Tag Archives: Keystone Pipeline

A Scandal Under The Radar

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line has posted a number of articles about the use of the Washington Post by the Democrat party to attack the Koch brothers about the Keystone Pipeline. Never mind that the Koch brothers have no connection to the Pipeline or that building it would not help their business, the Washington Post still reported supposed connections as fact. I haven’t written about the scandal because it is complicated and hard to detail in a concise manner. However, John Hinderaker appeared on Fox News and explained it beautifully.

The video is posted on YouTube:

This is an example of why many Americans, including myself, do not trust the mainstream media.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Mainstream Media Continues Its Demonization Of The Koch Brothers

Posted on by

The Koch Brothers seem to be the target of the day for the mainstream media (and Senator Harry Reid). They have been singled out as the poster child for big money flowing into politics. Opensecrets.org, a website that tracks political donations shows the Koch Brothers as number 59 on their list of biggest political donors? When was the last time number 59 got any kind of publicity?

The latest attack on the Koch Brothers is an article in the Washington Post which lists them as a major lease holder in Canadian Oil Sands. John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday which shows that supposed fact to be a total lie.

The story at Power Line points out:

So the fundamental point of the Post story, which relied uncritically on a goofball far-left report, is dead wrong. Moreover, the Post story itself acknowledges that the tar sands encompass 35 million acres, so Koch’s 1.1 million comprise less than 3% of the total. The whole point of this exercise is to make the Keystone Pipeline all about Koch, and that premise is implausible from the start.

Somehow the story in the Washington Post neglects to mention who profits by the Keystone Pipeline NOT being built. On February 12, I posted that story (rightwinggranny.com).

As previously posted from another Power Line article:

If the Obama administration holds firm on blocking Keystone, the big loser will be TransCanada Corporation. But who will the big winners be? American railroads:

And of them, the biggest winner might just be the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate controlled by Obama supporter and Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett. In December, the CEO of BNSF, Matthew Rose, said that his railroad was shipping about 500,000 barrels of oil per day out of the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and that it was seeking a permit to send “crude by rail to the Pacific Northwest.” He also said the railroad expects to “eventually” be shipping 1 million barrels of oil per day.

The article at rightwinggranny.com also lists some other interests connected to legislators that will profit if the Keystone Pipeline is not built.

As usual, follow the money–even when the mainstream media totally misreports whose money is involved.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Following The Money On The Keystone Pipeline

Posted on by

In February of last year, I posted an article explaining how the delay of the Keystone Pipeline is making money for Warren Buffett (rightwinggranny.com). The article included the following quote from John Hinderaker at Power Line:

If the Obama administration holds firm on blocking Keystone, the big loser will be TransCanada Corporation. But who will the big winners be? American railroads:

And of them, the biggest winner might just be the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate controlled by Obama supporter and Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett. In December, the CEO of BNSF, Matthew Rose, said that his railroad was shipping about 500,000 barrels of oil per day out of the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and that it was seeking a permit to send “crude by rail to the Pacific Northwest.” He also said the railroad expects to “eventually” be shipping 1 million barrels of oil per day.

However, it seems as if Warren Buffett is not the only one benefiting from the delay of the Keystone Pipeline. The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today highlighting some other people who have a financial interest in making sure the Keystone Pipeline is not built.

Senator Tim Kaine (D., Va.) is one of the people opposed to the construction  of the Keystone Pipeline.

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

The freshman Democrat (Senator Kaine) has between $15,000 and $50,000 invested in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, according to his most recent financial disclosure. Kinder Morgan is looking to build a pipeline that would directly compete with Keystone.

Kinder Morgan is considering expanding its Canadian pipeline infrastructure with an expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, which carries oil sands crude from Alberta to refineries and export terminals on Canada’s west coast.

The expansion would boost Trans Mountain’s capacity to 890,000 barrels per day. Keystone, a project of energy company TransCanada, is expected to carry about 830,000 barrels per day if fully constructed.

Observers have said a rejection of Keystone would be a boon for Kinder Morgan, since the Trans Mountain pipeline presents a viable alternative for exporting crude from Canadian oil sands.

The article reminds us:

The availability of alternatives to Keystone—from Kinder Morgan and Enbridge, another TransCanada competitor and Canada’s largest crude oil transporter—is integral to the State Department’s assessment that approving the pipeline will have little impact on carbon emissions, President Barack Obama’s stated standard for approval.

Another Congressman has investments in Enbridge:

Another anti-Keystone Democrat, California Rep. Alan Lowenthal, has between $15,000 and $50,000 invested in Enbridge Energy Management, $1,000 to $15,000 in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, and $15,000 to $50,000 in Kinder Morgan Management, which is a limited partner in and handles everyday management for the company’s Energy Partners subsidiary.

Lowenthal has been less outspoken then Kaine on Keystone, but he voted against legislation last year that would have approved the pipeline without sign-off from the administration, which has repeatedly put off a decision on the project.

He was also one of 22 Democrats to sign a December letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman insisting that the Keystone Pipeline would be detrimental to the environment.

Shouldn’t Congressmen who have a vested financial interest in a vote taken by Congress be forced to abstain from that vote? This seems to be an example of Congressmen padding their own pockets while blocking a project that would provide jobs for many unemployed Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rules For Radicals In Action

Posted on by

Saul Alinksy, the original community organizer, wrote a book entitled, “Rules for Radicals.” Rule #4 states, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)” Unfortunately that rule has been used excessively by many of the American political left. The latest example has to do with the Keystone Pipeline.

