Real Life Proof We CAN Drill Our Way Out

Complete and utter Election Time BS.

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday to ya. Since it's Tuesday, time to check in at the Energy Front. Someone just asked me why I call it "The Energy Front." I call it the "Energy Front" because this Administration is at WAR with every form of Energy that makes the World work. From the Moratorium, to the De-Facto Moratorium, to the Oppressive Taxation and Regulations, to the OUTRIGHT Denial of anything that WILL actually work to: Create Jobs, Reduce Dependency, Increase Revenue and bring Costs Down.

They are in trouble folks. It really is that simple. We learned before that $4.00 Gas is a tipping point. Once the price hits $4.00 a gallon, people get angry. People start calling for action by Government. People start changing their Lifestyles. It gets loud out there. When it hit $4.00 a gallon, Obama attacked Bush saying he should do something. The Liberals attacked Bush saying he should do something. He did. He said we will use our own. He said we would Drill more and use more of our own resources. The Price of a Barrel of Oil dropped, overnight, like a rock.

So now, Oil is $108 a Barrel. Gas is near and in some places over, $4.00 a gallon again. This President is NOW saying there is nothing he can do. This President is NOW talking about it and completely LYING about it. He is coming out and attempting to get you to believe we are Drilling more and it's not working. {Sigh} Complete and utter Election Time BS.

It was Barack Obama who said he likes $4.00 a gallon Gas. It was HIS Administration that said they want to find a way to get American Gas Prices up to that of Europe. It is Barack Obama who said he would bankrupt the Coal industry, and your Energy Costs would "Necessarily Skyrocket."It is Barack Obama who imposed a Drilling Moratorium. Rigs all over packed up and took Tens of Thousands of American Jobs with them. It is Barack Obama who put into place a De-Facto Moratorium. Slowing and blocking the Permitting Process. It is Barack Obama who is attacking Natural Gas, it's too cheap. It is Barack Obama who is attacking Hydrofracking.

All this at the same time he is out there saying we are Drilling more and it's not working. Saying we can't Drill our way out of all this. Again folks. Complete and utter Election Time BS. What we CAN'T do Mr. President, is continue to throw hundreds of Billions of Dollars into Companies that line the pockets of Executives, while firing Employees, producing NOTHING, and going out of business.

What we can't do is get off Oil and flick a switch and go Green. There is NOTHING Green to switch to. NOTHING. I love this piece by Erick Erickson of Red State.

On Friday, the President of the United States accused his Republican opponents of being members of the Flat Earth Society because of their demands that the nation increase drilling.

In no small bit of irony, the President who bitterly lamented the rise of ATM’s and Internet travel options accused the GOP of wanting to bitterly cling to the past.

But what of Barack Obama’s energy policy? He likes to tout wind and solar technologies and batteries, but it seems while he accuses the GOP of being flat earthers, the reality is that the President is himself anti-science when it comes to the reality of domestic energy needs.

His solution to fueling our cars amounts to using unicorn farts as gas — which has just as much a chance of happening as the mythic battery powered cross country run.

{Laughing} "Unicorn Farts." Very funny. However, Farts are CO2 and that's a pollutant. Can't use that. {laughing}

So we can't Drill Our Way out? Look at North Dakota. Here is the entire Article. According to Personal Liberty Digest - The North Dakota Oil Boom March 16, 2012 by Chip Wood Yup. That's his name. Chip Wood.

The average prices of a gallon of gas and a barrel of oil are near 150-year highs. Most pundits expect them to go higher. Are you ready for $5-per-gallon gasoline?

In a recent speech, President Barack Obama said: “We’re not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices.” Actually, to a large extent, we can. For proof, let’s compare what’s been happening in California to the extraordinary accomplishments in North Dakota.

According to the Fraser Institute’s 2011 Global Petroleum Survey, California is the worst State in the Nation for its hostility to drilling. In fact, measured against the rest of the world, California ranks 91st.

Thanks to years of placating environmental extremists, California’s anti-drilling regulations make it almost impossible to drill for new oil anywhere in the State, onshore or off. As a result, its production of oil has fallen by nearly one-third in the past 20 years. As oil production has declined, so has tax revenue. Even with several gigantic tax increases during that period, oil revenues in the State are down.

That’s too bad, because California needs every penny of income it can get. It has one of the highest State sales taxes and personal income taxes in the country. Still, it’s not enough. The budget deficit for the coming fiscal year will top $9 billion — the fifth year in a row of billion-dollar deficits. Governor Jerry Brown’s proposed solution? Raise taxes even higher.

So you won’t be surprised to learn that wealthy Californians are fleeing the State as fast as they can. According to census data, almost one-third of its wealthiest residents — those earning $500,000 a year or more — fled the State between 2007 and 2009. On our Left Coast, they won’t drill for oil. And pretty soon, they won’t be able to drill many millionaires, either.

Let’s contrast the near-bankruptcy of the People’s Republic of California with what’s been happening in one of the most independent and entrepreneurial States in the union: North Dakota.

In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there were 150 million “technically recoverable barrels of oil” in an area of North Dakota known as the Bakken Shale. In 2008, the number had climbed to 4 billion barrels. Two years later, it had doubled to 8 billion barrels.

Today, thanks to vast improvements in recovery technology as well as the discovery of vast new oceans of underground oil, estimates of “recoverable” oil in the Bakken Shale have tripled to 24 billion barrels. That is more oil than is being produced anywhere else in the United States, including Alaska’s famed Prudhoe Bay. But it’s a small fraction of what is possible.

Experts say that current technology can extract only about 6 percent of the oil they know is underground in North Dakota. Total estimated oil reserves are thus around 500 billion barrels. And new discoveries are happening all of the time.

Let me include an interesting footnote on the subject of “reserves.” In 1980, the oil reserves in the United States were estimated at 30 billion barrels. Yet in the intervening 32 years, this country actually produced 77 billion barrels of oil. In other words, we produced more than 2.5 times more oil than the leading experts said there was 32 years earlier.

Today, the numbers are even more staggering. The amount of “technically recoverable” oil in the United States is estimated at 1.4 trillion barrels. (Please note that is “trillion,” with a “T.”) Unfortunately for us, most of that oil is located in areas Obama says we can’t search for it: in portions of Alaska and in waters off our shores.

Combined with known resources in Canada and Mexico, total recoverable oil in North America exceeds 1.7 trillion barrels. How much is that? Let me put it in perspective: It is more than all the oil the world has used since the first oil well was drilled in Titusville, Penn., 150 years ago.

So far, all I’ve discussed is oil. When natural gas and coal are added to the total, the numbers are clear: We have enough energy reserves in the United States to fuel all of our needs for 100 years, even if we never made another discovery.

Back to North Dakota for a moment. The effect of the bonanza there has been extraordinary. Stephen Moore, my favorite Wall Street Journal writer, says that what is happening in Williston, N.D., “is what the Gold Rush might have looked like had it happened in the time of McDonald’s, Wal-Mart and Home Depot.”

The State has the lowest unemployment rate in the Nation, at just 3.3 percent. California’s, by contrast, is 11.1 percent. That doesn’t even count the unemployed people who have simply stopped looking for work. The true unemployment number is probably closer to 20 percent.

According to the Census Bureau, North Dakota led the Nation in job and income growth in 2011. While California is losing millionaires every day, North Dakota is creating them faster than anyplace else in the country. But even entry-level positions are benefiting. For example, a job flipping burgers at McDonald’s pays $18 an hour plus a “signing bonus” for new employees.

And while the State of California can’t begin to pay all of its bills — it even issued IOUs last year in place of tax refunds — the biggest argument in North Dakota’s State Capitol is how to spend all of the money that’s pouring in. Legislators in Bismarck have approved hundreds of “shovel ready” infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, railroads and pipelines. But even while spending more on worthwhile projects, legislators also agreed to cut the State income tax.

What’s happening in North Dakota is a classic example of the one thing that would solve our energy problems everywhere — and most other problems in the economy, too. Unfortunately, it’s the one thing Obama and his team won’t even consider.

The solution is simple: Let the market work.

In his State of the Union address in January, Obama declared that “This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy.”

Like so much that comes out of our President’s mouth, the sentence was as misleading as his skilled staff of speechwriters could make it. What he meant was that his Administration would continue pouring billions of dollars into every wasteful alternative energy pipe dream they could think up, while continuing to slap higher taxes and more regulatory handcuffs on the businesses that can actually solve our energy needs and make money (and pay taxes) doing it.

Rather than foster energy independence, Obama wants to make us all dependent. Dependent on government, that is.

Want to reduce unemployment? Increase tax revenues? Get the economy humming again? Truly foster energy independence?

