domestically; we're not.  It's because of the reasons stated above.

This is typical Obama spin.

It's sort of like saying "You will be able to keep your doctor," when ObamaCare was rammed down our throats.  Sure, you'll be able to keep him as long as he's able to stay in practice but once ObamaCare really kicks in, he will probably pack his little black bag and fade into the sunset.  Either that or he'll be so backlogged behind the deluge of patients waiting to see a doctor, any doctor, that you'll be a distant memory.

Deceitful.

"Oh," but you say, "All politicians do that!"  And I won't argue that to some degree.  I take issue with those as well.

Consider this from ABC News:

Turning to the economy, the ad hails “2.7 million Clean-Energy American Jobs,” citing a July report from the Brookings Institution, the suggestion being that Obama deserves credit for the employment in those industries.

But the Brookings report does not claim Obama created or maintained those jobs, just that 2.7 million exist in that sector – which encompasses a diverse array of roles and industries, including all of the nation’s mass transit workers (e.g. bus drivers).

But who's going to read the fine print?

Get ready for a long campaign, Mom.  The lies and the spin are here to stay.  I just hope voters care enough to decipher them and read between the lines.  From both sides of the aisle.

The Keystone Kops Would Run America's Energy Policy Better Than Obama

There's been much written in the past few days about Obama's disastrous Keystone decision.  There is little doubt that Obama is simply punting on this decision and attempting to appeal to his environmental base.  The thing you need to know about the Keystone decision is that the environmental threat doesn't exist and that Obama's own DOS cleared the way for it to go forward.

Jonah Goldberg:

The environmentalists to which Obama is pandering have an understandable, if at times irrational, fear of oil spills and a religious faith in the dangers of global warming. The only problem is that blocking the pipeline will, if anything, increase the likelihood of oil spills because Canada will still bring the oil to market.

The project has been studied for three years (much longer than the Solyndra bailout took) and to be sure would not be a project that creates new pipeline over virgin territory:

The Keystone pipeline had already been essentially cleared by environmental bureaucrats. Adding the pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf wouldn’t scar some pristine wilderness; it would be more like adding just one more string to a spider web, given how many pipelines already crisscross the region.

Take a good look at this map that shows all the pipelines running through the Ogallala Aquifer.

That's some 21,000 miles of pipeline there.  Jonah Goldberg again:

Opponents say it would threaten the groundwater in Nebraska, where some 21,000 miles of pipeline already exist. But, as the American Enterprise Institute’s Kenneth Green notes, any spilled oil would have to flow uphill to reach the Ogallala Aquifer.

So you've got three things going on here that are all now debunked.

The first is that the big evil Republicans imposed an arbitrary deadline on the president forcing him to decide prematurely.  Bunk:

The President’s claim that the State Department needs even more information before it can make a sound decision is equally ridiculous. State didn’t start reviewing the project last month when Congress set a sixty day deadline on making a decision. The review process has been going on for over three years now. The State Department has studied thousands of pages of detailed reports, data, maps and studies, and his issued thousands of pages of its own reports, including a massive eight volume environmental impact statement.

The President wants the public to believe that Congress imposed an arbitrary, impossibly short deadline on it. In fact, what Congress did was force the administration to end the years of dithering and an actual decision for a change. The President had more than enough information to make the right decision, but – sadly and all too predictably – he choose to appease the environmental fringe once more.

The second fallacy is that this pipeline would cross virgin territory and threaten previously unspoiled ground.  Bunk. Look at the maps.

The third fallacy is that the administration needs more time and information.  Bunk again.  Obama's own State Department has already cleared the way for the pipeline to go forward:

DOS studied a number of alternative routes to minimize or completely avoid the pipeline crossing over Sand Hills. The department worked with the Bureau of Land Management and state agencies where the pipeline passes through and made more than 340 minor realignments to the pipeline route.

There is absolutely no reason to delay the entire project when DOS explicitly signed off on additional route variations that could occur throughout the construction process.

Clearly it is Obama, and not the Republicans, who are making this decision a political one.  In fact, Obama phoned Prime Minister Stephen Harper to explain that the merits of the project were not the issue but that the evil Republicans are:

Obama called Prime Minister Stephen Harper to explain that the decision on Wednesday was not on the merits of the pipeline but rather on the “arbitrary nature” of a Feb. 21 deadline set by Republican legislators as part of a tax measure he signed, Harper’s office said.