Two people the American political left loves to hate are the Koch Brothers. Yesterday John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line describing how the political left is using the Koch Brothers as an excuse to oppose the Keystone Pipe Line. So what is the connection between the Keystone Pipeline and the Koch Brothers? Well, before I go into that, I would like to mention the connection between the Keystone Pipeline and Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett controls Berkshire Hathaway which owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. Burlington Northern Santa Fe will be shipping oil by rail if the pipeline is not built. The railroad expects to “eventually” be shipping 1 million barrels of oil per day.

But, back to the Koch Brothers. A website called Grist claims that the Koch Brothers will make “as much as $100 billion in profits if the controversial Keystone XL pipeline is given the go-ahead by President Obama.” So let’s look at the claim. First of all, the construction of the Keystone Pipeline would result in Koch Industries paying more for oil–not less. (See the article at Power Line for details). The article at Power Line also deals with the claim that the Koch Brothers own a good part of the acreage the oil for the pipeline will come from. Actually, it turns out that the Koch Brothers lease the acreage and that if the pipeline is built, it will take 476 years for the Koch Brothers to break even after the construction of the Pipeline.

The article at Power Line concludes:

So what is going on here? Rich liberals hire kids–recent college graduates, or maybe college or high school students–to produce idiotic “research reports” that can be dismantled by anyone familiar with arithmetic, let alone the oil and gas industry, of which these kids obviously know nothing at all. The claims these reports make are completely divorced from reality, but liberals don’t seem to care. The Huffington Post headlines: “Keystone XL Pipeline Could Yield $100 Billion For Koch Brothers.” PolicyMic: “Actually, You Probably WILL Guess Who Stands to Make $100 Billion Off the Keystone XL Pipeline.” TruthDig: “Koch Brothers Stand to Make $100 Billion From Keystone Pipeline.” And, of course, the Kos Kidz are all over it.

This isn’t just stupid, it is insane. It is also, unfortunately, a good example of what modern liberalism has come to. No regard for truth, just blind hatred.

Rules for radicals at work.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leopards Don’t Really Change Thier Spots

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted a story this morning entitled, “Russia’s Anti-American Foreign Policy” (no link–subscribers only). So what happened to ‘reset’? Regardless of what is said between the two countries, the freedom of America is a potential threat to the totalitarianism of Russia.

The article notes:

The U.S. needs three things from Russia: understanding in defense matters, assistance in the war on terror, and help in curbing the ambitions of rogue states. In each case, the record of the Putin regime is one of relentless obstruction.

Among other things, Russia has objected to the idea of an antimissile shield in Europe. Why? There is no logical reason for that opposition. NATO has never been a threat to Russia. The Russians have recently taken in Edward Snowden, and whether you see him as a traitor or a hero, that was definitely a slap in the face toward the United States.

One of the things that the article points out is that the Russian economy is deteriorating–in the second quarter of 2013, the growth was 1.2 percent. During the 2000’s the growth rate was 7.2 percent. Russia needs high oil prices to keep its economy afloat. Middle East instability results in high oil prices.

There are two lessons to be learned here. First of all, we need to remember that Russia is looking out for Russia’s interests–not America’s interests. Peace in the Middle East is not in their interest. Second of all, we could be done with all this kowtowing to the tyrants of Russia and the Middle East if we would develop our own energy sources. We need the Keystone Pipeline so that we won’t be at the mercy of Russian foreign policy–we need to determine our own foreign policy without being enslaved to Middle East oil.

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Delays For The Keystone Pipeline

Posted on by

President Obama had a reputation for voting ‘present’ while in the Illinois legislature. He is continuing that tradition in the way his administration is handling the Keystone Pipeline. The real problem with the Keystone Pipeline is that it splits two major groups within the Democrat party. The unions want the pipeline because they understand that it will bring jobs and improve America’s energy independence (which will boost the economy and create more jobs). The environmentalists oppose it because it involves fossil fuel which they are opposed to. As long as the Obama Administration can avoid making a decision on the pipeline, it can collect campaign money from both the unions and the environmentalists. As soon as a decision is made, the donations from one side will decrease significantly. (I’m sorry if that sounds cynical, but that is essentially how Washington works.)

So what is the latest delaying action?

Yesterday’s Daily Caller reports:

For more than 1,800 days, the Obama administration has been analyzing whether the Keystone pipeline is in the national interest. The Department of State’s review of the pipeline found that it would create more than 42,000 jobs and not significantly impact global warming or the environment.

But that seems to be an outlier view within the Obama administration. Soon after the State Department released its review, the Environmental Protection Agency attacked it and said it needed to take a deeper look into the pipeline’s environmental and climate impacts.

This has to be the most studied pipeline in human history.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Those Pesky Fact-Checkers

Posted on by

In his latest comments on the Keystone Pipeline, President Obama claimed that the Pipeline would create approximately 2,000 jobs during construction and later approximately 50 and 100 jobs. Doesn’t sound like much, does it?

The Daily Caller fact-checkers reviewed those statements in an article posted on Wednesday.

The article quotes the White House response when asked about these numbers:

“There are a range of estimates out there about the economic impact of the pipeline,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “What the president is interested in doing is draining the politics out of this debate and evaluating this project on the merits.”