The answer to all of them is the same: Get government off our backs. Let the market work. The results will be amazing. Maybe next year we’ll have a government that’s willing to give it a try.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–ChipWood

It really is not hard to understand. To fix a problem cause by the attack on Oil, is to FREE Oil and let those that do, do what they do, and we will all benefit from it. Decreased dependency. Increase Revenue. Increase National Security. Increased Jobs. Lower Costs on EVERYTHING. Drill our way out of this Mr. President? Yes we can.
Peter

Sources:
Red State - Barack Obama’s Energy Policy: Unicorn Farts as the Fuel of Tomorrow Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary) Monday, March 19th at 4:46AM EDT
Personal Liberty Digest - The North Dakota Oil Boom

Obama Administration Continues to Lie About Gas Prices

This is plain Pathetic.

Hey folks,

This really is just plain pathetic. It really is. Obama comes out and outright LIES about his Energy Policy. I mean completely LIES about it. According to Obama on WHO-TV, Eyeball 13 news, Monday night, said this...

Our oil production right now is higher than at any time in the last eight years. We've seen more new rigs go up. We're opening up millions of acres to oil exploration, and so the issue here is not that we're not drilling enough.

NONE of this is TRUE. You Mr. President, are the one the imposed a ridiculous and pointless Moratorium in the Gulf. Rigs packed up and went home. Well, elsewhere. Causing hundreds of thousands of lost Jobs. YOU Mr. President, are the one that continues to STALL the Permitting Process, and STILL refuse new Drilling where we KNOW Oil is. YOU Mr. President, are the one that has been attacking Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, and YOU are the one Mr. President, that just said no to the Keystone Pipeline that would have created Tens of, if not Hundreds of Thousands of NEW JOBS. YOU blocked the Decrease of Dependency, and INCREASED Revenue. Not to mention bringing Energy Costs DOWN. YOU did all these things.

The problem is we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves and we use 20% of the world's oil.

Patently Absurd and an outright Lie.

Obviously what we want to do is to get gas prices as low as we can, as quickly as we can, but the most important thing in order to do that is to reduce our demand on oil.

This one is just convoluted to say the least. We are doing all we can to increase Oil Production but this is BAD and we need to get AWAY from Oil? Does that make any sense to you whatsoever? He continued..

I think the American people understand that, you know, we don't have a silver bullet when it comes to gas prices, but they're hurting right now.

No Mr. President. The American people KNOW we CAN do something about it. YOU are the one standing in the way.

You know, it's like a tax on your paycheck every time you fill up. And so what I've instructed my team to do, we're looking at every single thing we can do from relieving bottlenecks to try to see if we can impact internationally how the oil markets are operating. Ultimately, though, the single most important thing we can do is reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and the fact that we've reduced our dependence by about a million barrels a day, that over time is gonna have a big impact.

Alright, I'm done with the Liar and Chief on this issue. They are NOT looking for ways to reduce our Dependency on FOREIGN Oil. The way you do that is produce more DOMESTIC Oil. There is NOTHING to switch to. All your so called GREEN Energy Jobs are going away, because there is NOTHING to switch to. From Wind Companies, to Solar, to now even Battery Companies, once the Federal Money dries up and goes away, so do they. After the Executives line their pocket and contribute some back to Obama and Crew.

Then you have Chu. Remember him? He said we need to find a way to RAISE Gas Prices to EUROPEAN Prices. He is the US Energy Secretary. Remember, back in 08, Obama said he LIKES $4.00 a gallon gas. Just wished it got there slower. Then his Energy Sec. said we need to find a way, even if through Taxation, to raise Gas Prices. Well, now he changes his tune. According to

CNS News - Energy Secretary Renounces Call For Higher Gas Prices By Craig Bannister March 13, 2012

Under questioning by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) today, Energy Sec. Steven Chu renounced his previous call for higher gas prices.

“Since I walked in the door, as secretary of energy, I’ve been doing everything in our powers to do what we can to reduce these gas prices,” Sec. Chu told the Senate hearing.

As we know is a COMPLETE Lie.

Sen. Lee then asked Chu: “Are you saying that you no longer share the view that we need to figure out how to boost gasoline prices in America?”

“I no longer share that view,” Sec. Chu said.

Because Obama slapped me upside my head and said you better not tell the truth about this. It's an election year. Now go lie. We're dying here.

Sen. Lee then followed up: “But, you did then, but you don’t now?”

“When I became secretary of energy, I represented the U.S. government, and I think now in this economic very slow return, these prices could well affect the comeback of our economy and we’re very worried about that,” Chu replied.

NO they are not. What they are very worried about is your VOTE!

“So, of course we don’t want the price of gasoline to go up; we want it to go down,” Chu concluded.

Earlier, Sen. Lee questioned Chu’s ability to empathize with the average American’s plight at the pump:

“I don’t know how much driving you, personally do, yourself. So. You may not personally be feeling the gouge at the pump. But, I assure you that hundreds of millions of hard-working Americans do feel this.”

Chu, of course, is chauffeured to and from work on the taxpayers’ dime.

It's an election year. Obama is hurting. 41 percent approval rating is the lowest of his Presidency. The majority of Americans, no mater what Political affiliation, Race, Status, or Sex, all say it's the Economy Stupid. One of the BIGGEST Chucks bringing the Economy down is Energy Costs. This is just FACT. So of course the Administration is going to come out and try to convince you that "They feel your Pain." and that they "Are working hard to find a way to help you." When we KNOW this couldn't be farther from the Truth. This is all BS. There is no other way to say it. It's not distortion. It's not exaggeration. It's not false assumptions. It is complete BS. Outright lies. It really is just this simple.

Listen to me folks. Hear what I am telling you here. I wish I had time to find it, but remember that report a while back that told us, no matter what, I think it was about Solar, even if completely successful, we would still get something like 60 percent of our Energy from Oil in the next 50 years? There will never come a day, here me, there will never come a day, EVER, that we will flip a switch and never use another drop of Oil. NEVER.

Problem is, Solar is not successful. Wind, NOT successful. Batteries, NOT a suitable switch. There is NOTHING. So we need to, and the only way to, reduce our dependency on foreign Oil is to produce more of our own. In doing so, we will create a SAFER America, boost the Economy, create hundreds of thousands of Jobs, and bring down the Price of Gas. There is NO other solution. Period.
Peter

Oil Prices Rising,,,

NH RESULTS: Mitt 39% Ron 23% Huntsman 17% Newt 10% Rick 9%.

Hey folks,

I want to talk about Gas Prices, since I could not be here yesterday. However, there was a little Primary in New Hampshire last night. And I'm sorry. I'm not sure I'm buying it. Seriously. NH RESULTS: Mitt 39% Ron 23% Huntsman 17% Newt 10% Rick 9%. Now EVERYONE knows that Romney was meant to win this thing. That's NOT the problem I have. No, not even Ron Paul. My biggest problem with this is Huntsman in THIRD? Well, Money can but you a lot of things. I don't know. There is this little twinge in my gut that something is not on the up and up here. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, many more to go. Happy Wednesday to ya. Notice the Price of Gas? Going up again? We all know why. The tension in the Straight of Hormuz, and the BIGGEST Factor? Well, lets see if this is one of the 8 Factors. According to Triple Pundit - Our Perspective on the 8 Strategic Factors Shaping Oil Price in 2012 By Raz Godelnik January 10th, 2012

The price of oil is still one of the most important factors shaping the economy. It can determine not just how much you’ll pay for a gallon of gasoline but also how fast the American and the eurozone economies will recover. It even has a say in who will be the next American president. This is why many people and companies try to predict the price of oil and better understand the events that influence its volatility.

Two people that tried to give it a shot are Gregory Copley and Yossef Bodansky, who are editors at GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs. They published a list of 8 strategic factors that will likely to influence the price of oil in 2012. This is a very interesting list, although it comes from a business-as-usual perspective, which doesn’t look much beyond the price volatility implications of geo-political events. Adding the green energy market point of view might provide an even more comprehensive picture of the upcoming year, so here’s our take on 2012:

{Sigh} "Green Energy."

1. Growing global instability might be good news for clean energy – unrest in Nigeria and the Iranian threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz drove oil prices up this week. We are more likely to see this kind of event in 2012 and if tensions, especially where Iran is involved, transform into crisis, the price of oil can skyrocket. “Energy analysts say even a partial blockage of the Strait of Hormuz could raise the world price of oil within days by $50 a barrel or more,” according to the New York Times. Such a trend can make the business case for clean energy much stronger, making solar and wind energy look much more attractive.

We could very well be looking at another World War in the NEAR Future. A lot of thing are already in place. But we need not worry about Oil going up $50 dollars a barrel if we just did ONE thing.

