All Posts Tagged With: "Oil"
U. S. Adversaries Being Crippled By Falling Oil Prices
Collapsing Oil Prices More Important That Sanction On Iran and Others
Just two months ago, spiking petroleum prices were emboldening confrontational oil exporters such as Venezuela, Russia and Iran. The oil price collapse is stressing their plans and forcing reconsiderations. Some analyst, for instance, estimate that Russia is spending at a rate only supportable by oil prices of at least $110 a barrel dimming their financing prospects.
Congress belatedly sensitive to voters’ unhappiness, passed an energy bill that would allow oil drilling in new offshore areas- albeit the wrong ones, trim oil company tax breaks, ease the way for oil shale development and help finance alternative energy sources.
The world’s total energy costs have dropped by more than $4 billion a day. That will hurt government budgets from Tehran to Texas, but it will ease burdens for countless others. The United States, which spent $51.4 billion on oil imports in July, accounting for most of its trade deficit, is on track to spend much less than that this month, reducing pressure on the dollar, the trade deficit and inflation.
Long range economic forecast had projected $94 a barrel by 2009 - it stood at $91.15 a barrel Tuesday. ENI, the Italian oil giant thinks prices could fall as low as what it costs to produce the world’s most expensive oil, citing the $65- to $70-a-barrel cost of developing Canadian tar sands.
OPEC hardliners advocated a new $100 floor on prices, but Saudi Arabia last week resisted a call to trim its output to comply with official OPEC quotas. Now the Saudis may be reconsidering. Sky high oil prices helped President Hugo Chávez pay for nationalizations of banks, the Caracas electric utility, a portion of foreign oil interests, radio stations and the local plant of an international cement firm. Other analysts said high prices may have emboldened Russia to invade Georgia, and Iran to continue to defy international calls to abandon its nuclear program.
America’s adversaries including Russia, Iran, Venezuela and the other usual suspects are backing and filling with both hands. Falling gasoline prices are driving optimism among American voters buoyed by the price board at the corner gasoline station will impact the November U. S. Presidential election and Iran’s June 2009 Presidential election too. In the former to help McCain be elected whom Iran disfavors and in the latter to forment trouble for anti-U. S. interests in Iran and elsewhere.
But, falling oil prices are also a whip saw; for instance: T. Boone Pickens has lost a bundle and altering his alternative energy ideas; can companies are worried lower fuel costs will be a disincentive for consumers to pay premums for fuel efficient vehicles, and development of tax sands and shale will be pushed back.
Of course airlines and trucking companies are happy, as are cos=nsumers depending on fuel oil to heat their homes this winter.
Long term forecasters are talking about $65 per barrel oil in 2012 effectively below $60 now
Not Much Faith In Alternative Energy Schemes To Reduce Oil Dependence
Energy Policy and Democrat Congress’ Inaction Pushing McCain Ahead of Obama
Voters believe electric or hybrid cars and nuclear power plants are more likely than solar or wind power to significantly reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. Bio fuels such as ethanol are seen as even less likely to help. Just 37% believe electric or hybrid cars are Very Likely to have such a positive impact. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the same about nuclear power; 25% are that optimistic about solar power, and 22% say wind power can accomplish the goal.
While none of these alternative energy sources are seen as overwhelmingly likely to reduce dependence on foreign oil, roughly two-thirds or more say each is at least somewhat likely to reduce U.S. reliance on oil from afar. Just 17% believe that such fuels are Very likely to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Another 36% say they are somewhat likely to do so.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans say that nuclear power is Very Likely to help. Just 18% of Democrats share that view. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the building of more nuclear power plants.
Democrats are more confident than Republicans when it comes to electric cars, solar power and wind power, all alternative energy proposals endorsed by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. For unaffiliated voters, it’s a little of each, with electric cars and nuclear power seen as the most promising alternatives.