The State Department reported that the pipeline would directly create 3,900 jobs per year, and 42,100 jobs if indirect jobs are included. Even the Sierra Club, one of the leading groups campaigning against the pipeline cites the 3,900 jobs figure — higher than the president’s unsupported numbers.

The only estimate that even comes close to what President Obama claimed was one done by the Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations Global Labor Institute, which opposes the pipeline.

The thing to note here is that the Pipeline would create jobs. America desperately needs jobs. Aside from the concept of energy independence and national security, it might be a really good idea to build the Keystone Pipeline, but meanwhile Warren Buffett‘s railroad is earning millions hauling the oil by rail. Notice, the oil will travel. The question is how it will travel and where it will travel. If America stalls on approving the pipeline long enough, the oil will travel by a new pipeline across Canada to a seaport where it will be shipped to China. It is not in America’s interest to oppose the Keystone Pipeline.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Stating The Obvious

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an article stating that Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is warning his country that America‘s development of shale oil will be a threat to the Saudi economy. The letter, written to Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi and several other ministers warned that the U.S. shale oil boom will decrease the amount of oil purchased from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The Prince also asked the government to accelerate its plans to diversify the Saudi economy.

The article reports:

In contrast to Prince Alwaleed, Mr. Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, has so far played down the significance of rising shale-oil production, despite the fact that some OPEC members, such as Nigeria and Algeria, have seen a sharp drop in their exports to the U.S. At an OPEC meeting in late May, he said it wasn’t the first time OPEC has had to compete with a surge in output from countries outside the group.

“We disagree with your Excellency on what you said, and we see that rising North American shale gas production is an inevitable threat,” Prince Alwaleed’s letter said, in comments directed at Mr. Naimi.

Neither Mr. Naimi nor a spokesman for the ministry could be reached to comment.

The chart below shows American imports of Saudi oil in the past thirteen years:

image

Notice that the biggest drop in American oil imports was during the height of the recent recession.

You’ll excuse me if I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Saudi Arabia and OPEC. Both OPEC and Saudi Arabia have used their monopoly on oil to support tyrannical rulers and international terrorism. Because of that monopoly, America and Western countries have been reluctant to deal with the death and carnage the Saudis and OPEC nations have been responsible for. It would be very nice to see a Saudi economy so diversified that a middle class could form.

In January of this year, The Guardian reported on poverty in Saudi Arabia:

The article reported:

Under King Abdullah, the Saudi government has spent billions to help the growing numbers of poor, estimated to be as much as a quarter of the native Saudi population. But critics complain that those programmes are inadequate, and that some royals seem more concerned with the country’s image than with helping the needy. In 2011, for example, three Saudi video bloggers were jailed for two weeks after they made an online film about poverty in Saudi Arabia.

“The state hides the poor very well,” said Rosie Bsheer, a Saudi scholar who has written extensively on development and poverty. “The elite don’t see the suffering of the poor. People are hungry.”

The Saudi government discloses little official data about its poorest citizens. But press reports and private estimates suggest that between 2 million and 4 million of the country’s native Saudis live on less than about $530 a month – about $17 a day – considered the poverty line in Saudi Arabia.

The money we are sending to Saudi Arabia for oil could be better spent building energy independence for America. We need shale oil, we need the Keystone Pipeline and we need new refineries. Development in those areas would greatly improve the American economy as well as improve our national security by making us more energy independent.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Let Scientific Information Get In The Way Of Your Political Agenda

Posted on by

The roots of the outcry about the dangers of global warming are political. If global warming is a crisis, government can exert more power over citizens. Government can choose winners and losers in the business world (e.g. subsidies to Solyndra or avoiding the Keystone Pipeline to increase the business on Warren Buffett‘s railroad, etc.), and generally those in power can consolidate their power by employing quid pro quo policies without being obvious about it. So what about some of the claims used to sell the theory that we are melting?

Yesterday WattsUpWithThat posted an article about some recent claims that the North Pole is melting. Good grief, what will happen to Santa Claus?

The picture below was posted on Facebook by the Climate Reality Project. The picture was described as a picture of the North Pole showing that the North Pole was melting. There’s only one problem with that–the picture was taken 300 miles from the North Pole. So how much difference does 300 miles make? Three hundred miles is the approximate distance between Boston, Massachusetts, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Anyone who has been in these cities in February knows that 300 miles matters.

Drifting_webcam_Capture

In case you are still fearful that we are melting, the article at WattsUpWithThat included a few pictures from the 1960’s.

Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962

Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962 (US Navy Photo).

The article also includes a picture of the North Pole from the 1980’s when Time Magazine was proclaiming the dangers of global cooling.

The following video posted on YouTube with the explanation below to clarify what is actually happening:

Published on Jul 27, 2013

There was quite a bit of hype bouncing around the Instanet on a “lake” at the North Pole. This video tries to clarify what’s up. Ponds of meltwater form routinely on Arctic Ocean sea ice in the summer. The sea ice is floating on the Arctic Ocean and in constant motion. The webcam that took these images was placed on the ice a few dozen miles from the North Pole in early spring, but has since drifted hundreds of miles.
The North Pole Environmental Observatory Web site:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpo…

I went on the 2003 expedition to set up the same batch of instruments in 2003 and wrote an award-winning book about the project and the once and future North Pole:
http://us.macmillan.com/newyorktimest…

Andrew Freedman’s Climate Central post is helpful as well:
The Lake at the North Pole, How Bad Is It?
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/me…

More on my blog on Arctic climate change and sea ice: http://j.mp/dotPole

Before you purchase waterfront property in West Virginia in anticipation of global warming, you might want to look at the facts.