2. But not necessarily… – 2012 will also be the year where we’ll see a divide between renewable and secure energy supply. It’s true that the sun and the wind can’t be subject to a blockade threat from Iranian, but natural gas deposits in the Marcellus Shale or Canadian oil sands, are secure without being eco-friendly. Proponents of these non-clean alternatives will probably use the rise in the risk of oil shipment in 2012 as an argument to convince the public and Washington of the need to extract more oil and natural gas in North America. If you want to understand what it means for clean energy just take 3 minutes and 39 seconds of your time and listen to this story on NPR about solar panels that need to compete with cheap natural gas.

Don't waste your time. We already talked about this. If the Government is Propping you up, then there is NO MARKET for you.

3. The Arab Spring can reshape the old oil regime – the Arab uprisings have ousted or weakened some American allies, making the oil reality of the Middle East even more volatile and unpredictable. It doesn’t necessarily mean the Arab Spring is good news for clean energy (see point 2), but it means that there’s a good chance Middle Eastern oil would stop being a default option for many countries and will make them rethink about their energy supply. Hopefully, climate and environmental considerations will be incorporated in the process, leading to further use of clean energy resources.

{Laughing} Could TERRORIST Uprising and taking over the ENTIRE Middle East be good for a nonsensical, Liberal, FAILED, Agenda? Again, there is NOTHING to switch to.

4. The year of storage – the authors write that in 2012 we’ll see “a growth in the development to strategic scale (a significant change) of viable storage devices”. It’s also true for renewable energies, such as solar thermal, where we are expected to see companies like SolarReserve and BrightSource moving ahead with new storage technologies that are supposed to make renewable energy more competitive on a larger scale.

Well, DO that and then get back to the rest of us that LIVE in REALITY. If it works GREAT. But BUILD it FIRST and make sure it works.

5. The unrest in Nigeria will not move big oil companies to clean energy activity – One of the factors the authors write about is the return of the chaos in Nigeria, where there is a threat of a civil war. Only this week Bloomberg reported that Nigerian workers began a national strike after fuel costs more than doubled, threatening to shut ports and disrupt output from Shell and Chevron. Even if the situation in Nigeria escalates, it’s unlikely that Shell and the other big oil companies operating in Nigeria will see it as a reason to shift their focus to renewable. There’s too much money for them in Nigerian oil to give it up, and in the worst case scenario, where they are kicked off the country, they’ll just be looking for a new Nigeria to make money from.

Folks, this is one of the MANY things wrong with these IDIOTS. People DIEING in Nigeria. People being Raped, Tortured, and MURDERED. Peoples Homes destroyed. All this, and what is their first thought? I don't think this is ENOUGH to persuade the Oil Companies to stop production. DAMN IT!!

6. 2013 might be even more important – The authors write that “based on present evidence, the US energy dependence pattern will remain slow to change in 2012, and significant change is only likely to occur with a change in US political leadership, which could occur at the beginning of 2013.” They’re probably right – the results of the upcoming elections can make a big difference for the clean energy sector, making 2012 a not so important year after all.

They are right about this. We keep this Moron in Office and we are,, well, the Country as we know it is DONE. Get another in there that believe the SCAM that is Global Warming,,eh,,Climate Change,,and YES, the will be slow to DO THE RIGHT THING.

7. Political changes in China – the authors remind us that the Chinese President Hu Jintao is going to step down from the presidency in 2012, and this will trigger a new era in Chinese politics. His successor Xi Jinping seems to be a supporter of clean energy and can play an important role in promoting a conservation culture in China and leading the country to meet its 12th Five-Year Plan clean energy targets.

Or they won't because they really DON'T care what YOU think about their Energy Policies.

8. Take predictions cautiously – no matter how smart analysts are, it’s difficult if not impossible to predict the future. Who could foresee, for example, the Fukushima nuclear accident and its implications on the Japanese and Germany nuclear policies? I also bet few if any analysts at all predicted the bankruptcy of Solyndra and the damage it caused to the solar market in 2011. In other words, take all predictions cautiously and don’t forget to check them on January 1st, 2013.

So who wrote this? Raz Godelnik. He is the one of the Founders of Eco-Libris, a Green Company. Could ya tell? {Smile}

So OF COURSE he would NOT talk about the most important thing that we could do, and SHOULD have done a long time ago now. DRILL MORE OIL. Get the Government out of the way of our Energy Needs. Allow the Keystone Pipeline to go through. STOP PLAYING GAMES at the cost of ALL Americans. National Security is compromised because this Administration is pandering for Votes of people like this Idiot. Some of the points they make here is VERY True, however they seem to be hoping for them to come to past. I'm hoping that we get an ADULT in the White House and in Leadership of the Senate and House and DO what we NEED to do. Use our own resources that we got RIGHT here, and our friends in the North.
Peter

Sources:
Triple Pundit - Our Perspective on the 8 Strategic Factors Shaping Oil Price in 2012

The Right IS Right On Energy

"I guess you are right Pete. The Right is right on energy. At least it makes more sense to me to increase our own production to increase national security and lower cost. I AM an Economist and I understand supply and demand. I will admit though I have never liked Oil and joined the "Green Movement" if you will. but I also understand that we are far away from having something viable."

Continued....

Hey folks,

Back to DB,,,

"Pete, I want you to know, although I am not a fan of Oil and Natural Gas, I always thought they would run out anyway as naive as I know that is now, I did a lot of research on this matter. Your conversation on the Keystone Pipeline and when I read the transcript of the API conference call on the matter, peaked my attention. I thought you were wrong, and as you would say, furthering an agenda. I was wrong. The facts are the facts. You are right. To say that we simply will not do something that will bring about hundreds of thousands of jobs, and increase revenue to help our insurmountable debt, is crazy. It just is. A friend of mine sent this to me and I thought you might like it. I may not be on your side politically, but I am man enough to say it again. The Right is right on energy."

Thank you DB. It IS insane that Obama would intentionally stand in the way of this. Not only WILL it bring Hundreds of Jobs in the Oil industry, but many other areas such as Gas Stations, Truck Drivers, ETC. It WILL increase Revenue, lower costs, and INCREASE American Security to levels it has never been before.

Here is the Link DB is talking about Human Events - Senate Republicans to Obama: Get Out of Keystone XL Pipeline's Way
by Audrey Hudson 12/01/2011

Senate Republicans yesterday told President Obama to release his partisan stranglehold on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and backed up their demands with new legislation to force quick action.

“Unfortunately, it’s pretty apparent the President has decided to delay this past the election,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), one of nearly 40 sponsors of a bill ordering Obama to act within 60 days.

“If I were speculating about the political calculations, I guess I would conclude that he’s looked along the pipeline [route] and concluded he’s not likely to carry any of those states. And by delaying it, he’s obviously making an effort to curry favor with environmental activists who are skeptical, or beyond skeptical, downright opposed, to this project,” McConnell said.

That is EXACTLY right. And what I have been saying for years?

“If the administration would simply get out of the way and let it go forward, it would create jobs almost immediately. Lots of jobs,” McConnell said. Following years of delays on the $7 billion project due to environmental studies and other regulatory obligations, the Obama administration recently again pushed back a December action date until 2013.

Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the bill’s lead sponsor, said the administration is unnecessarily delaying the largest infrastructure project in the country that is shovel-ready.

“President Obama has the opportunity of creating 20,000 new jobs now,” Lugar said. “Incredibly, he has delayed a decision until after the 2012 election, apparently in fear of offending a part of his political base, and even risking the ire of construction unions who support the pipeline.”

Again folks, it has nothing to do with Environment. When talking about Wind Farms, Obama said Kill the Damn birds. All of a sudden he does not care. This is PURELY Political and of course, he really doesn't care about America, Freedom, The Economy, YOU. All he cares about is Power, Control, and Money. All he cares about is creating an Obama Nation, AKA Socialistic Society, with a Centralized Controlling Government. That's it. This is why we can not afford another 4 years.

TransCanada would run the pipeline from Canada to Texas by way of Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, carrying 700,000 barrels of oil a day. In addition to the 20,000 high-wage jobs, the project would bring millions of dollars to local communities through property taxes.

The administration now says the pipeline needs to be rerouted around the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sand Hills, and while TransCanada has agreed to reroute the pipeline, the State Department​ is insisting that new environmental reviews be conducted.

“This bill respects the Nebraska process to protect the Sand Hills, while providing a common-sense approach to bring friendly oil and jobs to the U.S. without unnecessary delay,” said Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska. “Now that TransCanada has agreed to change the pipeline route in Nebraska, it makes sense to ensure the President’s decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline is not delayed for political purposes.”

The proposed legislation directs the President to make a decision on the needed permit within 60 days for all portions excluding Nebraska, which would later be determined by state lawmakers. If the President fails to act before the deadline, the permit would be automatically granted.

“Building the Keystone XL will be good for the economy, good for national security, and good for Texas,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. “This bill requires the President to decide whether or not that’s good enough for him, rather than allowing him to stall until after the election.”

Thousands of environmentalists, with the support of some Hollywood celebrities, have staged protests at the White House this year opposing the project, and have threatened to withhold campaign support should the project proceed.

