Moratorium De Facto Still In Place.

Of course it is Politics. It always HAS been Politics.

Hey folks,

In a special Thursday Edition of the From the Emails, AND the From the Energy Front Segments, we learn that Obama, in the hopes of picking up some Votes, lifted his completely useless Drilling Moratorium in the Gulf. But did he really? No.

"Another example of what you have been saying. Real life as opposed to the abstract. Not to mention, the ban being lifted right before the Nov. elections? Politics?"

That's right. It is now, and always has been all about Politics. There was no need nor reason for the Ban, and as the Heritage Foundation points out, it cost us PLENTY, and will continue to be in place by the lack of issuing new Permits. Here is the link.

The Heritage Foundation - Morning Bell: The Oil Drilling Moratorium Doesn’t End Till the Permits Begin Posted October 13th, 2010 at 9:22am

The White House got the headlines they wanted today. The Washington Post: U.S Lifts Ban on Deep-Water Drilling. The Los Angeles Times: U.S. Lifts Moratorium on Deep-Water Drilling in Gulf of Mexico. The New York Times: White House Lifts Ban on Deepwater Drilling. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told reporters on a conference call yesterday: “We are open for business.”

Don’t believe the White House or Salazar for a second. While yesterday’s announcement does remove one legal barrier to the resumption of energy investment in the Gulf, the Obama administration still retains full discretion over whether or not any new permits will be issued. And all indications are that those new permits will not be coming any time soon.

Since President Barack Obama first banned drilling for gas and oil in the Gulf in May, about 36 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico have been put out of work, five rigs have left for Egypt and other parts of Africa, and 12,000 jobs have been lost. If the ban stays in place, the long-term and indirect economic losses will cost more than 175,000 jobs. The problem with President Obama’s new drilling policy, as with all of his economic policies, is the uncertainty it inflicts on our nation’s job creators. Louisiana State University professor Joseph Mason tells The Christian Science Monitor that “uncertain policy decisions” are making it difficult for rig operators to plan for the future. Referring to the rig operators, Mason continued, “and when they can’t plan around it, they move.” And by “move” Mason means taking jobs and energy overseas. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) echoed this verdict:

"Today’s decision is a good start, but it must be accompanied by an action plan to get the entire industry in the Gulf of Mexico back to work. This means that the administration must continue to accelerate the granting of permits in shallow and deep water, and provide greater certainty about the rules and regulations industry must meet."

As Sen. Landrieu’s statement alludes to, President Obama’s legal ban on deepwater projects has also meant a de facto ban on all energy investment in the Gulf. Since the April 20 Deepwater Horizon spill, Interior has issued only 10% of shallow water permits that they normally do.

Institute for Energy Research senior vice president Dan Kish tells Politico: “I don’t know what business can run at 10 percent of what it normally does.” Pressed for details on when Interior will actually start issuing new permits, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement director Michael Bromwich told reporters: “It will clearly not be tomorrow and it will not be next week. My sense is we will have permits approved by the end of the year, but how much before the end of the year I can’t say and how many before the end of the year I can’t say.”

Energy companies who want to wait for the Obama administration to allow oil and gas investment to begin again do so at their own peril. As The Washington Post details today, White House policy on drilling in the Gulf is driven by politics, not science. And the President’s political views on domestic oil and gas development are clear. In 2004, then-Senate candidate Obama told the League of Conservation Voters: “I believe that existing policies are imbalanced in favor of new and increased [oil and gas] extraction. . . . Reduced energy demand would eliminate the need for new production on federal public lands, and I would oppose such production in any event.”

So there you have it. President Obama’s preferred policy is reduced energy demand, and even if he can’t accomplish that, he still would oppose the development of our country’s energy resources. Ken Tanguis of Houma, Louisiana, had been a mechanic for Diamond Offshore Drilling for most of his life. But since President Obama instituted his drilling ban, Diamond has laid off more than 300 workers, and now Tanguis only works three weeks on and three weeks off. Tanguis told NPR: “I don’t want a handout from the government. I don’t want a handout from BP. I don’t want anything. I just want to go back to work. I want to go back to drilling.” The only thing standing between Tanguis and a job is President Obama’s de facto drilling ban. We hope the President allows Ken to go back to work soon.

What you may see here is a sudden rush on some permits to give the APPEARENCE that Obama cares about the Jobs aspect and Energy, I doubt it, but it is possible. But the truth is, just like we talked about Tuesday, as with Shale, Obama doesn't have to put in place an actual Ban, just make it cost preventive to do it. Create too many hoops to jump through right from the get go.