Enhanced by Zemanta

If The Mainstream Media Doesn’t Scream About It, It Didn’t Happen

Posted on by

In April of this year, I noted the differences in coverage the media gave to two stories regarding oil spills (rightwinggranny.com). One story involved a pipe leak and one story involved a train derailment. The train spill was three times the size of the pipe leak, but because it wasn’t a pipe leak and would not feed into the narrative of the anti-Keystone Pipeline sentiment, the train leak was not widely covered.

Today, the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page (I am not including a link–the article is subscribers only) notes that the Saturday explosion in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, of a train carrying North Dakota shale oil will probably not get a lot of extended coverage.

The article in the Wall Street Journal reminds us:

The reason oil is moved on trains from places like North Dakota and Alberta is because there aren’t enough pipelines to carry it. The provincial governments of Alberta and New Brunswick are talking about building a pipeline to cover the 3,000-odd mile distance. But last month President Obama put the future of the Keystone XL pipeline again in doubt, telling a Georgetown University audience “our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”

Did the explosion at Lac-Megantic not significantly exacerbate the problem of pollution, carbon or otherwise?

The article points out that there is about half as much oil spilled from pipelines as railroads on a gallon-per-mile basis. Pipelines tend to be away from populated areas–railroads tend to run through populated areas. Common sense would choose pipelines over railroads for both safety and pollution reasons.

The other aspect of the Keystone pipeline debate is the money. As long as there is no pipeline, Burlington Northern Santa Fe will continue to move shale oil to its destination. Burlington Northern Santa Fe is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate controlled by Obama supporter and Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett.

Environmentalists are being taken for a ride by the very people (Obama supporters) that they consider their allies in the fight to ‘save’ the environment. Amazing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Energy Independence Is Important

Posted on by

UPDATE:  Since I posted this story, it has changed. The Saudi national named in the story is not scheduled for deportation. The connections between his family and terrorism are still the same as they are listed in the story. That has not changed.

As the debate on the Keystone Pipeline continues, there is one aspect of energy independence that we need to pay more attention to–where our oil comes from.

The following chart was posted at a website called Window on State Government:

U.S. Crude Oil Supply by Source, 2006: U.S. total production accounts for 33.5%, imports from OPEC nations account for 31.4%, and imports from non-OPEC countries make up 35.0%.

Just for the record, there was another thought-provoking chart on that sight:

Cost Structure of Gasoline: We paid $3.24 per gallon of regular gasoline in March 2008. 72% of that in the cost of crude oil, 13% is taxes, 8% is refining and 8% is distribution and marketing. Numbers may not total due to rounding. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration.

I posted the above graph because the gasoline tax is about to go up in Massachusetts, increasing the amount of profit the government makes from every gallon of gasoline sold in America to more than 13%. I think that is obscene.

Anyway, back to the actual subject of this article. Note that nearly a third of our oil imports come from OPEC countries. Remember that most OPEC countries are not free democracies–they are Islamic dictatorships. One of the least free of the OPEC countries is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis also claim to be our friends. Well, maybe.

Yesterday, as Americans heard the news that the Saudi national who had been detained after the Boston Marathon bombing was innocent, Front Page Magazine posted a story about the culture of clans in Saudi Arabia. First of all, I need to mention that I posted a video last night stating that Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi, the Saudi who was detained, will be deported back to Saudi Arabia next week due to security concerns. Since the Saudi culture is one of clans rather than country, let’s take a look at Alharbi’s clan as described in the Front Page Magazine article:

Perhaps a quick look at the Arabic sources should raise the eyebrows of every American relative to the extent of the problem at hand. Many from Al-Harbi’s clan are steeped in terrorism and are members of Al-Qaeda. Out of a list of 85 terrorists listed by the Saudi government shows several of Al-Harbi clan to have been active fighters in Al-Qaeda:Perhaps a quick look at the Arabic sources should raise the eyebrows of every American relative to the extent of the problem at hand. Many from Al-Harbi’s clan are steeped in terrorism and are members of Al-Qaeda. Out of a list of 85 terrorists listed by the Saudi government shows several of Al-Harbi clan to have been active fighters in Al-Qaeda:

As was stated in the video posted, America doesn’t arrest Saudis connected to terrorism–we simply deport them.

Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi may be innocent of everything except having questionable relatives (something we can all understand), but it would be interesting to know if the actions we are taking would be different if we were not so dependent on Saudi Arabia to be a voice friendly to America when OPEC meets.

Energy independence is a good idea because it not only protects us if Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, but it also allows us to act to protect America from terrorism without having to worry if we will lose our oil supply.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Using News Stories To Shape Public Opinion

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an editorial that clearly shows how the major news media uses the way they report (or not report) stories to shape public opinion.

On Friday it was discovered that an old Exxon Mobil pipeline near Mayflower, Arkansas, was leaking. No one said exactly how much oil had leaked, but Exxon responded with enough people and equipment to handle as much as 10,000 barrels and had the flow stopped and cleanup begun by early Saturday. This event made the headlines–the major media used the leak as an example of the tragedy that would occur if the Keystone Pipeline were built. Well, wait a minute.