Canada will grow weary of Obama's shenanigans and turn to China:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”

The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.

Why not?  Brazil already has:

Less than a month after President Obama visited Brazil in March to make a pitch for oil, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was off to Beijing to sign oil contracts with two huge state-owned Chinese companies.

The deals are part of a growing oil relationship between the two countries that, thanks to a series of billion-dollar agreements, is giving China greater influence over Brazil’s oil frontier.

Obama has made it perfectly clear that he's not interested in developing United States energy reserves.

Mark Whittington:

Obama's policy in regard to oil and gas has been a study in incompetence driven by an ideological mania against hydrocarbon fuel in favor of more politically correct forms of energy production. This has not only led to what amounts to a campaign against oil and gas production in the U.S., but embarrassing scandals such as Solyndra, brought on by unwise federal loan guarantees to dubious green energy companies. 

This is occurring at a time when Iran is threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz through which much of the world's oil passes from Persian Gulf fields. The very threat has led to a spike in the price of oil and of gasoline. 

Between shutting down the industry in the Gulf of Mexico for months, killing hundreds of jobs and auxiliary small businesses that go along with that, and now the Keystone decision, it's clear that Obama would rather tilt at windmills and solar panels.

So now we don't get Canada's oil, we don't get Brazil's oil, and we're stymied at nearly every turn in trying to get to our own oil  (When's the last time you saw a rig in ANWR?).

Unbelievable.

(Photo/Map credit:  PennWell MAPSearch)

Coming Up: Rolling Blackouts

Drudge is all afire over the coming rolling blackouts that will likely happen as a result of Obama's pledge to bankrupt the coal fired power plants.

Man, he said out loud what he was going to do and people voted for him anyway.  Nobody that voted for Obama has the right to utter one single solitary complaint when their electricity cuts off for several hours.  When it's 108 outside and it's your turn for your power shut down, just sit there and chant "Yes, we can...." over and over.  Hope 'n change, baby.

Funny.  Wikipedia defines "rolling blackouts" this way:

Rolling blackouts are a common or even a normal daily event in many developing countries where electricity generation capacity is underfunded or infrastructure is poorly managed. Rolling blackouts in developed countries are rare because demand is accurately forecasted, adequate infrastructure investment is scheduled and networks are well managed; such events are considered an unacceptable failure to plan and can cause significant political damage to responsible governments. In well managed under-capacity systems blackouts are scheduled in advance and advertised to allow people to work around them but in most cases they happen without warning, typically whenever the transmission frequency falls below the 'safe' limit. Due to the shortage of electricity, load shedding is extremely common in India.

We are now a "developing country."

And when you do have power it will cost you more.

The state of Texas is not a bit happy about the impending blackouts (emphasis mine):

The critical importance of electric generation adequacy was brought home as the Texas PUC was finalizing these comments. On August 2 and 3, 2011, temperatures across most of Texas ranged from 105 to 111 degrees. Because of the unseasonably hot weather, the ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) region of Texas set a new peak demand record of 68,294 MW, blowing through the 2010 record of 65,776 MW. Although ERCOT avoided the need for rolling outages because of its current electric reserves, the ERCOT grid operated very close to its capacity. It is clear that, had the EPA rules discussed in these comments been in effect, Texans would have experienced rolling outages and the risk of massive load curtailment. Our modern economy depends upon a reliable source of electricity, and outages, rolling or otherwise, cost Texans millions of dollars.

How are the elderly and infirm supposed to deal with rolling blackouts in 110 degree heat?

Hell, we had a transformer blow up in one of our suburbs recently and the repair time was initially estimated at 12 hours.  People began freaking out and demanding the the city open "cooling centers" and that they be allowed to take their pets along.

Ezra Klein links to a report which says this is all much ado about nothing.  Yes, he says, many coal power plants will shut down, but hey, they were archaic anyway!  No big deal!

The Congressional Research Service concedes that retrofitting these plants will be expensive and your energy bills will be higher but you'll benefit in the end with robust good health!

We are now living in a nanny-state third world country.  Stock up on generators and batteries.