Sixty-one percent of voters say Congress should immediately get back to Washington DC and OK more offshore oil drilling. They also believe McCain’s priority is to find more energy sources while Obama’s is to reduce the amount of energy the United States consumes. That is one reason McCain has caught up to Obama nationally and leads in some polls.
Drinkable Water Will be Oil of 21st Century
A 1982 paper predicted lack of potable water will be fighting words in 21st Century. Vancourver BC and its 117 inches of annual rainfall is one of largest fresh water sources on Earth. But, Canadian law forbids pipeline into U. S.
Los Angeles in a bid to cut down on water use by residents and businesses will quadruple fines for businesses and double them for residents and put 16 water police on patrol who will first hand out warnings, then cite people don’t listen and respond. Among other restrictions, lawns may not be watered between nine a.m. and four p.m., and restaurants won’t be offering free water anymore.
A decade ago “Water Police” roamed Santa Barbara streets tagging leaky water bibs, threatening residents with the temerity to wash their car in their own driveway, and a man names “Doctor Dirt” painted lawns green with vegetable dye. The Santa Barbara City Council spent $35 million on a reverse osmosis desalination plant that was immediately mothballed and now may spend $200,000 to “study” whether it can be brought back on line.
San Diego wants to build a $300 million desalination plant. Environmental Science and Technology on line points out desalination’s very high costs. Electricity. It says, accounts for 44% of the typical costs of producing drinking water with plants that use reverse osmosis. An energy rate hike of 25% pushes up water prices. Also, desalination can have environmental consequences. The discharge of the highly salty waste brine-often laced with chemicals and metals-can harm fish populations and accumulate in the food chain, the report points out.
Water will return as a planning issue. In Cambria, near San Simeon’s Hearst Castle, water meter’s were granted on a lottery system when the tiny tourist town opted out of the Colorado River water pipeline. All over water became and will again become a tool to limit growth and restrict development.
Governor Schwarzenegger is using the drought to promote a $12 billion bond issue that would fund new dam projects. The scheme is opposed by Democrats, who predictably argue that conservation is more important.
California has suffered drought-like conditions for several years, this winter was one of the driest on record. Rainfall in the Golden State during the winter months was 1.2 inches, or 22 per cent of the average for the 114 years since records began.
California and the West experienced periodic drought in 1987-89, 1976-1979, 1934 that created the fabled dust bowl as well as lesser droughts in the 1950s, and the devastation of the 1880s. What many people don’t recognize, however, is that over the past 400 years droughts have occurred several times per century (Priest et al., 1993; NOAA Paleoclimatological Program, 2000).
The politically correct explanation is this drought, the recent wildfires are a consequence of anthropomorphically induced climate change. What is certain is Californians are running out of potable water, nothing was done since the last drought and all sorts of harebrained schemes will be reintroduced. Then it will rain.
Exxon’s 2Q revenue leads to record taxes paid, again
Have you heard the other record Exxon Mobil set in 2Q? I had to go looking for it, and want to share.
I’m sure everyone knows about the record setting quarter Exxon Mobil just had. They made $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter. Democrats calling for a excess profit tax don’t tell the whole story. They, and MSM, have not told the public that Exxon Mobil also set a record for HIGHEST INCOME TAX ever paid in a quarter…to the tune of $10.5 billion.
Here’s a look at their income taxes, and other taxes (SALES TAX NOT INCLUDED) over the last 6 quarters according to data taken from SEC filings:
- 1Q 2007 - paid $6.7 billion in income taxes, and $9.6 billion in other taxes
- 2Q 2007 - paid $7.6 billion in income taxes, and $9.9 billion in other taxes
- 3Q 2007 - paid $7.35 billion in income taxes, and $10.2 billion in other taxes
- 4Q 2007 - paid $8.06 billion in income taxes, and $9.5 billion in other taxes
- 1Q 2008 - paid $9.32 billion in income taxes, $10.7 billion in other taxes
- 2Q 2008 - paid $10.5 billion in income taxes, over $12 billion in other taxes
That totals $49.53 billion in income tax, and $61.9 billion in other taxes over the last 18 months.