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota said moving forward with the project will strengthen national and energy security, and get the U.S. back on a healthy economic track.

“Federal approval for Keystone XL is something that will cost our nation not one penny,” Hoeven said. “What it will do is create assurances in markets that the energy we need to power our nation will be there in the future. It is important to get this project going, so we can get Americans back to work and secure an important energy resource for our country.”

Added Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia: “By delaying this permit, President Obama is putting his own reelection ahead of America’s economy and energy security. After years of review and environmental evaluation, it’s time to move forward on this project.”

The permitting and approval process has dragged on for three years, and TransCanada has already agreed to 57 special conditions imposed by the State Department, said Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

“Unless President Obama has strong and specific objections, it is time for the project to go forward,” Johnson said

Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook

Yeah unlike all the money spent thrown away on all those "Green Jobs." Just getting the Government out of the way, and letting the Oil and Natural Gas Industry do what they do, it will cost us NOTHING yet look at all we will gain.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - 92 Percent of US Liquid Fuel Produced Here and Canada
OPNTalk - AP I / Blogger Conference Call, Keystone XL Pipeline
Human Events - Senate Republicans to Obama: Get Out of Keystone XL Pipeline's Way

All The Subsidies Will NOT Create Market

The most important fact left out.

Hey folks,

According to Carl Pope, Chairman, of the Sierra Club, we are losing the Green Revolution to places like China. He is not happy about that. He thinks it is unfair that they give all that money to THEIR Green Energy Manufactures, and we apparently, are not giving enough. According to Carl Pope, Chairman, of the Sierra Club, in the Huffy Posts yesterday:

There's no doubt the U.S. is losing the clean-energy race. In 2010 our level of investment in clean energy fell behind both China and Germany, with a growth rate that is 11th among the industrial nations. Last year, China gave $30 billion to its largest solar manufacturers, 20 times the amount that the United States gave, according to Jonathan Silver, former executive director of the U.S. Energy Department's loan program. As a result, in 2010 China sold more than half of the world's solar panels, and is now gearing up a similar effort to dominate global wind markets.

A, China HAS $30 Billion to throw away. We do not. What he HAVE thrown Money away, we have done so freely and even Joyfully, and we have NOTHING for it. B, our own President, who took over a Car Company and is PUSHING "Green Cars" is OUTSOURCING the Battery Manufacturing TO CHINA. We are GIVING them the Business on a Product NO ONE WANTS.

We are consistently losing both manufacturing and deployment leadership in clean-energy technologies that were pioneered and developed in the United States. That's simply not worth debating -- the interesting question is what should we do about it?

Uh, Manufacturing and Deployment to WHO? WHAT? Were is the Market?

OK. Remember OCAN? Looks look at this in the opposite way. Shall we? I create a Paint, that I SAY will save you hundreds, and in some cases thousands of Dollars. One Coat, all you need, EVER. However, the Price of my one can of OCAN is $1000.00 a Can. So, to paint something like a house, you would need to spend more than $6 to $10 Grand. Oh some out there would take the chance and buy it. But Working John and Mary, they will still buy the $50.00 a Can paint. They there will be others that ask, how do I know that it will last forever. If the idea is not believable, MANY will not even think about spending that money to TRY it out.

However, by me making this Product, one coat, ever, I can make the claim that I am saving the planet. Less garbage, less Paint. Less Fumes. ETC. I can now get into the Carbon Offset Business and sell offsets to others. Now the Government comes along and says, "We want in. We want to be seen as caring about the Planet." I say to the Government, "Well, no one is buying it, I may have to shut down." The Government then says, "No, never mind all that, here is $500 MILLION dollars. Just uh, you know, don't forget who loves you baby." However, just like Solyndra, if there is no one buying the Product, it does not matter how much money I have, how much Product I manufactured, there is NO WHERE to deploy it. Just like Solyndra, I may be tempted to take the money and run, attempting to cut my losses.

So this guy, Carl Pope, Chairman, of the Sierra Club, wants our government to give MORE money to a business so that they will SURVIVE, even though, there is NO MARKET for it. He is upset, and It's not fair, that China can give all this money away. It's just not fair. We need to do the same thing. In his Mind. Throw away more money we do NOT have.

Toward the end of his little rant here, he tells you the truth. He said this.

Manufacturing sits in the middle of a supply chain. You must invent wind-turbines before you can manufacture them, and you must have a market downstream before you can sell them. But if national policy makes this crucial middle link of manufacturing uncompetitive, then the whole supply chain will eventually shrink.

HOWEVER!!! The most important fact left out. Where is the DEMAND? There is NONE.

What we do have a Demand for, is what we already KNOW we have. That is what they World runs on. Our own, and the Worlds own, Natural Resources. Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal. With the advancement of Little Hitler {Ahmadinejad}, the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the entire Region, attempting to enact Sharia Law, which is a Stated Goal, one World under Sharia Law, our National Security is dwindling at light speed. Instead of throwing money away on what we Dream we could use, at the expense of what we KNOW we need, is insanity. With all this turmoil and chaos in the Middle East, we need stability here in this country. Not Dreams. Not a Supply of no Demand. But a Supply of what we HAVE a Demand for. This will cost us NOTHING. Just permission to go get it.
Peter

Sources:
The Huffington Post - China Should Play by the Rules, and America Should Play to Win

JOBS JOBS JOBS Three Year Span

Real Life History Lesson on Job Creation and Energy Production.

Hey folks,

Back on October 13, 2011, Rush Limbaugh talked about this Article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal - "Green Jobs Brown Out -- How to spend $157,000 per job."

"A new report by the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General examined a $500 million grant under the stimulus program to the Employment and Training Administration to 'train and prepare individuals for careers in "green jobs."' So far about $162.8 million has been spent. The program was supposed to train 125,000 workers, but only 53,000 have been 'trained' so far, only 8,035 have found jobs, and only 1,033 were still in the job after six months." So a half a billion dollars in stimulus money, Porkulus money supposed to go to jobs training for so-called green jobs. Three years later, only a third of that money has been spent, only 40% of the people who were to be trained have been trained, and only 15% of those trainees have gotten jobs, and only 12% of those people have kept the job for six months.

So all told, fewer than 1% of the people who were supposed to be put in green jobs by this green jobs training program now have jobs, and it only has cost $157,000 per job. And there's no business there! But that's not all. There is more. The regime has expanded the definition of green jobs now to include bus drivers. EPA regulators, university professors, that now qualifies as a green job, and therefore suitable for federal funding, even the Washington lobbyists who have been scoring these bad green energy loans. Meanwhile, Obama's latest jobs bill asks for more of exactly the same kind of jobs training for more green jobs.

This was money spent 3 years ago, and THIS is what we have to show for it? No energy, tons of wasted money. No Jobs. Then he talked about this Article in the National Review online - America’s Worst Wind-Energy Project

"The more people know about the wind-energy business, the less they like it," says Mr. Bryce, "And when it comes to lousy wind deals --" now, this is gonna blow your mind -- " General Electric’s Shepherds Flat project in northern Oregon is a real stinker. I’ll come back to the GE project momentarily. Before getting to that, please ponder that first sentence. [Wind-energy proponents admit they need lots of spin to overwhelm the truly informed.] It sounds like a claim made by an anti-renewable-energy campaigner. It’s not. Instead, that rather astounding admission was made by a communications strategist during a March 23 webinar sponsored by the American Council on Renewable Energy called 'Speaking Out on Renewable Energy: Communications Strategies for the Renewable Energy Industry.'" And they admit they need lots of spin to overwhelm people who really know what's going on.

"During the webinar, Justin Rolfe-Redding, a doctoral student from the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University --" now stop and think of that, the Center for Climate Change Communication, a propaganda department at George Mason University "-- discussed ways for wind-energy proponents to get their message out to the public. Rolfe-Redding said that polling data showed that 'after reading arguments for and against wind, wind lost support.' He went on to say that concerns about wind energy’s cost and its effect on property values 'crowded out climate change' among those surveyed.

"The most astounding thing to come out of Rolfe-Redding’s mouth -- and yes, I heard him say it myself -- was this: 'The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.'" The wind energy proponent, the PR guy, the strategist, said, "'The things people are educated about are a real deficit for us.' After the briefings on the pros and cons of wind, said Rolfe-Redding, 'enthusiasm decreased for wind. That’s a troubling finding.' The solution to these problems, said Rolfe-Redding, was to 'weaken counterarguments' against wind as much as possible. He suggested using 'inoculation theory' by telling people that 'wind is a clean source, it provides jobs' and adding that 'it’s an investment in the future.' He also said that proponents should weaken objections by 'saying prices are coming down every day.'