Last week a Canadian Pacific Railway train derailed in western Minnesota. The train was carrying crude oil and spilled up to 30,000 gallons. The spill was larger than the leak in Arkansas and took place near a town. The media somehow didn’t bother to cover the story.

The Wall Street Journal goes on to say that in 2008 U. S. railways transported 9,500 carloads of oil. In 2012 that number jumped to 233,811. There were 112 railroad oil spills from 2010 to 2012. From 2006 to 2009, there were 10 oil spills. Pipelines have fewer incidents per mile than rail cars.

Two of the things to keep in mind as the Keystone Pipeline remains in limbo are the fact that the Canadian oil is going to be shipped somewhere–either to America or China and that the person who is profiting by not building the pipeline is Warren Buffett (see rightwinggranny.com). One of the railroads that is in boom times because there is no Keystone Pipeline is Burlington Northern Santa Fe, owned by Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. As usual, the discussion of the Keystone Pipeline is not really about the environment–it is about the money.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Isn’t Legally Binding–But It Was A Good Vote

Posted on by

Yesterday Politico reported on a vote taken in the U. S. Senate to endorse the Keystone XL pipeline. The vote, 62-37, is symbolic, but it does put pressure on President Obama to approve the pipeline.

The article states:

Senators also resoundingly defeated, 33-66, an amendment from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that called for “expeditiously analyzing and making decisions” on the pipeline project. Boxer’s proposal included a long list of criteria for the review, including whether the pipeline would increase oil prices, use materials not manufactured in the U.S., affect individual property rights and otherwise “adversely [affect] job creation” and national security.

“Both of these votes make it very clear that the Senate will approve this project if the president doesn’t,” Hoeven (R-N.D.) boasted to reporters afterward.

The vote is non-binding, but the article notes that the 62-37 vote is filibuster-proof.

The article also reminds us:

Republicans marked the anniversary (the one-year anniversary of Obama’s speech at a TransCanada pipe storage yard near Cushing, Okla., where he called for making it a “priority” to expedite approval of Keystone XL’s southern leg) by poking Obama for failing to approve Keystone’s northern portion, which would bring crude oil from Alberta’s oil sands into the U.S.

“If you recall, the president held a photo op last year to tout his support for the southern part of that pipeline,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a video his office released Friday morning. “The only problem was that section didn’t need his approval. He had nothing to do with it.”

At least some Democrats are willing to put jobs and the American economy above party politics.

Why We Need The Keystone Pipeline

Posted on by

The Financial Times reported yesterday that American increased the amount of oil it imported from the Middle East last year.

The article reports that by the end of November the U. S. had already imported 450m barrels of crude oil from Saudi Arabia, more than we imported in 2009, 2010, or 2011. This is the first time since 2003 that Saudi Arabia has accounted for more than 15 percent of America’s oil imports. The Gulf region accounted for more than 25 percent–a nine-year high. This is happening at the same time that demand for crude oil has declined slightly since 2004 due to increased efficiency, an economic slowdown, and the increased use of natural gas.

This is foolish on the part of America. Because of our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil, we are forced to make political and foreign policy decisions that are not in our best interest. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, there is currently a clash of civilizations between western freedom and Islamic nations and radicals that do not support freedom. We are supporting these radicals with our oil purchases. If you look at the changes in the United Nations over the past thirty years, you will find that the new empowerment of Islamic groups was financed by Americans buying oil. The anti-Semitism that has ruled the United Nations in recent years is funded by Americans buying Middle East oil. Saudi Arabia, who is an awkward ally at best, is one of the major financial backers of terrorism and extreme Islam around the world, and we keep giving them oil money.

It is time for America to declare its energy independence. That does not mean wind and solar–so far they do not work. We live in a carbon-based world economy. We might as well acknowledge this and get on with life. The Keystone Pipeline would be a positive step in that direction.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Following The Money On The Keystone Pipeline

Posted on by

 

My reason for supporting the Keystone Pipeline is that it will provide a source of energy for America that is based in North America and provided by someone that actually likes America. To me, that is a security consideration and should be considered. However, there are also some very interesting reasons for blocking the pipeline–none of which have any relationship to the environment.

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today entitled,”Blocking the Keystone Pipeline: Who Benefits?”

Mr. Hinderaker points out:

If the Obama administration holds firm on blocking Keystone, the big loser will be TransCanada Corporation. But who will the big winners be? American railroads:

And of them, the biggest winner might just be the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate controlled by Obama supporter and Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett. In December, the CEO of BNSF, Matthew Rose, said that his railroad was shipping about 500,000 barrels of oil per day out of the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and that it was seeking a permit to send “crude by rail to the Pacific Northwest.” He also said the railroad expects to “eventually” be shipping 1 million barrels of oil per day.

Isn’t it an incredible coincidence that Warren Buffet, one of President Obama’s biggest supporters, will benefit greatly if the pipeline is stopped. Who will lose? American workers who need jobs.

The article points out that because the oil from Canada can be transported by rail (instead of pipeline), American refineries are already being built to handle the increased amount of oil. Stopping the pipeline has no impact on the flow of oil–only on the way it is transported. Therefore, stopping the pipeline has no impact on the environment–in fact the pipeline probably has a lower carbon footprint than the railroad!