According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:
Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million
Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion
Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion (Exxon alone paid $29.71 billion in income taxes for 2006 - their effective tax rate was 46%)
That tax rate is in line with other corporations, yet they’re being singled out because of their size, AND OUR DEMAND FOR OIL! Was IBM hit with excess profit taxes in the 80’s while they broke revenue records? Microsoft in the 90’s? Why does government (who profits greatly from the oil companies) want to treat this industry differently?
Trump Blast Oil Prices and OPEC
“Oil (costs) is what is killing the world’s economy,” says Donald Trump.
“Frankly, I hear there are tankers all over the world that are loaded up to the gills with oil,” he told CNBC. “They have so much oil they don’t know what to do with it. It’s ridiculous what’s going on with OPEC and all of that.”
Trump blames major oil producing countries for the current recession and accuses large oil companies of “doing a major number” on everyone. He predicts that oil prices should drop a lot more from its $121 a barrel level after spiking near $150 a barrel in June and it should be priced around $50-60 a barrel.
“There’s a vast oversupply in the world. It’s all over the place,” Trump says.
Observers say if the U. S. would rattle its own domestic oil supply saber it would shock the market and costs would plummet. Oil experts say the U. S. could be free of Middle East imports in less than 3 years. But, progress is slowed by the November political race with Obama siding against more domestic supply to pander to radical environmentalists while McCain supports increased domestic production.
Split Over Oil Speculators and Offshore Drilling
As far as public opinion is concerned, the best answer would be to do both.
Americans are nearly evenly divided on which is more important- cracking down on speculators or lifting the ban on offshore drilling — as the debate comes to a head in Congress this week over how to fight rising gas and oil prices. As far as public opinion is concerned, the best answer would be to do both.
A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken last night (Monday), finds that 45% think placing more restrictions on energy speculators is more important , while 42% take the opposite view that allowing offshore oil drilling is more important.
Most Americans still favor drilling for oil off the shore of the continental United States and believe that it will help reduce gas and oil prices. Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor offshore drilling versus 29% who are opposed. Nearly the same number (56%) believe that gas prices would be at least somewhat likely to fall if the ban is lifted.
Support for lifting the drilling ban has dropped slightly from 62% since Republican presidential candidate John McCain first proposed it as part of an overall energy strategy in mid-June. His Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, supports the ban, a position national Democrats and major environmental groups have championed for years.
Falling gasoline consumption, increasing supplies, and the threat of more domestic oil production, and the “secret agreement” with Iran have conspired to send the price of oil down. Most think the per barrel price will be pushed below $100 and maybe as low as $80 this Fall. Relieving pressure on consumers and creating a sense of relief.
Hypocritically some in Congress want to “take advantage” of lowering prices to raise federal fuel taxes.
Hypocrisy of oil
Mundus vult decipi ergo decipiatur translated means “The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.”
It is no small irony that this Latin phrase appears in the bottom right corner of the JOKER in a deck of bicycle playing cards.
Congressional hypocrites are reportedly having secret meetings about increasing domestic oil production because they are under increasing pressure to act. At the same time they are spreading increasing rations of manure mis and disinformation. Here’s a summary of basic facts to help you sift the wheat from chaff.
A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. Domestically produced oil amounts to 41 % of the oil we consumed in March of this year. Canada supplies 12% of our nation’s oil and 20 percent of all the oil we import.; Saudi Arabia (7 percent and 13 percent); Venezuela (6 percent and 11 percent); Nigeria (6 percent and 10 percent); and Mexico (5 percent and 8 percent).
All Persian Gulf countries account for only 16% of our foreign oil imports each year from 2005 to 2007. In fact, our Persian Gulf imports declined most of this decade, from a 15-year high of a little more than 1 billion barrels in 2001 to 791.9 million barrels in 2007.