"It’s remarkable to see how similar the arguments being put forward by wind-energy proponents are to those that the Obama administration is using to justify its support of Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar company that got a $529 million loan guarantee from the federal government. But in some ways, the government support for the Shepherds Flat deal is worse than what happened with Solyndra. The majority of the funding for the $1.9 billion, 845-megawatt Shepherds Flat wind project in Oregon is coming courtesy of federal taxpayers." Two billion, forget solar; now we're on to wind. Two billion for the Shepherds Flat wind project

"That largesse will provide a windfall for General Electric and its partners on the deal who include Google, Sumitomo, and Caithness Energy. Not only is the Energy Department giving GE and its partners a $1.06 billion loan guarantee, but as soon as GE’s 338 turbines start turning at Shepherds Flat, the Treasury Department will send the project developers a cash grant of $490 million. The deal was so lucrative for the project developers that last October, some of Obama’s top advisers, including energy-policy czar Carol Browner and economic adviser Larry Summers, wrote a memo saying that the project’s backers had 'little skin in the game' while the government would be providing 'a significant subsidy (65+ percent).' The memo goes on to say that, while the project backers would only provide equity equal to about 11 percent of the total cost of the wind project, they would receive an 'estimated return on equity of 30 percent.'"

Now, wait. It gets better. "The Obama administration’s loan guarantee for the now-bankrupt Solyndra has garnered lots of attention, but the Shepherds Flat deal is an even better example of corporate welfare. Several questions are immediately obvious: First: Why, as Browner and Summers asked, is the federal government providing loan guarantees and subsidies for an energy project that could easily be financed by GE, which has a market capitalization of about $170 billion?" Why are they being given two billion?

"Second: Why is the Obama administration providing subsidies to GE, which paid little or no federal income taxes last year even though it generated some $5.1 billion in profits from its U.S. operations? Third: How is it that GE’s CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, can be the head of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness while his company is paying little or no federal income taxes? That question is particularly germane as the president never seems to tire of bashing the oil and gas industry for what he claims are the industry’s excessive tax breaks.

"A few months ago, I ran into Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy. I asked him why Duke -- which has about 14,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity -- was investing in wind9energy projects. The answer, said Rogers forthrightly, was simple: The subsidies available for wind projects allow Duke to earn returns on equity of 17 to 22 percent." So my point, green jobs are government jobs, and the government is funding and subsidizing already wealthy corporations and then giving them a large return on their profit. Immelt may as well be in the same bed as Obama is in. "In other words, Shepherds Flat is adding yet more wind turbines to a region that has been overwhelmed this year by excess electrical generation capacity from renewables. And that region will now have to spending huge sums of money building new transmission capacity to export its excess electricity."

As Robert Bryce said, "The more people know about the wind-energy business, the less they like it."

That's because there is NO MARKET for this. There is nothing there. "Alternative" or "Green Energy" doesn't exist. As of yet, no one has come up with a method to make it self sustainable. No one has come up with a plan to make it able to be stored, mass accessible, and affordable for all. Without the Government throwing all this money away propping up these companies, they would simply go away. Then again, with Solyndra, AFTER a half Billion dollars, they STILL went Bankrupt.

So now let look at something TRULY amazing. Remember Perdido? They go out and say, we think there is an Energy Source here. From nothing, 2 years later, they are producing an Energy Source we KNOW will help increase the Supply, lowering the Demand, on what the World NEEDS to run. Here's a Video I hope you find as impressive as I. Check out the Video. It truly is amazing. I said this.

So let's recap. No oil. A structure larger than the Eiffel Tower, weighing as much as 10,000 cars, that will be producing oil from THREE different fields, and a product to market within 2 years. Do not tell me we can't do it. Do not tell me we can't drill our way out of foreign dependency. Out of outrageous gas prices, and do not tell me that this will kill the planet. We can do whatever we set our minds to. THAT is what has always, and will always, keep us great.

So TWO years, we can have increased Revenue to the Government to help pay down debt. Increased National Security. Lower Energy Costs for all. If the Government would just get out of the way, Tens of Thousands of Jobs would be created. Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs, both direct and ancillary, will be created all over the Country. History tells us this.

So which do you prefer? The "Green" Scam? Or REALITY. 3 Years and $500 Million Dollars to Create 1,033 Jobs and NO Energy? Or 2 years that Produce Hundreds of Thousand of Jobs, and affordable Energy for all? OH, and by the way. All that Exploration, Extraction, Refining, and Shipping? It costs Tax Payers ZERO. Not one Dime. No. Not one Pennie.
Peter

Sources:
WSJ - Green Jobs Brown Out
The Washington Examiner - Solyndra funder Kaiser paid zero taxes for years
National Review online - America’s Worst Wind-Energy Project
OPNTalk - Ten to Fifteen Years
Rush Limbaugh - /the_green_jobs_training_scam">The Green Jobs Training Scam

Blame, Dreams, and The Void of Substance

Even the Dreamers are saying "IF", and "Maybe."

Hey folks,

So why have we not completely switched over to the beloved "Green Energy" in this Country? Why is "Green Energy" not the Energy of the World? We are. Yes America. It's our fault. Oh, and of course Mother Nature. This piece in the New York Times gives you a GREAT inside look into the mentality of the Kooks, uh, Dreamers. It is well worth the read.

Basically JOHN M. BRODER, the Writer of this Piece, is blaming Nature and US for slowing down this "Green Movement." Yes folks, it is OUR fault that the World is not moving faster toward the Green Dream.

He starts out blaming Nature. It is Nature's fault that Nuclear Energy has slowed. He said that is was the Tsunami and Earthquake in Northern Japan in March that "shook faith in the safety of nuclear power worldwide." He talks about how a major Nuclear Plant Builder, Siemens, the largest Engineering Company in Europe, "would no longer build Nuclear Power Plants anywhere in the World."

The company’s chairman, Peter Löscher, said that Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades.

They will simply find someone else. This doesn't mean that Nuclear is dead. But it will most definitely slow the process. But then he blames US, for not joining the UN and NOT spending enough Money.

Even before Fukushima, the future of nuclear energy in the United States was already shaky because of the high cost of building and insuring nuclear plants there, and because — unlike Germany and other European countries — the United States has not moved aggressively toward requiring renewable, noncarbon-emitting power generation.

“Two things have happened in the last year, both affecting nuclear power negatively,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, a nonpartisan research organization. “First Fukushima, and then the rising supplies and falling prices of natural gas have fundamentally changed the economics of nuclear power.” Utilities find it far cheaper to turn to natural gas for supplemental power generation and see no value in investing in new nuclear generating plants, which can cost $10 billion or more, he said.

Natural gas now sells for $4 to $5 per thousand cubic feet, or 28.3 cubic meters, in the United States, far below its peak price. “If natural gas were still selling for $13,” Mr. Grumet said, “we’d be building several nuclear plants right now.”

Yup. He blames us for using Natural Gas, and the fact he thinks that Natural Gas is just so damn cheap. It does not say it here, but the Kooks also hate our cheap Gas Prices. Too Cheap! There is no reason for us to switch to, uh, ?? We just keep using what we have and KNOW works. Damn it.

Because the United States has not adopted a national climate change policy that would drive demand for nonpolluting energy sources, the prospects for alternative energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro are poorer in the United States than elsewhere else in the world. Renewable energy also suffered a sharp blow in the United States in September with the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a once-promising solar energy venture in California that received $535 million in federal loans. Republicans in Congress seized on the collapse of the company to question the Obama administration’s approach to supporting alternative energy ventures and the concept of so-called green jobs.

Solyndra was NEVER a once-promising solar energy venture that would create Green Jobs. It was a SHELL Company and a Money Laundering Scheme. That's all it, and MANY others like it, ARE. But we are not spending ENOUGH! Nope. According to Mr. Broder:

The American Energy Innovation Council, a group of American business executives concerned about what they call under-investment in basic energy research, issued a call recently for a tripling of government spending on clean energy research and development. They said that the energy sector in the United States spent a fraction of what other industries, like pharmaceuticals, devoted to advancing new technology.

Yeah, so NO evidence of success AT all in the Green Energy Industry. As a matter of fact, evidence is STRONG AGAINST it, yet they want to TRIPLE our throwing of money away. Money we do not have, on a Market that doesn't exist, to support a solution that doesn't exist. This is who these people are folks. If we would just get with the UN program, we would be sitting pretty. By 2050 Green Energy sources could provide 77 percent of the primary Energy Supply Globally. I though we only had ten years left? Or is it 20? Or was it 10 like 20 years ago. I'm confused. So what do we do UNTIL 2050? And what is that "Green Energy Source" that will accomplish this? {Crickets Chirping} "Uh, that's why we have to spend more money Pete. We have to find it. If we just got off of Oil, raise the price of Natural Gas to $13 Bucks, and Gas to $5.00 a gallon, people would HAVE to go Green. We have to switch." And I repeat, switch to WHAT?

