CHICAGO NEWS BENCH: petroleum

Showing posts with label petroleum. Show all posts

Is the U.S. Giving Away Several Alaskan Islands to Russia?

February 20, 2012 - Under any other President, this would seem unbelievable. Under the current psychocratic regime, however, it seems to be just another way to bring America to its knees.

"It appears Congress had nothing to do with this 7-island giveaway with tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds. The Department of the Interior says these islands are a source of BILLIONS of barrels of oil. Our president and the State Department can just give away American sovereign land – Alaskan land," says Maggie's Notebook on February 18. Maggies gives an excellent report, and notes that this issue pre-dates the Obama Administration.

"The longer story is that this covert mission began under G.W.H. Bush," says Maggie, "but the thing to remember is that no he, nor any president following made the giveaway reality."

It would seem that the Obama Administration has every intention to make it reality.

The islands to be given away, says Joe Miller, include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Miller was the unsuccessful 2010 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Alaska. Miller "broke this story" in a post that was published on February 16 on World Net Daily's website, and reposted about at Gateway Pundit. Included in the deal, says Millier, would be billions of barrels of oil.

Here is an excerpt from Miller's post at WND (emphasis added):

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

A quick review: The State Department supervised this giveaway. The head of the Department of State is Hillary Clinton. It is inconceivable that this deal was made without Obama's knowledge and consent. Furthermore, this is not a new issue. The idea of giving these islands to Russia dates back to the days when Russia was still the Soviet Union.

At the end of the World Net Daily piece, there is an "Author’s addendum" that notes that both the Bush and Clinton administrations failed to act to resolve the question of ownership of these islands.

"A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department," says the addendum, "set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action. Consequently, it is within the president’s power to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable. State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration and is currently confronting the Obama administration — and has been met by silence."

Indeed, World Net Daily has previously covered the issue of giving away Alaskan lands to Russia, as has NewsMax.

Canadian TV Commentator Slams Obama for Keystone Debacle

Canadian television commentator and columnist Ezra Levant laid into Barack Obama for his recent rejection of the Keystone Pipeline project.

Here is Levant's great rant, on video, about what he calls Obama's "Keystone cop-out."

Levant also wrote about it in the Calgary Sun on January 21. His column had the great headline, "Obama chose conflict Venezuelan oil over ethical Canuck oil, and movie stars over working men, women."

Here is an excerpt:

U.S. President Barack Obama made a choice last week: He chose Venezuela over Canada. That's what he did when he rejected the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would have taken oilsands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast of Texas.

That pipeline would have delivered 700,000 barrels of oil every day from Canada (and from a new oilfield called Bakken that straddles the North Dakota-Saskatchewan border). Which is almost precisely the amount of oil Venezuela now ships to the United States, to those same refineries in Texas. With one fell swoop, Obama could have replaced conflict oil, from a belligerent, authoritarian OPEC regime, with ethical oil from Canada. But he didn't. More at the Calgary Sun...

You can also read more at Levant's blog, which is cleverly called "Ezra Levant."