This story is another example of why you should never assume that the mainstream media is actually reporting the news. That’s why we need the Internet!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happens When America Does Not Show Strength

Posted on by

The American Embassies in Egypt and Libya were attacked yesterday on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attack on America. The supposed cause of these attacks was a film clip shown on YouTube that was unflattering to Islam’s prophet Muhammad. Four people were killed, including the American Ambassador to Libya–the first American Ambassador to be killed overseas since 1979.

Stop and think about this for a minute. Four people are dead because a film showed something a group of Muslims found offensive.

Violence in response to violence is not generally a good idea, but what do we do now? We helped the revolution in Libya and we have given money to the new government of Egypt. This is the thanks we get. Al Qaeda and Muslim extremism is partially funded by the money Americans spend to put gasoline in their cars. There is an immediate response that will get some results and a long term response that will get permanent results.

A friend of mine recently lent me the book, The Arab Mind. In the opening chapters of the book, the author, Raphael Patan, talks about some of the roots of our current battle with radical Islam. The book points out that the Egyptians and Arabs saw the 1973 war between Egypt and Israel as a Muslim victory. This emboldened them, and the oil embargo and rapid rise in the price of oil followed. The new-found riches caused by the sharp spike in oil prices allowed Arab countries to buy anything they wanted to exert their power.

There is a two-fold way to end the Muslim crime-wave of the last forty years. The first step is to cut off all aid to Egypt and Libya. The second step will take a bit longer. America needs to develop its own energy resources–NOW! We need to build oil refineries, build the Keystone Pipeline, and drill offshore in America instead of paying Brazil to drill off their shore (we loaned them the money and they are selling the oil to China). If green energy is viable, it will develop naturally without taxpayer money. If the government stops over-regulating the energy business, America can be energy independent within five to ten years. American energy independence is the only answer to Muslim extremists.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Long Do You Keep Doing Something When It Isn’t Working ?

Posted on by

New unemployment figures came out today. USA Today posted an article with the headline, “Obama: Jobs report ‘step in the right direction.'” Where is that step and what is the direction?

CNBC reported:

The U.S. economy created just 80,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate held steady at 8.2 percent, reflecting continued slow growth in the economy with the presidential election just four months away.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics said private payrolls increased 84,000, while the government lost 4,000 jobs. Economists expected job growth of about 100,000 and the unemployment rate to be unchanged, though many had increased their forecasts based on some recent indicators.

President Obama has been in office for 3 1/2 years. His two major legislative programs were passed by Congress–Obamacare and the 2009 stimulus, which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent and reduce it to about 6 percent by now. It really is time to evaluate whether either of these major legislative initiatives has done anything to help employment in America. At the same time, we need to look and see if any other decisions by the White House have negatively affected employment in America. How many jobs were lost by the President’s opposition to the Keystone Pipeline? How many jobs have been lost because of the ‘permitorium’ on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? How many jobs have been lost by the uncertainty in the business community because a President and Congress have not passed a budget in three years?

Admittedly, President Obama inherited an economic mess when he took office. However, he asked to inherit that mess because he thought he could fix it. It is becoming extremely obvious that President Obama’s economic policies will not fix this mess. It is time to give someone else a chance to set things aright.

This can be turned around. Some of us are old enough to remember the Jimmy Carter Administration–high interest rates, high inflation, gas lines, declining influence abroad, etc. Those years were followed by some of the most rapid economic growth in American history due to the leadership skills of President Ronald Reagan. I am praying that Mitt Romney has those same leadership skills–we need them now!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Pipeline That Won’t Die

Posted on by

The Keystone Pipeline is reviving itself again. Yesterday’s Washington Times reported that TransCanada, the company seeking to build the massive Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline reapplied for a permit on Friday. Here we go again.

The good news here is that TransCanada would rather sell its oil to America and send it through the Keystone Pipeline than sell its oil to China and build a pipeline to Canada’s west coast. The bad news is that if the Obama Administration delays the approval until after the 2012 election. the Keystone Pipeline may be moot–the pipeline across Canada may have already been started.

The article reports:

“Today there is just one person standing in the way of tens of thousands of new American jobs: President Obama,” said House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. “After nearly four years of review, delay and politics, he is out of excuses for blocking this job-creating energy project any longer. Every state along the proposed route supports the pipeline, and its builder has jumped through every bureaucratic hoop.”

Nebraska officials were split on the earlier pipeline route, but have reportedly come to an understanding over a new route to the east of the sensitive Ogalallah Aquifer.

The State Department, which has a role in the approval process because the pipeline would cross the U.S.-Canada border, said in a statement that it had received the application and would put it through “a rigorous, transparent and thorough review.”

The delay in the pipeline represents a division within the Democrat party–the environmentalists oppose the pipeline and the unions support it. If the President wants to collect money from both groups, he has to put off a decision until after the election. However, there is another theory. After the President has collected all the money he can from Hollywood (representing the environmentalists), he can go ahead and approve the pipeline in order to gain campaign donations from the unions. I am not sure I believe that because there is no danger of the unions supporting Republicans and the unions do tend to be financially involved in elections.

Approving the Keystone Pipeline would create jobs. If the people of Nebraska support the pipeline, it should be built.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Roadblocks On The Way To Energy Independence

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today that 70 House democrats voted for the Keystone Pipeline yesterday. The Keystone Pipeline was included in the Transportation Bill that passed the House yesterday by a vote of 293-127.