One barrel of crude oil (which is 42 gallons), yields about 19.6 gallons of gasoline. The other 22.4 gallons go into the products like: diesel and jet fuels, heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, lubricants, asphalt, plastics, synthetic fibers, detergents, fertilizers, ink, crayons, bubble gum, deodorant, tires, and heart valves.
We consumed about 390 million gallons of gas a day last year in our cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, boats, farm implements, and construction and landscaping equipment. Back when crude was $68 a barrel (that was just last year), it accounted for about 58 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline. The rest of the price came from refining costs (17 percent), federal and state taxes (15 percent), and distribution and marketing (10 percent).
By the way, the price of crude accounts for about 77 percent of the cost of gas at $4 a gallon.
Californians pay 63.9 cents a gallon in state and federal fuel taxes, the most in the nation. plus an additional 6% state sales tax, with some paying another 1.25% county sales tax plus applicable local sales taxes. Same in Illinois , where Chicago motorists pay 12.75 cents per gallon on top of the 57.9 cents per gallon in state and federal taxes. Some Illinois motorists also pay a 6.25-percent sales tax. It’s ironic that in such states higher per gallon gasoline prices literally shovels tons of tax money to the treasury.
Politicians, pundits, and other TV talking heads don’t like to provide these answers, because facts get in the way of positions that pander to the mob. We don’t point fingers at Canada , because it’s de rigueur to paint the Saudis with the broad brush of blame. Folks float the idea of a moratorium on state and federal gasoline taxes without explaining its minimal impact on gas prices, or without mentioning the $3 sales tax some motorists pay on top of a $50 fill up. Policymakers don’t explain that oil trades in the dollar, which is weak vis-Ã -vis the Euro, because that would require solutions for strengthening the greenback.
And, it’s easier for simple minds to convince simpler minds to impose windfall-profit taxes on pension funds and owners of Individual Retirement Accounts who invest in oil companies than to take on credit card issuers charging double- and triple-digit interest rates to the millions of people using plastic to pay for food and fuel. Talk about irony.
And, we sure wouldn’t want to impose a windfall-profit tax on someone who goes from making $56,000 a year as, say, an Illinois legislator, to $165,000 a year as, say, a U.S. senator, an increase of nearly 200 percent (not counting book deals or real-estate related loans).
Edited from an article by John David Powell an award-winning writer and Internet columnist.
Zucker Zinger Pummels Mideast Oil Potentates
Producer-Director-Writer David Zucker of AIRPLANE; POLICE SQUAD; the SCARY MOVIE SERIES, and scores of other involvements has produced this Satirical short punching around Mideast oil potentates.
The Absentee President
I came upon some interesting statistics the other night. Now, these statistics are from the government, not some left-wing liberal Republican-bashing web site. We’re dealing in just the facts, ma’am.
Since our Commander-in-Chief’s ill-advised election in 2000, he has spent 2,726 days in office. (We have 194 days of ineptitude and corruption left.) However, you’ll be interested to find out that George Bush has actually only served a total of 1,686 days). He’s actually made all this mess in less time than we thought. That’s because he’s spent 908 days on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Then, let’s add the additional 132 days of vacation he’s spent split between Camp David and his parents house in Kennebunkport, ME. So, he’s been on vacation a whopping 36% of his term (or 1,040 days).
Now, here come the moderates and conservatives: “Oh, that’s ridiculous. He’s never not working. He’s the president! His job goes with him.” That doesn’t do it for me. In fact, it doesn’t work for a lot of us. Sitting in a golf cart, waving to reporters, and perhaps making a statement here and there doesn’t qualify as work. Here’s why George Bush’s spending 1,040 days away from Washington, D.C. is a testimony to his lack of character:
1. On George Bush’s watch (and nobody else’s), the United States suffered the most deadly terrorist attack in its history and on its own soil. This time it wasn’t an embassy in Africa or the Middle East. It’s disgusting to hear him portrayed as a hero when his administration’s shortcomings failed to prevent this attack, or at least minimize it. Since September 11, 2001, all the Bush administration has done is stonewall any investigation into these attacks. He’s been on vacation while the victims’ families continue to push for the truth.