Europe Wants To Drill There, Drill Soon

Europe wants to drill, but the U.S. Congress - Democrats, primarily - are reluctant to approve new petroleum and gas drilling projects within our own borders. An interesting report from AP today (2/22/09) tells us that the Europeans are eager to develop their ability to produce their own energy from "fossil fuels." While there have been Europeans pushing for such and effort before now, the recent Russian natural gas cut-off has spurred Europe to move faster toward the goal of energy independence. There is a great irony to this story. AP quotes Don Hertzmark, "an international energy expert," as saying that "The Europeans never bothered to develop this stuff." Here's the irony: The Europeans will do it with American technology because they have not developed their own, and while the U.S. has the ability, our federal government has essentially crushed efforts to increase our own domestic production for decades because of pressure from environmentalists. Hertzmark, reports AP, says that using American technology would save European companies years of developing their own methods. (Why re-invent the wheel?) "If the same technology works in Europe," writes AP's Mark Williams, "it could free up an enormous amount of energy, and potentially provide a buffer against cross-border disputes to the east." It's a shame that the US Congress, as a whole, doesn't seem to understand that. If the same American technology that Europe now hopes to use were actually put to full use by American companies domestically, it could provide a buffer against higher energy prices and the potential for blackmail and extortion by other nations. Enviromental activists are continuing their push for a moratorium on U.S. offshore drilling. H. Josef Herbert wrote about at Townhall.com on February 11 (emphasis added): At a House hearing, Philippe Cousteau, grandson of legendary ocean explorer Jacques Cousteau, urged Congress to reinstate the offshore drilling bans that until last fall had been in effect for 25 years in Atlantic and Pacific coastal waters. "It's absolutely critical for the health of the oceans," said Cousteau, a board member of the advocacy group Ocean Conservancy. "Oil spills still occur." The argument that "oil spills still occur" is an absurd red herring. Yes, the possibility of a spill from a domestic offshore project is a possibility, but an oil spill is an oil spill is an oil spill. Whether that spilled oil comes from one of our own ships or drilling platforms, or from a foreign oil tanker en route to a US port, makes no difference to the birds and fish. Cousteau and his comrades represent the "not in my back yard" mentality taken to a global scale. Our oil consumption is supplied, in part, by drilling in other parts of the world. That foreign oil is transported in ships across vast oceans. The probability of a spill, from foreign drill to U.S. port, is greater than it would be from domestic drill to domestic port. Less distance plus less time equals less opportunity for accidents. Oil spills are not exactly common occurances. In fact, they are rare, as noted by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), a bureau in the U.S. Department of the Interior. MMS "tracks spill incidents 1 barrel or greater in size of petroleum and other toxic substances resulting from Federal OCS oil and gas activities." You can see their spill statistics at http://www.mms.gov/incidents/spills1996-2008.htm. The environmentalist radicals are almost always also opposed to "American imperialism." It is odd that they cannot connect the dots between imporation of oil and that "empire." If the United States reduced its dependence on foreign energy sources, it would simultaneously reduce our footprint on the economies of other nations. Therefore, less "imperialism." Logically, they should be cheerleading an effort to increase domestic energy production. However, logic and a basic understanding of capitalism do not fit well into their anti-business agenda. According to Williams' AP report, "European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso says the dispute between Russia and Ukraine demonstrated the need for Europe to stop keeping all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to energy sources and supply routes." Williams quotes Barroso as saying, "It was utterly unacceptable that European gas consumers were held hostage to this dispute between Russia and Ukraine," Barroso said. Indeed. It is also unacceptable that the U.S. is often held hostage to pricing whims of other oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members. It would be a great irony if Europe uses American technology to become energy independent before we achieve that worthy goal. It would be nice to be able to tell OPEC and Russia to stuff it, we've got our own. RELATED: Another Wake-Up Call? Europe Remains Divided Over Energy Security... Russian gas crisis should inform US policy Our Self-Created Energy Problem FACTBOX-Major energy pipelines in central/southern Europe NEWS WATCH: Europe Concerned Over Dependency On Russian Gas Russia deepens gas hegemony EIA - Petroleum Basic Data (U.S. Dept. of Energy) Iranian Oil Bourse Soon to Be a Reality Political Lore .com Iran Starts Oil, Petrochemicals Exchange in Tehran Iran Opens Oil Bourse to Sidestep U.S. Sanctions José Manuel Barroso President of the European Commission - Opening speech External energy conference External energy policy conference Brussels, 20 November 2006 CNB RSS Feed