The Hill reported yesterday:

The bill creates another clash with the White House over the Keystone pipeline — a project at the heart of the Republicans’ energy agenda and their election-year attacks against the president.

Obama, facing divisions in his political base, has delayed a permitting decision on the project until after the election and threatened to veto the House bill over the pipeline language.

The House vote continues what has been a difficult path forward for transportation program funding, which often has bipartisan support.

Congress last month enacted a 90-day extension of highway programs before it left for a two-week recess, and the Speaker had hoped to use the break as one more chance to win support for the five-year transportation bill he has been pushing for months over objections from his conference.

Unless it is approved, the Keystone Pipeline will be a campaign issue this November. The majority of Americans are in favor of building it. Its construction will create jobs and lower gas prices at the pump (although I am not sure how quickly gas prices will go down). It will be interesting to see how the President and the Senate handle this.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Somehow Most Of The American Press Missed This

Posted on by

Yesterday Investors.com posted a story about Tuesday’s “Three Amigos” summit with President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Things, unfortunately, did not go well. Our political President has been so busy focusing on his re-election, he seems to be neglecting some other things that are rather important.

The article reports:

Energy has become a searing rift between the U.S. and Canada and threatens to leave the U.S. without its top energy supplier.

The Winnipeg Free Press reported that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned Obama the U.S. will have to pay market prices for its Canadian oil after Obama’s de facto veto of the Keystone XL pipeline. Canada is preparing to sell its oil to China.

Until now, NAFTA had shielded the U.S. from having to pay global prices for Canadian oil. That’s about to change.

Prepare for even higher prices at the gas pump as this takes effect.

The article reports the reporting of the summit in the Mexican press:

Excelsior of Mexico City reported that President Felipe Calderon bitterly brought up Operation Fast and Furious, a U.S. government operation that permitted Mexican drug cartels to smuggle thousands of weapons into drug-war-torn Mexico. This blunder has wrought mayhem on Mexico and cost thousands of lives.

There is also the fact that America is blocking the entry of both Mexico and Canada into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The article at Investors.com concludes:

In short, the summit was a diplomatic disaster for the U.S. and its relations with its neighbors north and south.

It should have been the easiest, most no-brainer diplomatic task Obama faces.

Instead, it underscored the Obama administration’s indifference to anything more than its own political interests.

It’s a shame the American media didn’t tell us. Instead we had to learn of it in the foreign press.

As Americans, we used to be able to depend on the basic media to provide us with news about the events of the day. It is becoming more and more obvious that Americans are going to have to do their own research on the Internet and other places if they are to be informed voters.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Remember The Bridge To Nowhere ?

Posted on by

Now we have ‘the pipeline to nowhere.’ If this were not so pathetic, it would be hilarious. President Obama is touring the country (on our dime) touting his energy policies (as we approach $4 a gallon gasoline).

Power Line posted a fact-check on the President’s speech yesterday.

Power LIne reports:

The glaring hypocrisy of the president’s speech today is that he announced that his administration would fast-track approval of a pipeline project that the White House has no control over. And if the president has the ability to fast-track permits, why has he waited until today to use that executive authority? And why only for this project?

This administration’s record speaks for itself. For more than three years, President Obama has implemented a three part energy strategy: delay, deny, and deceive.

A story posted by Reuters yesterday points out:

“Despite numerous attempts by Republicans to compel the president to approve the Keystone permit, Americans are still left with a 1,179-mile (1,897-km) gap between the oil resources and this southern portion of the pipeline,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner, referring to the full Keystone XL project.

A new Gallup poll conducted earlier in March showed 57 percent of Americans thought the U.S. government should approve the building of the entire Keystone XL pipeline. Among Democrats, 44 percent supported the pipeline, with 38 percent opposed.

Do we really look that dumb?

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Truth About Oil And Gas Production In America

Posted on by

Yesterday John HInderaker posted an article at Power LIne about President Obama’s claim that he has increased oil and gas production in America during his term as President.

This chart says it all:

The chart makes very clear that private lands have increased their production of oil and natural gas and public lands have not. Please follow the link above to the article. The article provides a time line of what the Obama Administration has done to limit oil and gas production on federal land.

The article concludes:

…A week ago I was talking with a Republican Congressman from Minnesota who described an encounter with President Obama, in which he tried to explain to Obama that FDA regulations are devastating the medical device industry, of which Minnesota is a major center. After the Congressman had explained the problem, Obama put his hand on his shoulder and said, “There isn’t really much I can do about that. The FDA is an independent agency, you know.”

The Congressman described this as an instance of Obama’s “cluelessness,” but I think he gave the president too much credit. Obama knew perfectly well what the consequences of staffing the federal alphabet-soup agencies with hard-line left-wingers would be. He tries, now, to distance himself from the terrible consequences of his own appointees’ actions, but he is fully responsible for them. The Obama administration has gone out of its way to make you poorer. Anyone who votes to re-elect the president deserves another four years of misery.

We need to pay attention–this matters.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Defeating The Keystone Pipeline (Again)

Posted on by

Yesterday Politico reported on the vote in the Senate opposing a highway bill that would have allowed the Keystone Pipeline to move forward. The vote was 56-42. The 56 vote supported the Pipeline, but 60 votes were needed to break the filibuster.

President Obama had strongly lobbied the Senate to vote against the measure.