Power Grids are Strained, Coal Plants Looking at Closure, Energy Costs to Soar, and Obama Wants Four More Years

Just because cap and trade never made it out of the Senate is no reason to think that Obama would drop his plans to bankrupt the coal industry and continue to push us toward green energy sources that don't yet exist.  We've got cap and trade by fiat now through the EPA.

The EPA came out a couple of weeks ago with the new guidelines and standards for coal fired power plants. 

As I noted at the time, Texas immediately recognized this for the problem that it is:

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, though, believes the rules "will result in significant increases in the cost of power as well as curtailment or shutdowns of existing coal-fired plants in Texas."   It said other sources of electricity will not compensate for that, especially given the January compliance date.

Jazz Shaw, writing at Hot Air, followed up on this with a post yesterday:

When these rules go into effect, a significant number of coal plants are either going to shut down – long term or permanently – and/or have to raise their utility rates dramatically to pay for these renovations which were sprung on them with virtually no notice. Other options include importing more electricity from out of state, but that again drives up costs and puts additional strain on the delivery infrastructure.

The mind jumps at first to all the jobs that will be "unexpectedly" lost when this all kicks in.  And then, if you live in Texas, you have to think about the exorbitant energy costs headed your way.

And what to make of the current heat wave?  Power grids are already strained across the country.  As Tina noted in the comments at my original post, Texas has its own power grid.  But, these new EPA rules, (i.e.: Cap and Trade by fiat) will strain that immeasurably.  Jazz Shaw points to this statement by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) (emphasis is mine):

ERCOT’s May11 report to the Public Utility Commission on the impact of the proposed environmental regulations did not address the impact of SO2 restrictions on coal plants in ERCOT because these restrictions on Texas were not included as part of the EPA’s earlier rule proposal.  We have not had time to fully analyze the entire 1,323-page Cross-State Rule released July 7 or to communicate with the generation owners regarding what their intentions will be.  However, initial implications are that the SO2 requirements for Texas added at the last stage of the rule development will have a significant impact on coal generation, which provided 40 percent of the electricity consumed in ERCOT in 2010.

In other words, these regulations were not something Texas saw coming and nobody has had time to prepare for them.  These regulations take effect early next year:

Our concern is that the timing of the new requirements – effective Jan. 1, 2012 – is unreasonable because it does not allow enough time to implement operational responses to ensure reliability.  We fear that many of the coal plants in ERCOT will be forced to limit or shut down operations in order to maintain compliance with the new rule, possibly leading to inadequate operating reserve margins with insufficient time to reliably retrofit existing generation or build new, replacement generation.  

What are people in Texas supposed to do?  Install windmills?  Solar panels? 

Texas Governor Rick Perry issued the following statement following the announcement of the new EPA regulations on July 7:

Today's EPA announcement is another example of heavy-handed and misguided action from Washington, D.C., that threatens Texas jobs and families and puts at risk the reliable and affordable electricity our state needs to succeed. From the attack on Texas' successful clean air program, to threatening endangered species listings in West Texas oil fields, to banning offshore energy exploration, the Obama Administration seems intent on increasing energy costs for American consumers and making us even more dependent on foreign energy.

It does indeed seem as if the Obama Administration is trying to raise energy costs, not just in Texas, but on all Americans.  In Louisiana there are still many people suffering through the permitorium and are unable to work or have lost their small business due to team Obama's refusal to grant drilling permits in the Gulf.

Four more years of this administration will kill America.  Period.  We can not stand four more years.  As it is, it will take the next decade or more to get us out of the mess we're in.  Four more years of Obama and we might as well turn out the lights.

If there are any left.

Obama Keeps Promise to Bankrupt Coal Power Plants

"If somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can.  It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

That was Barack Obama in 2008.

Today, the E.P.A. has issued new guidelines and standards for coal fired plants effective in in early 2012.

Texas is not happy:

Texas argues that the new rules would require massive improvements to old power plants, changes that would end up costing consumers more money. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's regulatory agency, also questions the science upon which the EPA has built its rules.

"Technically speaking, this rule is another example of EPA fabricating a scenario in order to justify its actions," TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw said on June 30 when he testified before Congress about this and other federal rules.