Don't be fooled by this purely Political move on the part of Obama and Crew. If they retain power, they will simply continue the course they are on, in the limiting of Drilling and Energy Production in the interest of furthering their agenda. He may want you to think he cares about the Energy Industry, right before an Election, but we already know how he really feels. He has come right out and told us, many times.
Peter

Sources:
The Heritage Foundation - Morning Bell: The Oil Drilling Moratorium Doesn’t End Till the Permits Begin

Note: From The Emails is a weekly Segment every Friday, or occasionally anytime, that appears here at the OPNTalk Blog. Please feel free to Email any Articles, Comments, Thoughts, Whatever, that you may like to share to opntalk@gmail.com As always, you never know what you may see here.

H.S. Energy Drink Update.

Hey folks

Good Sunday morning to you. If it applies, HAPPY MOTHERS Day to all you Moms out there. In the Health and Science segment today, there’s an update. Remember back on January 29, 2007, in a JMT segment I talked about "energy drinks." "Not Recommended For Children"

I said.

The title of this JMT segment is not a warning by me. It appears on new product that is growing in popularity with kids. Here is some more of what appears on the same product. "Your being lied to." "Search and destroy" "Bring the system down." "A bad influence." It also depicts alternative sports stars like Pat Duffy, Cris Ward, with a message, "Tear down your idols."

What is the Product? "Lost Energy Drink." The warning states, do not consume more than 3 cans a day. Not recommended for children." So WHY are they marketing this product TO children? Has anyone done ANY research as to the long term effects of this and other similar product on long time users?

As I indicated back then, it a new craze

I know, my 15 year old Niece LOVES them. I’ve seen kids drinking these things like water. To me they taste like cough syrup, but that’s beside the point.

Now? Just like anything else, once it starts, to grows, is hard to kill, and people come along and push the envelope further and further. ABC -Alcoholic Energy Drinks -- a Threat to Kids? By DAN CHILDS, ABC News Medical Unit

With edgy names, vivid packaging and occasionally stratospheric levels of caffeine, energy drinks are the beverage of choice for many teens who want to get more out of their drinks than a simple thirst quencher.

But a new offering is raising the eyebrows of some parents and researchers.

My eyebrows have been raised. {Smile}

At first glance, the beverage -- called Spykes -- offers the same fruity flavors, caffeine boost and herbal elixir qualities of many energy drinks currently on the market.

GET THIS.

The difference is that Spykes, as the label indicates, is an alcoholic beverage.

And critics say the compact packaging, low price and flashy online advertising are designed to make it appealing to underage consumers.

"I think it's one more outrageous example of the predatory marketing practices of the alcohol industry," says Susan Foster, vice president and director of policy research at Columbia University's National Center of Addiction and Substance Abuse.

"This is a huge public health problem, and it is very hard to regulate."

Alcohol folks. They are now marketing alcohol ENERGY drinks. To kids non-the-less. I warned you about this.

Spykes, which is made by Anheuser-Busch, has roughly the same alcohol content as wine and comes in such flavors as Spicy Mango and Hot Melons.

But it is the energy-drink appeal and the marketing that is nearly exclusively present on the Internet that has some researchers worried.

"This is an issue of corporate responsibility," says James Mosher, an attorney with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation who researches the effects of alcohol marketing campaigns on young audiences.

"Energy drinks are so popular with teens. Clearly they've got to know that the market they are tying in with is an underage market."

Of course they do.

What is Anheuser Busch’s response?

But does a threat truly exist? In a printed statement, John Kaestner, vice president of consumer affairs for Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc. in St. Louis, Mo., calls the reaction to Spykes "misguided and unfounded."

He also writes in the statement that Spykes are clearly labeled as containing alcohol.

"The way to prevent underage drinking is not by limiting product choices for adults," the statement reads. "Rather, the solution is to prevent youth access to alcohol by training retailers to properly check IDs, supporting law enforcement officials in enforcing underage-drinking laws, and encouraging parents to set rules and consequences for their sons and daughters."

{Laughing} It’s YOUR fault. You as a parent should prevent your teen from buying something that is CLEARLY marketed to THEM. It’s the cop's fault if they do not enforce the laws preventing your kids from buying the product that is CLEARLY marketed to them. It’s the store clerk's fault if they sell the product to your kid, without checking ID. Yes it is YOUR fault. Not Busch. No, no, no. They are innocent in this. Just suppling choice to adults.

According to Susan Foster,

"There is a point at which public health needs to trump profit. Federal government needs to regulate this kind of marketing as it relates to young people."

Absolutely!

As I said before,

My concern is simply the safety and well being of our kids. I’m just concerned that these products have not been fully tested. Remember the big tobacco industry use to say their product was safe. This is a product designed to boost the energy levels in it’s consumers. If it’s safe, then so be it. They can drink all they want. But if it’s not, lets regulate them. Besides, don’t they already have WAY too much energy as is?

Now we have to add Alcohol? This is way out of control. These have to be regulated of banned all together, until they are proven SAFE. Period.
Peter

Sources;
ME
ABC -Alcoholic Energy Drinks -- a Threat to Kids?