At least they do site someone with a bit of intelligence here.

Daniel Yergin, the energy historian, notes in his new book, “The Quest,” that energy demand will grow 70 percent to 80 percent over the next two decades, and that the demand will largely be met with oil, gas and coal — used more efficiently. He noted that automakers, driven by government fuel efficiency mandates in the United States and China, or high fuel prices in Europe, are building a vastly more efficient fleet of cars and light trucks than in the past.

He added this.

However, Mr. Yergin said, the number of cars on the road is expected to double by midcentury, to two billion from one billion today, taxing fuel supplies, road networks and the atmosphere.

Mr. Yergin is less bullish on green energy than Dr. Pachauri. He predicted that more than 80 percent of world energy would be supplied by carbon-based fuels 20 years from now, but he did note that there continued to be encouraging developments in alternative energy technology.

“What kind of energy mix will meet the world’s energy needs without crisis and confrontation?” Mr. Yergin asked in “The Quest.” That is yet to be seen, he wrote, and lead times for innovative technologies may be long because of the scale and complexity of the global energy supply network. The competition for energy investment dollars will be between what he calls the incumbents — oil, gas and coal — and new entrants — wind, solar and biofuels.

“A transition on this scale, if it does happen,” he wrote, “has great significance for emissions, for the wider economy, for geopolitics and for the position of nations.”

As I keep saying. It's OK to Dream. I will even share the Dream. When someone comes along and says "I have Product A that will change your life. It is THIS. It works like that. You can afford it now and in the future. All you have to do it XYZ, 123, and done." I will jump on the bandwagon. But as of yet, there is no one saying that they have A. There is nothing to switch to. There is no Market. There is only Dreams. I live in Reality. This is where my Home is. This is where I Work. I wake up in the Morning and THIS is what I have to deal with. I have to go to the Gas Station to fuel my Car. Pay my Electric Bill. Fly on Planes. ETC. I live in a World that runs on Oil. Sorry. But until you come up with A, all you are doing is Dreaming.
Peter

Sources:
NYT - The Year of Peril and Promise in Energy Production

Living In "Green" Reality

What Happens when the Government Money, AKA, YOUR Tax Money is not there?

Hey folks,

We have been talking about this for a while. I gave you REAL World examples of how the Free Market works. It is all based on supply and demand. If you, or anyone, comes up with the next big thing, those that want it will sustain it, and it will make you Rich. You will not be able to produce it fast enough.

Look at the real life examples that are out there. Remember the Cabbage Patch Kids? How about Tickle Me Elmo? Look at the I-Phone. Or the New Tablets. If there is a Market, you will not be able to keep up to meet the VAST Demand. You will NOT have to worry about the cost of Production or even Shipping. The Product will sell itself.

So what happens when there is NO MARKET? Well, the Product which is deemed to be a bad Idea, goes away. An investment is lost. A NEW Product comes along to take it's place. Even if there are some that want the Product to succeed really badly, when they run out of money attempting to create an illusion of Demand, the Real World Market comes into play, and the Product goes away. It just takes longer.

So what about Government and "Green Energy?" Same thing. What Happens when the Government Money, AKA, YOUR Tax Money is not there? The Product "Green Energy" can not sustain itself. There is NO MARKET for it. Here is another in a growing line of Real Life Examples of what I'm talking about. According to The Denver Post Online - National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden to cut 100-150 jobs through buyouts By Chuck Plunkett

In both a symbolic and real-world blow to green energy development and the jobs renewable industries are meant to create, the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden announced significant job cuts Monday.

The Golden lab, which saw tremendous investment as part of President Barack Obama's stimulus efforts, said it will use voluntary buyouts to cut 100 to 150 jobs.

So out of 1,350 people, up to 150 of them GONE. If the Government does not step up and give more money to them , for basically NOTHING, more will follow and they may even have to follow Solyndra.

This is why Obama and Crew HAVE to keep propping up all these doomed to fail Companies. Two reasons. Reason one - To continue to create the Illusion that the "Green Movement" is real and Viable. Two - A LOT of this money finds it's way back to the Democrat Party Re-election Coffers.

So I seriously ask you this. To THINK about it. What make more logical sense? To continue to throw Hundreds of BILLIONS of Dollars down the drain, in Shell Games, and to create an Illusion. In areas that have been PROVEN over and over again to FAIL. Areas that INCREASE the Deficit, cost the LOSS of Jobs, DECREASE American Security. OR, do what costs us NOTHING. What costs us NOTHING is simply turning loose those that have been PROVEN time and time again to do the EXACT opposite. INCREASE Revenue in the Hundreds of BILLIONS of Dollars. Create NEW Long lasting REAL Jobs in the Hundreds of THOUSANDS. INCREASE our National Security, and LOWER Energy Costs for ALL.

The last sentence in this Article REALLY says it all.

"This summer is causing most people to look at (green energy development) more soberly and asking, 'Are we getting our bang for the buck?' "

The answer is NO!
Peter

Sources:
The Denver Post Online - National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden to cut 100-150 jobs through buyouts

Obama To Give Two More Solyndras $1 BILLION

Not too much time this morning. Glad I need none. Just read this.

Hey Folks,

So you have this idea. You spend a HALF a Billion Dollars. It fails. What do you do? Well, if you are Obama, you double down. {Sigh} Here we go again. According to The AP - Obama admin approves 2 solar loans worth $1B By MATTHEW DALY Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department on Wednesday approved two loan guarantees worth more than $1 billion for solar energy projects in Nevada and Arizona, two days before the expiration date of a program that has become a rallying cry for Republican critics of the Obama administration's green energy program.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the department has completed a $737 million loan guarantee to Tonopah Solar Energy for a 110 megawatt solar tower on federal land near Tonopah, Nev., and a $337 million guarantee for Mesquite Solar 1 to develop a 150 megawatt solar plant near Phoenix.

The loans were approved under the same program that paid for a $528 million loan to Solyndra Inc., a California solar panel maker that went bankrupt after receiving the money and laid off 1,100 workers. Solyndra is under investigation by the FBI and is the focal point of House hearings on the program.

SolarReserve LLC, of Santa Monica, Calif., the parent company for Tonopah, is privately held. The Energy Department said its rules prevented it from discussing the company's financial information. Sempra Energy of San Diego, which owns Mesquite, is publicly held.

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said the two projects had extensive reviews that included scrutiny of the parent companies' finances.

So no, we will not tell you if like Solyndra, they will take your money and run. No, we will not tell you, that we believe that even though there is NO MARKET, these will be successful. Just, uh, trust us. We know better than you.

Chu said the Nevada project would produce enough electricity to power more than 43,000 homes, while the Arizona project would power nearly 31,000 homes. The two projects will create about 900 construction jobs and at least 52 permanent jobs, Chu said.

"If we want to be a player in the global clean energy race, we must continue to invest in innovative technologies that enable commercial-scale deployment of clean, renewable power like solar," Chu said in a statement.

So? $737 million to power 43,000 homes? Or to line pocket of those about to skip out. Either way, that is a lot of money for nothing. Also, there is no guarantee that ANY Jobs will be created. Zero. So far Obama's track record on actually creating all the jobs he promised is less than stellar. Any time he wants to spend MORE of your money, he says Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Then jokes about it later when NONE are created.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is a strong supporter of the Nevada project, which he says will help his state's economy recover. Former Gov. Jim Gibbons, a Republican, also supported the project.

The loan approvals came just two days before a renewable energy loan program approved under the 2009 economic stimulus law is set to expire. At least seven projects worth more than $5 billion are pending.

Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., chairman of a House energy subcommittee that is investigating Solyndra, said the impending deadline was no reason to complete loans before they are ready.

"Solyndra was the product of a bad bet rushed out the door, and taxpayers are now on the hook," he said. "We cannot afford DOE rushing out more Solyndras in these final hours."

A government watchdog group said the Solyndra bankruptcy shows the need for greater oversight of all the department's loan guarantee programs.

"It is time for a full audit of their activities, their management and their results," said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, Washington-based advocacy group.

"Candidly, it might be time for the federal government to rethink the whole idea of loan programs," Schatz added, calling the government's track record on loan guarantees "lousy."

Too often, the government either backs risky or failing ventures, resulting in a loss of taxpayer money, or subsidizes companies and industries that are mature and profitable and don't need the money, such as the oil and gas industry, Schatz said.

Scott Crider, a spokesman for Sempra Generation, a Sempra Energy subsidiary that is developing the Arizona project, said its loan guarantee was far less risky than the Solyndra loan. Most importantly, the project has a 20-year agreement with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to buy power supplied by the solar plant, he said.

The purchase agreement is a key element of the project and will "provide assurance that there are sufficient revenues in place to support the loan guarantee," Crider said.