Why We Need More Oil Production

Russia is holding Ukraine hostage to energy blackmail. All of Europe is ultimately threatened by this, and the US has lessons to learn from this. Russia cut off all gas via Ukraine to Europe last week. The EU, which gets a fifth of all its gas supplies via that route, has found itself playing arbiter in a bitter power-play between two ex-Soviet states still acting out a separation. (Reuters) "Energy independence" is something every American can agree on, but just how we achieve it provides a point of disagreement. One camp wants to expand our domestic oil drilling and/or build new nuclear power plants, while the other major camp prefers to abandon petroleum and focus on "alternative" energy sources such as wind, solar, and so on. What the latter camp just doesn't seem to understand is this: It will take decades to bring wind, solar and other alternative sources to a point where they can efficiently replace so-called fossil fuels. With our own off-shore oil available sooner, complimented by shale oil from our friend Canada, we have the opportunity to increase our own petroleum availability and thereby reduce our dependence on unstable, unfriendly nations such as Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC. There is nothing short of war that would prevent OPEC from blackmailing the US, in the way Russia is now blackmailing Ukraine, if they wanted to. While we probably cannot become completely independent of other nations for oil in the near future, we can at least reduce the damage that a blackmail action would cause. And, yes, conservation and wiser use of resources is something we should include in the whole equation. To try to replace fossil fuels with alternatives too quickly would be counterproductive. Think of it this way: When the very first trains were being built, the materials for the trains and the factories that made them were transported by horses and wagons. Suppose that there had been an anti-horse movement back then. Suppose that those in that movement said, "Look, we must abandon horses as a source of power because they crap everywhere, causing a stink and increasing the possibility of disease being spread. Furthermore, the horses eat grains that could be used for human consumption." Had such a movement been successful, how would the heavy materials been transported to build the trains? How would be have successfully replaced horse-drawn wagons with the next phase of transportation? We face a similar question today: How can we build solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and other alternative energy devices if we stop using petroleum as a power source? Not only that, but a lot of the components of those devices are made of plastic and other petroleum products. Petroleum powers the vehicles that haul the parts to make the factories that make those devices. The factories are powered by petroleum. The devices are then transported to market by petroleum powered vehicles. To completely abandon petroleum too soon would be, if you'll pardon my expression, putting the cart before the horse. Ironically, we must increase our domestic drilling for petroleum and production of petroleum products in the short term in order to successfully take us to the next phase. History repeats itself metaphorically. Fossil fuels, whether coal, natural gas or petroleum, are what will make it possible for us to one day abandon those resources as primary sources of energy. Let us make maximum use of it now, while we still have it, to evolve to a higher state of energy production and usage. Subscribe to Chicago News Bench

Gas Prices Falling, No Thanks To Pelosi

Gas prices are expected to drop to near $3.00 per gallon by year's end, NO THANKS TO NANCY PELOSI or the DEMOCRATS. Adam Smith's invisible hand just bitch slapped Nancy Pelosi. Nearly two and a half years ago, Nancy Pelosi lied to the American people by telling them that she and the Democrats had a plan to lower fuel prices. On April 24, 2006 she said the following in a press release: “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” We're still waiting for the Democrats' "commonsense plan." Perhaps it was the suggestion recently by Obama to keep our tires properly inflated. Perhaps not. In any case, it would seem that the market - and not any political party - is at work. Gasoline prices, which have declined steadily for more than a month in Chicago and nationally are expected to continue dropping this Labor Day weekend, and could fall to near $3 a gallon before the end of the year, unless Hurricane Gustav decides to rain on the consumer party. FULL STORY at Chicago Sun-Times...

Who Owns the North Pole?

Russia says it does. It's all about minerals, petroleum and gas, and there is a mad scramble by nations to get access to it. A June, 2007 article in the Daily Mail (UK) noted that "Russian President Vladimir Putin is making an astonishing bid to grab a vast chunk of the Arctic - so he can tap its vast potential oil, gas and mineral wealth." Russian scientists base their claim on an underwater ridge near the North Pole, which they say is actually part of the Russian continental shelf. [Source: Daily Mail] In a July 28 article, the Barents Observer, which specializes in watching such things: According to a press release from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Arctic accounts for about 13 percent of the undiscovered oil, 30 percent of the undiscovered natural gas, and 20 percent of the undiscovered natural gas liquids in the world. About 84 percent of the estimated resources are expected to occur offshore. FULL ARTICLE at Barents Observer... Today, the Financial Times reports that "The issue of who owns the North Pole was a backburner issue while the region was encased in ice. But warmer temperatures suggest the region, which may hold up to one-quarter of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves, could soon be put into play as thinning ice makes it accessible." FULL ARTICLE at Financial Times... Will the dispute be settled fairly? Doubtful, says the Barents Observer today: There is, however, little chance of everyone playing fair when so much it as stake, journalist Nick Meo writes. According to him, United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea, which governs maritime territorial claims, is likely to sow as many disputes as it solves. The legal position of the area is confusing, to say the least, and could set the scene for some potentially spectacular disputes in the future, he believes. FULL ARTICLE at Barents Observer... The Telegraph UK fretted on August 16 that Russia may be stepping into a "confrontation with the other polar powers, who are only now waking up to what is at stake" in terms of incredible resources in the Arctic: The ambitions of today's Russians are equally bold – while the planting of the titanium flag was a largely symbolic gesture, it signalled Russia's intention to claim a vast of territory underneath the icecap that amouts to half the Arctic Ocean's seabed. If they have their way they will tame one of the last true frontiers, making Moscow the master of much of the Earth's remaining energy supplies. The risk, however, is of lurching into confrontation with the other polar powers, who are only now waking up to what is at stake. The great prize is the 25 per cent of the Earth's remaining oil and gas which the Arctic is thought to contain. FULL ARTICLE at Telegraph UK... RELATED: Bad New Bear Is Norway putting relations with Russia in jeopardy? Norway challenged by Russian plans in Spitsbergen waters New oil and gas survey makes the Arctic hot