"This rule ... puts at risk the economic future of power generation and those dependent on affordable electricity in Texas," Shaw added, saying the expensive improvements he believes would be needed would hurt elderly and low-income residents whose "health and welfare" depend on reliable energy.

Texas has 19 coal fired plants.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity explains the problem, via the New York Times:

“The E.P.A. is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulations will cause,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a group of coal-burning utilities. “America’s coal-fueled electric industry has been doing its part for the environment and the economy, but our industry needs adequate time to install clean coal technologies to comply with new regulations. Unfortunately, E.P.A. doesn’t seem to care.”

An industry-financed study found that new air pollution rules would cost tens of thousands of jobs and raise electricity rates by more than 20 percent in some parts of the country. 

I am hard pressed to recall a more jobs-killing-administration than this one.

The Permitorium in the Gulf Persists

In case you missed it, there was a great editorial at NOLA yesterday about the Obama administration's permitorium and the need to open drilling in the Gulf:

The best way to protect consumers against price spikes in the long run is to continue expanding oil exploration and production in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. President Obama in May announced his goal to increase domestic oil production. But producers in the Gulf are still complaining that a de facto moratorium imposed after the BP oil spill last year hasn't been fully lifted. 

And for more background on how we got to this point, be sure to read Adam White's piece at The Weekly Standard which explains the attempts in Congress to compel the administration to handle the permit applications that are now just stacking up. 

The official moratorium has been lifted, yes, but drilling permits are not happening.  To date, only one well permit has been approved:

According to the House Oversight Committee’s recent report, the administration’s official moratorium “was replaced by a ‘permitorium’—whereby drilling activity remained at a standstill not by operation of law—but because of inaction on the part of [Interior].” As proof of the “permitorium,” the House report noted that before the Deepwater Horizon spill, Interior had “processed and issued permits to drill in two weeks”; since the moratorium ended last year, only one new well had been approved. In the words of Judge Feldman, “Where there should be a queue” of applications receiving orderly review, “there is instead an untended pile.”

Obama's decision to release oil from the strategic oil reserves was purely a political move.  White's piece makes the case that the current situation is not so dire that such a move needed to be made. 

Obama's poll numbers were/are plummeting and he's in campaign mode (when did he ever get out of it?), so he releases the oil reserves hoping for a bounce.  It didn't work.

If Obama wants a bounce in poll numbers, he needs to open drilling in the Gulf.  End the nonsense.

Get Ready for Sky High Energy Bills

Rick Moran at American Thinker poses the question:

Has there ever been a great nation that committed economic suicide for no real reason?

Not that I can think of.  Yet that's exactly what Obamanomics is doing to this country.  Of course, Obama promised he would make energy prices skyrocket, and by golly, he's doing it.  He held onto the drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as long as he could and when that was finally lifted, he initiated a "permitorium" where so few permits were issued, well, it was the same as a moratorium.


The news that five coal powered power plants will be shut down is only the first of many to come.


I'd ask the liberals that voted for Obama...is this what you want, really?  I'd really like to know.  I'd also like to ask, are you planning on voting for Obama again?


From The Chicago Tribune:

American Electric Power, one of the country's largest coal-burning electricity generators, said Thursday it will retire nearly a quarter of its coal-fueled generating capacity and that it will spend up to $8 billion to retrofit remaining units to meet regulations that start taking effect in 2014. Those moves will have an impact.

"The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling,'' AEP Chairman and CEO Michael G. Morris said.

How many jobs will be lost in this maneuver?


One more time.  Obama is anti-business, anti-free market, anti-consumer, and anti-America.  


He's killing America.


(H/T:  Memeorandum)

John Bryson is Unacceptable as Secretary of Commerce

Obama's pick for Secretary of Commerce is unacceptable.

John Bryson may have private sector business experience, but that may not be good enough.  Bryson is on record as saying that Waxman-Markey was "moderate, but acceptable."  You'll remember Waxman-Markey bill as the cap and trade legislation that attempted to regulate every aspect of your life with regard to energy and promised to make energy bills skyrocket.

If Bryson thought THAT bill was "moderate," I shudder to think what he would find more acceptable. 

As Mark Tapscott points out, there were quite a few Senate Democrats who were on record against cap and trade, so this ought to make for an interesting Senate confirmation.