2. As a result of 9-11, George Bush committed other people’s sons, daughters, mothers and fathers to an invasion of Afghanistan, supposedly to apprehend the perpetrator of this attack, placing their lives in danger. We’re no longer there to apprehend Osama bin Forgotten, that’s for sure. Do you really think it’s just fine that George Bush is extending military tours by months in Afghanistan and deploying soldiers sometimes up to 3 times (there aren’t enough soldiers to re-deploy to Afghanistan because of the Iraq war) and spending so much time away from DC? How would you feel if your loved ones were serving?
3. George Bush started another ill-advised war in Iraq. If you listen to all the speeches given by Bush and members of his administration (including the supposed Mr. Clean, Colin Powell) prior to the invasion of Iraq, you would think an attack by Iraq was imminent. These were nothing more than a pack of lies. There were no mistakes. Lies. There’s a difference. The real reason? Oil. Since the invasion of Iraq, more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died, as well as hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. More than 5 million have been driven from their homes. I can’t imagine a reason that would justify this type of devastation. There is no upside here. George Bush has told the press that he has no trouble sleeping at night even though he’s sending people into harms’ way. In fact, he told one reporter he and Laura are having the time of their lives. Don’t you think our leader should at least feign some type of empathy I wonder how the families of those who have died in this blot on America’s history feel about that.
4. George Bush’s appointment of inexperienced cronies to key positions directly resulted in the hideous response to Hurricane Katrina. His administration was warned of the danger and the warning was ignored. President Bush added insult to injury by turning his back on the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It is appalling that in the United States of America, people can still be displaced with no clear road to travel five years after the storm. While he’s splitting vacation time between three locations, the victims of Hurricane Katrina are still, in some cases, waiting for money to reclaim what little they had to begin with.
President Bush has himself stated that he wasn’t intending to give up his life. He doesn’t see this as a full-time job. Well, if that’s the case, perhaps he shouldn’t be ‘the decider.’ I’m sure all the conservatives will rush to his defense, happy to portray Mr. Bush as something he’s not: a leader. It takes more than votes, a title, and the ability to start wars to be a leader. In fact, war is easy compared to diplomacy and learning to live in the world with other cultures and governments. George Bush has taken the easy way out at every turn and, as a result, has made the lives of his citizens more difficult and painful. This alone is his legacy.
It is not standard practice for the President of the United States to spend 36% of both terms on vacation. No other president in our history has done so. With the crises caused by this administration, there’s even less justification for President Bush spending 1,040 days on vacation. A leader at least fakes it. He musters the ability to empathize with his citizens pain, even if he truly doesn’t feel it himself. Our arrogant, self-serving president has not shown that ability. He is truly devoid of conscience, soul and character, just three of the critical qualities that make a leader.
Secret Oil Cap Pact Reported
Secret U. S. - Iran Pact To Cap Oil At $150 A Barrel
Oil prices slumped Tuesday. July 8th because of an ad hoc secret American-Iranian agreement not to allow the price of oil to go past $150 a barrel. The agreement was first rumored in an article published in the authoritative Israeli-based Debkafile on June 27th. Despite the current spate of saber rattling the secret agreement includes the following understandings:
- The U. S. will not attack Iran before the end of the Bush administration, and
- Iran will continue to restrain al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran is sharing intelligence about al Qaeda with U. S. military commanders in Iraq.
The July 8th Debkafile article concluded saying “A senior Saudi official conversant with Lebanese and Syrian affairs put it this way: “On the face of it nothing has changed in Washington’s attitude towards Damascus, but in reality, it has undergone a transformation.” The threats to the Assad regime have receded, notably the international tribunal for prosecuting the assassins of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, and Washington has withdrawn its support for Syrian opposition factions.” The Saudi official further commented: “A US-Iranian earthquake is rumbling under the surface of the Middle East, especially in Syria.”