A similar agreement is in place in Nevada. NV Energy, the state's largest electric utility, has agreed to purchase power from the Tonopah tower, which will connect to NV Energy's power grid. The Interior Department approved the project, known as Crescent Dunes, last year.

Solyndra, of Fremont, Calif., was the first company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model. Since then, the company's implosion and revelations that officials hurried review of the loan in time for a September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he tries to sell his job-creation program.

So there you have it folks, SCREW Jobs. Screw the Economy. Forget what we have and KNOW works. For get the Government getting out of the way and letting the Free Market be FREE. No. Another BILLION Dollars down the drain. How's that Hope and Change working out for ya?
Peter

Sources:

AP - Obama admin approves 2 solar loans worth $1B

A Green Energy Activist Wakes Up

No matter how good the Dream is, you always have to wake up to Reality.

Hey folks,

Happy Tuesday morning to ya. Here is a classic example of someone who was in the middle of a GREAT Dream. Have you ever been there? You tuck yourself in and slip off to Dreamland, finding yourself somewhere in the Past, or with someone you love, in some exotic location? It is one of those Dream that seem so real. You are having the time of your life. However? No matter how good the Dream is, you always have to wake up to Reality.

Well this is what is happening today. Someone who use to be Dreaming Green, and looking to tap into some of all that Money to help HIS State, "Go Green," has woken up. According to The USA Today - Critic of Obama clean-energy loans lobbied Energy Department By Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – The Republican lawmaker leading the charge against an Obama administration loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies wasn't always so skeptical of government attempts to boost the green economy.

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., the chairman of House Energy and Commerce Committee, previously lobbied the Department of Energy to lend money for at least four energy projects in his home state through the same loan program. But after last month's bankruptcy of the solar panel manufacturer Solyndra — the first company to win a DOE clean-energy loan funded through Obama's $825 billion stimulus plan — Upton was among the Republican lawmakers who decried the Department of Energy loan guarantee program for "picking winners and losers."

Now, Upton is suggesting that the DOE program — which has about $7 billion in conditional loan commitments to green firms that are due to be finalized by the end of this week — may amount to "risky investments for American taxpayers." Upton and Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu last week and urged him not to rush to finalize several loans that are required by statute to be closed by Friday.

House Energy subcommittee staff are scheduled to meet today with Energy Department officials to discuss the outstanding loans.

"In this time of record debt, I question whether the government is qualified to act as a venture capitalist, picking winners and losers in speculative ventures and shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat," Upton said at a hearing earlier this month

.Amen! but that is EXACTLY what the Government is doing. The ONLY reason MOST of these "Green Energy" Companies exist is BECAUSE the Government is funding them. THERE IS NO MARKET out there, not yet anyway, to support this entire Industry.

Look, we have not perfected a Viable Alternative. We have not made it affordable for all. We have not figured out a Mass Distribution and Support for it. We have NOTING to Switch to. There is NOTHING there BUT Dreams. Yet, those wanting to further the Green Dream, want to do so at the Cost of what we DO have, and what WORKS. They do not care that your Energy Cost Skyrocket. They do not care that they are using YOUR money to fund LOSING Propositions. They have Agendas and they are sticking to them.

The more and more information that is coming out about Solyndra, the more and more it appears to be nothing more than a Money Laundering Scheme. YOUR Tax money. A HALF a BILLION dollars of your Tax Money. Now we have learned that one of the Biggest Creditors of Solyndra, WAS the Democrat Party.

In the aftermath of Solyndra's collapse, Upton and other Republicans have noted that a foundation tied to an Obama fundraiser was a major investor in the Fremont, Calif.-based company and questioned whether politics played a role in Solyndra winning the loan guarantee. As the result of an ongoing Energy subcommittee investigation, the White House was forced to release a series of e-mails that suggested administration officials were eager to see the deal finalized, so Vice President Biden could attend a 2009 groundbreaking ceremony for Solyndra.

But in the past, Upton, like many of his Republican colleagues, voted in favor of energy policy laws that created the loan guarantee program and lobbied the Energy Department to back loans for firms in their state.

Backed loan guarantees

In 2005, when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, Upton voted for an energy law that included a loan guarantee program to help support companies looking to develop renewable energy projects as well as nuclear and coal. And in 2007, Upton backed legislation that created the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program, targeting manufacturers and suppliers looking to retool U.S. factories to build high-fuel economy vehicles.

Yeah, it was a Good Dream. Some good has come from it. However, we are talking 2005. Billions upon Billions of Dollars. 6 Years later? We have more efficient Vehicles. They can go farther on a Gallon of gas. Your home, if a Newer one, is more Efficient. But in Reality, not much has changed. So why are we throwing more and more money down the drain? Money we do not have. Did you know this? According to this piece in the USA Today...

Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, noted that only about 40 applicants out of hundreds were granted conditional loan guarantees and that all applicants are rigorously vetted by internal analysts and outside experts.

"We evaluate the technical aspects of an application to make sure the technology is feasible, work to ensure that projects can be built to scale, do extensive market analysis to ensure there is a place in the market for the product, and evaluate the finances of the project to ensure it is commercially viable," LaVera said.

Only 40 out of Hundreds have been Vetted? 40? Meanwhile we have an Administration that wants to continue to shell out Billions to support these Companies. How many are just like Solyndra? Shell Companies that have alternative plans to do with all that money. We already know that there is NO Market for this. So where is all that Money going to end up?

It's OK a Dream. It really is. I Dream of a greener world. I want to leave this World cleaner and more efficient that it is now, for MY Sons, and their Children for generations to come. Those of you who know me, KNOW that I am big on Recycling. For the sole reason that we only have so much land to fill with all the Garbage we dispose of daily. There are some working hard on trying to figure out how to turn some of that into Energy. I say GREAT! But the Technology is not there yet. The Technology is not there for Mass Solar and or Wind. I would LOVE to drive around in a Vehicle that is powered by, say, Water. Live in a home where the Sun runs everything I need. Where the Rain becomes a source of consumption and even perhaps Power. Where I need not worry about Blackouts. Or Skyrocketing Electric Bills. It's OK to Dream. I share your Dream. But to have this, or ANY Dream become a REALITY, one must never lose track of Reality. No. We MUST find a way to convert the DREAM into something that is VIABLE and Compatible WITH Reality.

Right now in this Country, our Economy is hurting. People are hurting. Our Wealth is SHRINKING. Money is tight and getting more difficult for many to come by. To MANDATE that people spend BILLIONS on this unrealized Dream is just INSANE. First, lets Explore and Drill MORE of what we KNOW we have, and what we know WORKS. Lets put Hundreds of Thousands of people to work. Lets INCREASE our National Security. Let's INCREASE our Revenue to the Government the RIGHT way. And we are talking Hundreds of Billions. Lets make Energy AFFORDABLE for ALL. THEN, and in the MEANTIME, lets continue to look for Viable Alternatives and let the Free Market decide the Winners and the Losers. Trust me folks, when someone DOES finally figure out a Viable Alternative, NOTHING will stop it from coming about. NOTHING. It will happen, and we will all be better off in the long run for it.

The problem is, we are FAR from that today. If the Government would just get out of the way, we will get there. There is no doubt in my mind. Perhaps in MY lifetime, I may be living the "Green Life." But as long as the Government is involved, propping up Companies that are doomed to fail, the process will take a lot longer. If we continue to simply further agendas instead of simply getting out of the way, we may NEVER get there. It's time to wake up and look at Reality. People need Jobs, Affordable Energy, Security, and we need the Economy to improve TODAY, far more than we need to Dream about a POSSIBLE tomorrow.
Peter

Sources:
The USA Today - Critic of Obama clean-energy loans lobbied Energy Department

Awakening from the Green Dream

Again, Reality is starting to interfere with the Liberal Dream.

Hey folks,

I have said it all before. I have shown you proof. We have discussed in length that today's Liberalism can be summed up in one sentence. Quick to Dream, slow to think. But with any Dream, you have to wake up. At some point, Reality comes rushing back in. And although Dreaming is good, in the end, it IS just a Dream.

Obama and Crew, and many like him, are trying to sell you on the Dream that IS Liberalism. A Utopia of peace and equality. Where everyone is equal, there is no disparity of Wealth, Free Healthcare for all, and a Clean planet with low cost, natural, never ending Energy. A world where no one needs of anything, and the Government is in charge of EVERYTHING. For the betterment of all mankind, of course.

Problem is, NONE of this is REAL. None of it is sustainable. None of it is REALITY. Try as hard as they might, it will NEVER be. Look around. Anywhere in the World where a Centralized Controlling Government is the Rule, you have a bit of Equality. The Government and those in charge have all the money, while the People starve and fight over the scraps that the Government throw to them. Look to those areas where Healthcare is Free for All? People only get treated when the Government says they can, how they can, IF they can. Those who rule these areas, and those few that can afford it, come HERE for their Healthcare when it involves more than just "Take two of these and call me in the morning."