Senator David Vitter issued a statement yesterday calling the nomination "deeply disturbing":

“Louisiana's greatest jobs challenge is restarting drilling in the Gulf. So President Obama nominates someone as his jobs secretary who co-founded the group that files more baseless lawsuits against drilling than any other. This is deeply, deeply disturbing,”

The company to which Vitter refers is The National Resources Defense Council founded in 1970 by John Bryson, John Adams, and Gus Speth, among other activists.  The group has, over the years, filed hundreds of lawsuits...

*  To stop a new coal-fired power plant in Michigan

*  Against the Army Corps of Engineers in Kansas to halt construction of a BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) intermodal facility because:

“The thousands of trucks expected to move in and out of that rail yard every day will produce toxic diesel fumes that could pose serious health problems for the surrounding communities, including increased rates of asthma, respiratory disease and cancer. The Army Corps has a responsibility to protect people from these health impacts.”

*   Against a Kentucky coal company for violations against the Clean Water Act.

*  Against the FDA for chemicals found in anti-bacterial soaps.

*  Against International Paper for violations of the Clean Water Act.

*  Against the EPA over pesticides that damage honeybees.

*  Against "backyard drilling" in Los Angeles

* Against MMS for the use of seismic surveys in the Gulf which "disrupts marine life."

*  The group has promised to file suit over new drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.

*  Against Ken Salazar for approving permits for oil and gas activity in the Gulf that fails to protect whales and other mammals in the Gulf of Mexico.

Here is Bryson himself advocating major reduction in carbon and applauding California's approach to carbon emissions. 



And here he, in 2009, discusses climate change and federal climate change legislation. 



The man is clearly anti-business and is a totally unacceptable candidate for Secretary of Commerce.  

Oil Production Down, Oil Consumption Up

Obama's quest to end dependence on foreign oil is going in the wrong direction.  Via Beltway Confidential:

Here are the facts: According to projections made by the Energy Information Administration in April 2010, the Gulf of Mexico should have produced 1.84 million barrels of oil a day in the fourth quarter of 2010. Instead, according to the most recent EIA estimate, due to the Obama permitorium, the Gulf only produced 1.59 million barrels. That is 250,000 barrels a day in lost production. Overall, since Obama instituted his drilling moratorium, oil production from the Gulf is down more than 10%.

But while Gulf oil production is down from pre-moratorium estimate, total oil consumption is actually higher than EIA predicted last year. Total crude oil input to refineries is up from an estimated 13.85 million barrels a day to an actual 14.25 million barrels. But if domestic production is down and consumption is up, where is the extra oil coming from?

Foreign oil.

This administration needs to quit buying oil from people who hate us and open drilling in the Gulf (and elsewhere).  Now, where have I heard that before?

Your "Silver Bullet " is a Fountain Pen

Mark Tapscott shares a chart which shows how a "silver bullet" can work against oil prices.  What is it?  A fountain pen:

Notice what happened on July 14, 2008? Oil prices suddenly plummeted from their historic high of $145 a barrel. Why?Because that was the day President George W. Bush signed an executive order lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico and off the U.S. Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Overnight, the price per barrel of oil plunged, and that plunge was reflected at the pump soon thereafter. 

In other words, Obama could with the stroke of a pen sign an executive order telling his appointees at EPA, the Department of Interior and the Department of Energy to stop throwing up obstacles to increased U.S. oil and natural gas production and instead work with the energy industry on a crash program to "drill here, drill now."

Read the rest and see the chart here.

Conserving Lizards or Oil?

Via Red State:

Specifically, the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. That’s the latest more-important-than-people critter being used to lock-up resources in the name of planet Earth. The drilling moratorium didn’t cause enough pain, so onto the Endangered Species Act - known at the Sierra Club as “Ol’ Reliable” - to make certain Texas has lizard-filled poverty.

Lizard or livelihood? That’s what’s at stake. And the pro-poverty Earth Firsters stratifying government can’t have both. If it determines that the lizard is indeed endangered, the Fish and Wildlife Service will shut down the most productive oil counties in Texas, ban roads, and slow farm activity, as it “studies the ecosystem” for up to five years.

Because the moratorium wasn't bad enough. 