Debkafile also points out that Tuesday, too, the New York Times ran an article called “Nearer to the Bomb” by nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, former chief scientist of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He wrote that all of Iran’s activities, especially in uranium enrichment, are evidence that its “near-term ability to make nuclear weapons is gathering strength.” He further warned that once Iran begins enriching uranium to weapons grade on an assembly-line basis, “it could transfer this material to groups such as Hizballah and Hamas.” They could then “fabricate low-technology nuclear explosives with yields nearly as high as the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima.”
Certainly this is a complex politically motivated diplomatic kabuki dance reflecting what some call “adults” in the international community concerned about the damaging and dangerous disruption of an Obama presidency. Uncertainty makes a lot of people very nervous.
Despite a HISTORIC LOW 9% JOB APPROVAL RATING AND A GROWING DISCONNECT WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC the Democrat controlled U. S. Congress is said to be seething and frantically blocking anything that would drive oil prices down farther before the election — including more domestic oil production. Observers say just an agreement to drill offshore and open other areas would suck $20-$40 out of the per barrel price of oil.
Survey of NRA, Supreme Court, Offshore and ANWR Oil Drilling
Over half of Americans (56%) express a favorable view of the National Rifle Association,
although only 17% of voters say they are more likely to vote for John McCain if he is endorsed by the pro-gun lobbying group.
But, 21% of all voters say an NRA endorsement will make them more likely they’ll vote for a non-endorsee.
Six of ten says an NRA endorsements means nothing to their vote.
Sixty-five percents (65%) of men view the NRA favorably, only 47% of women agree, with nearly as many (42%) rating the group unfavorably. Proof men and women are different.
Seventy percent (80%) of Republicans give the group favorable marks as opposed to 39% of Democrats. Both the NRA’s favorable and unfavorably ratings are up since the Virginia Tech shootings.
In an elated matter following the Supreme Court decision decision which upholds the right of citizens to bear arms, 34% of voters say the Supreme Court is doing a good or an excellent job. That’s an eight-point improvement in just a few days.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) support offshore drilling, a figure that is unchanged from a previous Rasmussen survey. By a 60% to 31% margin, voters also support drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Republicans favor ANWR drilling by an 85% to 10% margin and Alaska’s Republican Governor Sarah Palin has written to the United States Senate demanding that such drilling be allowed.
Democrats are evenly divided on ANWR drilling-46% are opposed while 41% are in favor. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 61% favor drilling in the Wildlife Refuge while 29% are opposed.
Welcome to Myopia: The Bush-McCain Energy Solution
Remember when George Bush went on national television to tell us that we were hopelessly addicted to oil and he was going to do something about it? He did. He started an illegal and immoral war in Iraq for oil so that we can continue to feed the addiction. As the war rages on and people die on a daily basis, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, BP and Chevron (along with a host of smaller U.S. companies) are in the final stages of negotiating a no-bid contract with the Iraq Oil Ministry to service Iraq’s largest oil fields. American companies will be back in Iraq after losing their contracts 36 years ago to nationalization of Iraq’s oil industry under Saddam Hussein. Does anybody really still believe that we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people?
Of course, this little fact of the war has gone unreported in the mainstream media. That’s pretty much par for the course these days. Also unreported is the fact that no-bid contracts are very rare in this industry. In this case, the United States has managed to squeeze out of contention offers made by more than 40 other companies including those in Russia, China and India. While these contracts are small at the outset, it gives the participating companies a foothold in the development of new fields, which will provide longer-term deals and lucrative profits. Put all of the little pieces together and the reason we are in Iraq becomes very clear.