Green Energy? Yeah. There is NOTHING out there. I keep telling you that until we can, and we are FAR from it, find a constant, reliable source, prefect the harnessing, distribution, and cost, it will remain nothing more than an elusive Dream. A nice thought. A good idea. But meanwhile, we MUST use what we have and what the WORLD runs on. And what we have is ABUNDANT. If we would only wake up.

I just talked about how the Green Dream is NOT sustainable. There is NO market for it. There is no market because we are DECADES away, if ever, of answering those questions. Over coming those obstacles. There is NOTHING to switch to. At least, nothing that can stand on it's own, without the Government propping it up. And EVEN then, it is not sustainable. According to Statesman.com - Lessons for government in energy firm failure
Editorial, The Washington Post

In May 2010, President Barack Obama paid a visit to the California factory of a solar-energy firm known as Solyndra, which the Energy Department had backed with a $535 million loan guarantee. "The future is here," Obama declared.

On Thursday, FBI agents came through Solyndra's doors with a different message: "Search warrant."

The details of the federal investigation are not yet public, but they probably have something to do with Solyndra's unexpected announcement Aug. 31 that it is filing for bankruptcy, leaving hundreds of workers jobless — and taxpayers on the hook for almost all of its government-backed loan. The collapse of one of the Obama administration's signature "green jobs" efforts might mutate from an embarrassment to a scandal.

Obviously, everyone should reserve judgment as to whether there has been any wrongdoing, criminal or otherwise. But it's not too early to draw some policy lessons from Solyndra's ignominious downfall.

The first is that government is no better than the private sector at picking industrial winners — and usually worse.

You know why? We'll get back to the Article in a second. You know WHY? Because the Government is not dealing with IT'S OWN MONEY. They are dealing with YOURS. If you hear someone tell you that they have this big plan, and they want you to give them a lot of money to take part in the benefits of that plan, you will find out all you can about it before you give them them money. Right? If not, then you get scammed and you LOOSE the money. Well, the Government need not worry about that. It's not their money. Back to the Article.

Solyndra's novel solar-panel design was supposed to produce electricity more efficiently than more traditional panels, offsetting its higher production costs. Many private analysts questioned that business model, especially given modest global demand for solar power and competition from China's heavily subsidized producers. But the Energy Department swiftly approved Solyndra's loan guarantee anyway.

The department has also placed large financial bets on electric vehicles and related battery technology, despite private forecasts that the market for that technology is not ripe.

THERE IS NO MARKET! No one wants to pay $40,000 to $50,000 dollars today, for a Vehicle that can only go 80 miles an hour TOPS, about 50 Miles between Charges, and then PAY another $20,000 in like 4 years to replace the Batteries. NO ONE wants this. There is NO Market despite the never ending Obama and Crew demanding we switch.

This hardly means that government has no role in promoting clean-energy technology. It just needs to limit its intervention to an earlier stage in the process: basic scientific research. This is a traditional public good — potentially useful to society but financially unattractive to the private sector. Leave the high-risk, high-reward business of manufacturing and selling specific energy technologies to the market.

I agree with that. Remember my plan? Start small. Grow bigger if it is Viable and affordability for all can be overcome.

The second lesson is that "green jobs" offer a dubious rationale for federal support of clean-energy technology. To the extent that government creates jobs by subsidizing particular companies, it does so by shifting resources that might have created jobs elsewhere. Political favoritism, or the appearance thereof, is an inherent risk; Solyndra's largest private investors are tied to one of Obama's key fundraisers.

ABSOLUTELY! All this was, was an attempt to further the Green Agenda. There was no REAL desire to create Long Lasting, Well Paid, JOBS. It was nothing more than a Political Stunt that backfired.

Environmentalists — and their allies in the White House and Congress — have touted green jobs in response to industry's perennial argument that cleaning up the planet kills jobs. It would be better to defend the costs of a clean environment on their own terms, as the necessary price we pay for a sustainable planet. When "green jobs" promises don't pan out, it does the environmental cause more harm than good.

Of course it does. Why? People awaken from the "Green Dream" and see Reality.
Peter

Sources:
Statesman.com - Lessons for government in energy firm failure

Follow Up On Kill The Damn Birds

It really is worse than I thought.

Hey folks,

Yesterday I posted This: More Unintended Consequences and Who Cares? Where I reminded you of what I posted July 14th, 2011 Obama: Kill The Damn Birds. What I was talking about was the Birds that are being killed daily by "giant horizontal blenders." And it seems as if no one cares. Obama and Crew WANT Wind Farms and WANT to further their "Green Agenda," so they do not care about the Birds getting killed. They do not even care about the Standard Environmental Study Process. Just lump everything into one. Approve it, and away they go. What about the Endangered Species? Well, they do not seem to care about that. They are willing to issue a Licence to Kill, in order to further their agenda.

I gave you this example of how I could see a conversation, based on the FACTS, would go with someone in the Obama Administration talking about all this. It went like this.

So why are we not Drilling?

"Oh, you can't do that. IF there is a Spill in area X, an estimated 10,000 life forms in the area will be DESTROYED. All Life as we know it in X could be wiped out for the next TEN YEARS!"

OK. So how many endangered Birds will be killed this year by Wind Farms? And if you build more along Migration Routes How many will be killed?

"Oh. UH. We really can't say. Uh, not enough data. Uh. we really do not have facts to back it up. So we will not speculate. We may not know for YEARS. So we should just do it."

One last question Mr. Wind Power Advocate. When these are not producing because of lack of Wind. How do these Turbines run?

"Well? Oil."

Oh. Uh. Glad we cleared that up. {Smile}

Well folks, it seems WORSE than I even thought. A Friend of mine sent me this Link yesterday. Get this. According to the Miami Herald - US officials conducting dead bird study in Gulf

The Associated Press

MOBILE, Ala. -- A new study being conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service aims to determine how many birds may have died during the Gulf oil spill last year.

The Press-Register in Mobile ( http://bit.ly/qD83rW) reports that in the "Carcass Drift Study" funded by BP PLC, researchers are attaching numbered floats to hundreds of bird carcasses and dropping them in the Gulf to track their paths. Federal officials have dropped about 250 real carcasses and 65 dummy carcasses in the water since July 16 along the Gulf between Louisiana and Panama City, Fla.

Researchers hope this study will determine how many dead birds never made it to shore. Researchers will combine this study with several others to estimate the total number of birds killed by the months-long spill.

OK. So because they have no real proof of any wide spread environmental Destruction that they hoped for, they are forcing BP to spend money on this Bogus Study. I guess they will claim, based on how many dead birds are EATEN, Sink, or whatever, that THIS must be a real number of Birds killed during the ACTUAL spill. Right? But that is idiotic. Just because a dead bird carcass that they drop in the water, doesn't float up, will NOT prove that there was a real Bird Killed during the Spill that just didn't happen to wash up. But they will have something that sounds good to those without the ability to think or apply reason.

"See. We dropped 250 dead Birds in the Ocean and only 5 washed up. So just imagine how many were really killed during the Spill." {Sigh} They may even say "It was worse than we thought." The sad thing though, is that there are some Sheeple out there that will ACTUALLY BELIEVE them. After all, it is Big Bad Oil we are talking about.

Scientists believe many dead birds are likely to be eaten by sharks or simply sink into the water.

"So we're looking at what is the probability the carcasses will come ashore? If they do come ashore, how long will they stay there? And then, what is the chance the surveyors will find them?" said PeteTuttle, who is heading up the Natural Resources Damage Assessment for U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

The project is costing about $1 million.

Why? Seriously. Why? Of course some will sink, some will be eaten, and some will never be found. But WHY? Oh, to spend $1 Million of BP's Money. OK. As long as it is for a good cause.

Mike Pixley with the fish and wildlife service said the transmitters attached to the carcasses can be detected from about five miles away. So far, researcher don't know what's happened to most of the dead birds, he said.

The contraptions attached to the dead birds are small Styrofoam buoys painted orange and white with tiny transmitters on them. Each has a phone number printed on it in case someone finds it.

Hey call the number, maybe you will get a T-Shirt or something. This whole thing is Patently Absurd. I do have a few questions myself though.

What is the effect on the SHARK that may EAT one of these Dead Birds with a Styrofoam buoy on it. Will it make them sick? Kill them?

What is the effect on the land where these may wash up and rot?

Why did it cost a Million Dollars to drop Dead Birds in the Ocean.

And the Million Dollar question I have. WHERE DID THEY GET 250 DEAD BIRDS? Did they kill them? What kind of Birds are they? How is it no one cares about THAT?

WAIT? Hey maybe they are the Birds killed by the Wind Farms. At least they are putting them to good use? It really is worse than I thought.
Peter

Sources:
Miami Herald - US officials conducting dead bird study in Gulf