The Reptile Channel explains:

According to USFWS, the dunes sagebrush lizard s in danger of extinction across its entire range due to ongoing significant threats of habitat loss and fragmentation. These threats include oil and gas activities, as well as herbicide treatments. The removal of shinnery oak and creation of roads and pads, pipelines, and power lines for oil and gas development is a measurable factor impacting the dunes sagebrush lizard, according to USFWS.

And you just thought gas prices were high.

Electric Car Owners Might Have to Pay Their "Fair Share" to Maintain Roads

Apparently one good thing about my 8-cylinder Crown Vic is that I'm paying my fair share to maintain the roads.  You slackers with your mini-Coopers and your Volts need to step up and pay up:

After years of urging residents to buy fuel-efficient cars and giving them tax breaks to do it, Washington state lawmakers are considering a measure to charge them a $100 annual fee -- what would be the nation's first electric car fee. 

And it's not just Washington:

In Oregon, lawmakers are considering a bill to charge drivers of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles based on the number of miles they drive. In Mississippi, lawmakers briefly considered a similar plan. In Texas, significant opposition scuttled an electric vehicle fee. 

Eventually this will get through the various state legislatures and so go the law of the land, no doubt.  

If you don't like the one time user fee, you could live in California where one group would rely on honest drivers to report their own use:

Plug In America, a California-based electric car advocacy group, has come out against the proposed flat fee and has urged the state to consider one based on odometer readings that owners would self-report each year. 

That'll work.  Sure.  

I think I'll keep my Crown Vic and my unleaded.

Herman Cain: "Drill Here, Drill Now!"

Herman Cain responds to Obama's DOJ witch hunt on vicious oil speculators (emphasis mine):

With all due respect, Mr. President, there is something you could do to ease the pain at the pump. Namely, declare and implement a “drill here drill now” strategy. And remove the ridiculous restrictions on shale oil deposits available out west.

The very speculators you are blaming for the run-up in gas prices would quickly retreat if they thought you were serious about an energy independence plan to maximize all of our existing natural resources. The problem is supply and demand, and expectations about the changes in those dynamics. That’s what drives gasoline prices at the pump.

That's just the problem, however:  Obama isn't serious about energy independence as long as it pertains to oil.  He's only interested in energy independence when it concerns windmills and solar panels.

Until that so-called "green energy" solution materializes, we are a nation dependent on oil, on petroleum products, on gas...coal! 

As to the moratorium in the Gulf, Cain says:

The Obama Administration has used the Gulf oil disaster of a year ago to limit oil exploration in the Gulf and elsewhere. As a result, the oil production in the Gulf is down 13 percent versus a year ago. That also means that there are a corresponding number of people out of work, who are denied productive and well-paying jobs.

These people don't want BP handouts - they want to work.  We're not just talking about rig workers but all of the peripheral industry and small business that supports that.  

Drill here, drill now!

Worst Speech Ever

After reviewing Obama's speech yesterday (I had to read through it; I can't stand to listen to him anymore), it's become more and more clear to me why I've retreated into the world of antiques and art museums on this blog.  How anyone can continue to tout support for this man is simply beyond me.  I can't fathom it.

The consensus is pretty clear this morning that 1) It wasn't a plan on fiscal reform but a partisan campaign speech and 2) Obama is delusional.  Or else he thinks we all are.

Obama's answer to our economic woes is to pull his previous support of the Bush tax cuts (the support he held after he didn't support them), and raise taxes on the "rich." 

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code.  In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans.  But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society.  And I refuse to renew them again.

This is absurd and has been debunked over and over again.  Raising taxes on the wealthy is the worst thing he can to in our current economic situation.  It's a job killer.  It's a growth killer. Even if you raised taxes on the top 2% one hundred percent, Walter Williams points out that:

...doing so "would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year." Even if all the annual profits of the Fortune 500 were also taken, it would only keep the government funded for another 40 days, according to Williams.

Obama is saying what he said to get elected last election cycle but it won't play this time.  Independents and even some liberals are beginning to see the light and are also sick of the excessive spending.  The only way to get the deficit under control is cut spending, not raise taxes.

Victor Davis Hanson suggests Obama is living in "a dreamland."  If that's so, the rest of us are in a nighmare.