George Bush is so intent on feeding the addiction that he is calling for the lifting of a 27-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling to help make us less dependent on foreign oil. He wants us to be energy independent. His mirror image, John McCain, believes that lifting the ban “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.” That’s funny because Bush’s own Energy Information Administration has stated that there will be no effect on U.S. production or prices until at least 2030. That’s 22 years from now. The real kick is that the U.S. offshore oil amounts are so small that it wouldn’t have any effect on prices anyway. * The U.S. controls less than 3% of the global oil and gas deposits, but accounts for 25% of the global oil consumption.
‘Alternative’ energy sources
Both talk about ‘alternative’ energy sources. If wind and solar immediately come to mind, think again. For Bush and McCain, ‘alternative’ means nuclear and coal. The present crisis has created a call by our fearless leader and his water boy for a renewed commitment to nuclear energy. George Bush called for this back in 2006 and it will comfort Americans to no end that John McCain envisions a nuclear future. McCain is calling for a ‘crash’ program to construct 45 new reactors by 2030. Of course, neither Bush nor McCain mentioned that the entire country gets only 20% of its electricity today from 104 operating nuke plants across the country. They also failed to mention that many of these plants are nearing the end of their licensing period. Sound like a solution to you?
Then there’s the little matter of safely dumping nuclear waste. In a major policy speech, McCain never talked about this aspect of nuclear power. Bush, however, has proposed that we ship thousands of tons of nuclear waste across the country to the still-to-be-built nuclear storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This deadly cargo would pass through as many as 44 states. As it passes thorough the District of Columbia, it would pass within half a mile of 50 million people. **
By the way, industry experts point out that construction on new nuclear plants could not begin for at least five years because of the requirements necessary to ensure safety. This would involve a complex licensing process, emergency response planning, operator training and radiation protection. There is also the little matter of coming up with a $5 to $10 billion dollar investment per facility.
While the Bush administration has stopped talking about the so-called ‘clean’ coal project McCain, in the same policy speech he made on nuclear technology, has committed to providing $2 billion per year to support clean coal technology. While it is America’s most abundant resource, burning coal is also a major contributor to global warming.
Indulging in outright deception
McCain’s new energy ad blatantly seeks to deceive the American people. The ad claims that McCain has bucked his own party when it comes to supporting action on climate change. That much about the ad is true. However, the images shown in the ad are of windmills and solar panels. The fact is that McCain does not support subsidies for either of these technologies. He does, on the other hand, support subsidies for nuclear power facilities. No nuclear facilities are shown in the ad, perhaps because he understands the emotional response this topic inspires given the memories of Three Mile Island here in America and Chernobyl in Russia. Nevertheless, the ad is deceptive and should be pulled immediately. Apparently, the Republicans believe that the ends justify the means and it is acceptable to lie to the American people.
Throwing billions against the wall and hoping something sticks
The plan advanced by our present imperial president and his potential successor amounts to throwing billions against the wall in the hope that something will stick. It will take billions of dollars to open up offshore drilling. It will take billions to revitalize the nuclear industry. It will take billions to develop ‘clean’ coal technology (another of those oxymorons). The American people would be better served if all of this money was invested in true ‘alternative’ energy sources, like wind and solar, rather than being spent on the same old technologies that have gotten us into this mess to begin with. Once the technical obstacles are overcome, the energy source is clean and doesn’t require disposing of waste. While we may never be completely free of the need for oil, at least we may be able to bring our need down to manageable levels.
*The same holds true for the oil and gas we would recover from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another brilliant idea.
**There are a great many myths about the Yucca facility that have been perpetrated by the Bush administration. I have a fact sheet about this facility in PDF format. If anyone would like a copy, please send an email to me at permanent.vacation@yahoo.com
“Running Out of Oil” Utter Nonsense.
Oil, Oil Everywhere And None Of It To Use
Three Americans want more oil drilling and 2 do not. There is a lot of hocus pocus about it. Relevant facts include: the outer continental shelf would yield 14 billion barrels of oil. ANWR would yield 10 billion barrels. Rocky Mountain oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and maybe Wyoming, would yield 2 trillion barrels. Since the first oil was extracted in Pennsylvania in the 1850s to the present, we have used 1 trillion barrels of oil.