The article reports:

Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) wryly congratulated Obama on his lobbying efforts.

“That was very strong work by President Obama himself, making personal calls to Democrats,” Lugar said. “He understood that a majority of the American public and a majority at least of the Senate are strongly in favor of this project.

“So I suppose you give credit to the president for once again blocking something, but I don’t think the president really wants to do that indefinitely,” he added.

“We got a majority in the Senate,” said amendment sponsor Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who noted that two senators — Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) — were absent. “So we would have had 58 votes had all Republicans been able to be here.”

The fact that this vote was taken has a lot to do with election year politics, but it also has a lot to do with America’s energy independence. As Iran continues to threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, we need to consider our energy needs and how to meet them without Middle Eastern oil. Alternative energy is not yet sufficiently developed to be a viable substitute.

I have no doubt that there will be more votes on the Pipeline as the November election approaches.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes You Just Wonder What Reality Some People Live In

Posted on by
Gas Pump 3 - Charles River Museum of Industry,...

Image via Wikipedia

How do you feel about what you are paying these days to fill up your gas tank? Do you think anyone in Washington cares about how much you are spending? Well, there has been some interesting testimony in Congress recently.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an interesting article on recent testimony by Energy Secretary Stephen Chu.

The article reports:

When asked by Rep. Alan Nunnelee whether the Obama administration wants to work to get gas prices to come back down, Chu replied that they’re not focusing on that — and that higher gas prices mean more of a push for the alternative energy sources the administration wants to push. 

As I have stated before–I don’t have a problem with alternative energy sources–however, those sources will develop naturally as they become cost-effective. The market needs to left alone so that the most efficient sources are developed. Government subsidies and interference simply muddy the waters and prolong the process.

The Heritage Foundation stated:

As shocking as his remarks are, they shouldn’t come as a surprise. Chu has a long record of advocating for higher gas prices. In 2008, he stated, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Last March, he reiterated his point in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, noting that his focus is to ease the pain felt by his energy policies by forcing automakers to make more fuel-efficient automobiles. “What I’m doing since I became Secretary of Energy has been quite clear. What I have been doing is developing methods to take the pain out of high gas prices.”

One of those methods is dumping taxpayer dollars into alternative energy projects like the Solyndra solar plant. Another is subsidizing the purchase of high-cost electric cars like the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 per car (which the White House wants to increase to $10,000). In both cases, those methods aren’t working. Solyndra went bankrupt because its product couldn’t bear the weight of market pressures, and Chevy Volts aren’t selling, even with taxpayer-funded rebates. What’s the president’s next plan? Harvesting “a bunch of algae” as a replacement for oil.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is seemingly doing everything it can to make paying for energy even more painful by refusing to open access to the country’s oil and gas reserves and blocking new projects that would lead to the development of more energy in America. Case in point: the president’s decision to say “no” to the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would have delivered hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Canada to Texas refineries, while bringing thousands of jobs along with it.

High gasoline prices take a toll on all areas of the economy. They cause inflation in food prices and all other goods.

The article at Hot Air points out:

Congressional Democrats are ramping up pressure on President Obama to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to prevent rising gas prices from threatening the economy and their election-year prospects.

They are growing anxious that the price of fuel could reverse their political fortunes, which had been improving due to signs of growth in the economy.

Republicans have hammered Democrats on the price spike, repeatedly noting that gas prices — now at $3.72 per gallon for regular — have doubled since Obama won the White House.

Even if their motives are less than pure, it is nice to know that Democrats are at least aware that high gasoline prices are a problem for most Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why America Needs To Be Energy Independent

Posted on by

President Obama’s blocking of the Keystone Pipeline had an obvious negative impact on jobs–the pipeline would have created thousands of jobs instantly–but it had a more dangerous long term impact on America’s energy independence. Alternative energy will not give us that independence at this time–we are a carbon based economy. The fruits of the decision to block the Keystone Pipeline and limit domestic energy production are becoming very obvious today.

Reuters is reporting today that Iran has stopped selling crude oil to British and French companies in retaliation for sanctions imposed because of Iran’s nuclear program.

The article reports:

Iran was supplying more than 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) to the EU plus Turkey in 2011, industry sources said.

By the start of this year imports had sunk to about 650,000 bpd as some customers cut back in anticipation of an EU ban.

Saudi Arabia says it is prepared to supply extra oil either by topping up existing term contracts or by making rare spot market sales. Iran has criticized Riyadh for the offer.

The European country most impacted by the Iranian move is Greece.

CNBC reported today that in December Saudi Arabia cut its oil production and exports.

CNBC reports:

Iraq, another frequently-cited supplier to make up for part of the Iranian oil shortfall following European Union sanctions,  reported no major changes to its supply and export regime. Authorities there are pursuing an ambitious production expansion plan with the aim of reaching 12 million bpd by 2016.

The Reuters article reports:

Brent crude oil prices were up $1 a barrel to $118.35 shortly after Iran’s state media announced last week that Tehran had cut oil exports to six European states. The report was denied shortly afterwards by Iranian officials.

“We have our own customers … The replacements for these companies have been considered by Iran,” Nikzad said.

This is not good news for the western world. Now is the time for America to develop any and all of its energy sources. Even if we drilled everywhere today, we would still be facing a summer of at least $5 a gallon gasoline, but if we drilled everywhere today, we would at least have a better outlook for the future.

Enhanced by Zemanta