Fantasy apparently seems preferable to reality. In our new dream world, borrowed money need not be paid back. Cars may run on nasty gas, but only if it is produced in faraway places. Mean dictators should flee when told to leave. And radical Muslims are not really trying to kill us.

Obama was still blaming Bush yesterday.  We were on the right path in the 90s, he said.  It's the past ten years that have got us all messed up. How long are we supposed to fall for that one?  I'd venture to guess that Obama has borrowed more this year than Bush did his entire presidency.

Mark Steyn blasted the speech and the speechwriters for it's misinformation, it's laziness and its partisanship:

The whole speech was like that, a litany of brain-dead slapdash rhetorical questions that for sentient beings are no longer rhetorical:

The bottom line of Obama's plan is that we're going to forge ahead with green energy even though it doesn't exist.  We're going to buy oil from foreign sources even though we have plenty of resources here and gas is climbing to $5 a gallon.   We're going to cut defense while we're engaged in three wars, raise taxes on those who provide jobs and growth, and implement a health care albatross that will saddle the country with inferior care, raise the deficit and expand entitlements, further deepening our economic woes.

Fore!

Is it Not "Imported" Oil if it Comes From Brazil?

Obama two weeks ago:

We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.

Obama this week:

With gasoline prices rising, oil supplies from the Middle East pinched by political upheaval and growing calls in Congress for expanded domestic oil and gas production, President Obama on Wednesday will set a goal of a one-third reduction in oil imports over the next decade, aides said Tuesday.

The Audacity of Hypocrisy

Obama is finally taking (just) a little heat on his support of Brazilian oil.  The Washington Post has an editorial today pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama's position, Ed Morrissey has a post at Hot Air, and Steven Hayward at NRO comments as well.

Obama's comments in Brazil last week were puzzling at best:

By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States. We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we've been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.

The hypocrisy abounds.

Consider this from WaPo:

Brazil already produces vast quantities of a fuel — ethanol — that the U.S. government, under a policy long supported by presidents and farm-state members of Congress from both parties, has promoted as a green alternative to gasoline. But the United States, protecting its own heavily subsidized ethanol industry by means of a 2.5 percent tariff and a 54-cent-per-gallon duty, prevents Americans from importing all but trivial amounts of the stuff from Brazil.

We're willing to import oil from Brazil, but not ethanol; our own ethanol industry is heavily subsidized.  Ed Morrissey thinks Obama should explain why we're willing to import oil but not ethanol:

"Not only does Barack Obama need to explain his enthusiasm for drilling and oil consumption apparently everywhere but in the US, he also needs to explain why the US wants to import oil from Brazil, but not ethanol."

While lauding the Washington Post editorial for pointing out Obama's hypocrisy's, Morrissey also points out:

Most of the rest of the media ignored them, just as they ignored the fact that Obama was cheerleading for Brazilian oil production at the same time he had launched a war against Libya.  Hardly anyone has commented on the connection between those two actions, but Obama has to have his eye open for ways to increase supply and lower fuel prices in case Libya’s production stays off line for a long time, which looks like a pretty good bet.  Otherwise, oil prices will skyrocket and the American economy will stall further into stagnation, which will mean a short political career for Obama.

The lamestream media is alive and well.  The criticism in the major media for Obama's Brazilian comments was nowhere to be found.  

Blood for Oil.  Isn't that what they said about Bush?


Even worse, it seems to me, is that as badly as America needs jobs, why is Obama so willing to shut down our own exploration industry and send these jobs to Brazil?  Since the moratorium only five new permits have been issued.  Senator David Vitter calls Obama's position ridiculous:

“We have abundant energy resources off Louisiana’s coast, but this administration has virtually shut down our offshore industry and instead is using Americans’ tax dollars to support drilling off the coast of Brazil,” said Vitter. “It’s ridiculous to ignore our own resources and continue going hat-in-hand to countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil to beg them to produce more oil. We need to get serious about developing our resources here at home and working towards lower gas prices and long-term energy independence.”

It's true, as WaPo and Morrissey say that this position abounds in hypocrisy but it's also true that it is further proof that there are children in the White House where adults need to be.   Team Obama says what sounds good at the time then backtracks later.  He'll have to retreat from this in some way or else open up the permit process and get Gulf drilling once again. 

(AP Photo)