This does not include the recently discovered oil reserves in North Dakota. We yet do not have a reliable measure of what is there but some engineers estimate that we are talking about at least 50 to 100 billion barrels of oil.
We have been told for years that we will be running out of oil any year. That is utter nonsense.
EXXON Valdez, Greatest Oil Spill in History
Yes, this may indeed deserve the very highest quality Houdini Hypocrisy label. How else can Number 35 wiggle into the Top 20 list?
Perhaps a textbook example of superb partisan and hypocritically hyped Misinformation Campaigns waged at the expense of all Americans, most who unfortunately do not understand the assault being waged on them
And maybe perpetuated by disproportionately large users of oil.
Would it surprise you, assuming you have not already turned away in Partisan Purity, that according to ITOPF, it was number 35 in size, dwarfed by the larger 34 by a factor of maybe a hundred. Check my math.
Be sure to check out Table 3, and ask how can this be? Notice this table lists the first 20 oil spills then jumps to number 35. A nod to political correctness and a testament to the lucrative partisan misinformation campaigns of those professional misinformers who get paid to inform us.Table 3: Major Oil Spills Since 1967 (Non Military Accidents Only). For more oil spills click here.
| Position | Shipname | Year | Location | Spill Size (tonnes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Atlantic Empress | 1979 | Off Tobago, West Indies | 287,000 |
| 2 | ABT Summer | 1991 | 700 nautical miles off Angola | 260,000 |
| 3 | Castillo de Bellver | 1983 | Off Saldanha Bay, South Africa | 252,000 |
| 4 | Amoco Cadiz | 1978 | Off Brittany, France | 223,000 |
| 5 | Haven | 1991 | Genoa, Italy | 144,000 |
| 6 | Odyssey | 1988 | 700 nautical miles off Nova Scotia, Canada | 132,000 |
| 7 | Torrey Canyon | 1967 | Scilly Isles, UK | 119,000 |
| 8 | Sea Star | 1972 | Gulf of Oman | 115,000 |
| 9 | Irenes Serenade | 1980 | Navarino Bay, Greece | 100,000 |
| 10 | Urquiola | 1976 | La Coruna, Spain | 100,000 |
| 11 | Hawaiian Patriot | 1977 | 300 nautical miles off Honolulu | 95,000 |
| 12 | Independenta | 1979 | Bosphorus, Turkey | 95,000 |
| 13 | Jakob Maersk | 1975 | Oporto, Portugal | 88,000 |
| 14 | Braer | 1993 | Shetland Islands, UK | 85,000 |
| 15 | Khark 5 | 1989 | 120 nautical miles off Atlantic coast of Morocco | 80,000 |
| 16 | Aegean Sea | 1992 | La Coruna, Spain | 74,000 |
| 17 | Sea Empress | 1996 | Milford Haven, UK | 72,000 |
| 18 | Katina P | 1992 | Off Maputo, Mozambique | 72,000 |
| 19 | Nova | 1985 | Off Kharg Island, Gulf of Iran | 70,000 |
| 20 | Prestige | 2002 | Off Galicia, Spain | 63,000 |
| 35 | Exxon Valdez | 1989 | Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA | 37,000 |
Only 47% Oppose Nationalizing Oil Companies
OOMPA LOOMPA DOOMPADEE DOO
Like a dark fairy tale a June 16, 2008 Rasmussen Poll finds twenty-nine percent of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry, 47% are opposed and 24% are not sure.
A plurality of Democrats (37%) believe the oil industry should be nationalized. Just 32% of voters in Barack Obama’s party disagree with that approach.
Republicans oppose nationalizing the oil industry by a 66% to 16% margin. Unaffiliated voters are opposed by a 47% to 33% margin.