BREAKING: GAS PRICES JUMP $3 PER BARREL

Ooops. NEW YORK (AP) — Oil prices jumped more than $3 a barrel Wednesday, halting a three-day slide after the government reported a bigger-than-expected drop in U.S. gasoline supplies. But more signs of dwindling U.S. demand cast doubt on the rally's longevity. "There's no doubt that refiners are making less gasoline," said Phil Flynn, analyst at Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. "The demand is bad so why store a product that you're going to have trouble selling?" FULL ARTICLE, Associated Press...

Nancy Pelosi, the Un-Democrat

Current polls show Bush's approval rating is around 30 percent. The same polls show approval ratings for Congress at around seven percent. Yep. Dictator Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Speaker of the House, is not acting democratically. In case you haven't heard, Queen Nancy still refuses to allow the House of Representatives in Congress to vote on a measure that would allow more domestic drilling of oil in the U.S. The Democrats, knowing they would lose the vote, are not playing fair. But then, that's why they call themselves "Democrats." Kind of like the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea). Not much democratic about that. Meanwhile, Pelosi is on a book tour. Her book is tanking in sales and more often than not she is met by protestors demanding her impeachment than by fans or book buyers. (More about that...) No wonder, since the do-nothing Democrats have "controlled" it for two years under the Iron Maiden, Nancy Pelosi. Have they ended the war as promised? No. Have they lowered the price of gasoline as promised? No. (It was, by the way around $2.00 per gallon when Pelosi promised to do something about the high prices at the pump.) Most Americans are unhappy with President Bush, but virtually all Americans are unhappy with Congress and Nancy Pelosi. RELATED: The Democrats Resist Logic - Washington Post - They say that we cannot drill our way out of the oil crisis. Of course not. But it is equally obvious that we cannot solar or wind or biomass our way out. vote, end to vacation The Antithesis of a Rational American Energy Policy - Wall Street Journal - Nancy Pelosi's anti-fossil fuel/antinuclear policies have made us hostage to foreign oil -- and stonewalling a vote makes her radical green supporters happy. Vote/Drill Now: Call Pelosi Today (202) 225-0100 Stephanopoulos to Pelosi: Why No Up or Down Vote on Drilling ... Pelosi's drill-nothing Congress House GOP calls for offshore drilling

Time to Squeak

Headline of the day: "Go GOP Go!!! Drill, Drill" at Backyard Conservative. BC's Anne Leary links up to stories about the struggle to get dictator Nancy Pelosi to allow a Congressional vote on the question of drilling for oil domestically. Great links and quotes to be found there. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease,” Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) told the crowd. “It is time for you all to squeak.”

Calling Nancy Pelosi

Hi, may speak with Mizz Pelosi? Nancy Pelosi gave out the telephone number to the White House, and said call President Bush to get the gas prices down. Yes, yes, and we second the suggestion that folks call Nancy Pelosi! Get her phone numbers HERE. Remember to be polite.

Bush to Lift Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling

The president plans to officially lift the ban and then explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said. Wait, hold on. That's not the whole story: But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well. [Source] The accomplish-nothing Pelosi Congress has a chance to actually do something about fuel prices. When Nancy Pelosi took became Speaker of the House a couple of years ago, she told the nation that she and her fellow Democrats had a plan to bring down the price of gasoline. Since then, the price at the pump has about doubled. The U.S. has more oil in the ground (including shale oil) than Saudi Arabia does. It makes no sense to import the stuff at $130 per barrel when we are literally sitting on so much of it right here. RELATED: Bush to Lift Ban on Oil, Gas Drilling off US Coasts (Update1) Bloomberg Bush to lift ban on some offshore oil exploration USA Today Bush Administration Rejects Regulating Greenhouse Gases Red Orbit

Dick Durbin's Inferno

Which circle of Hell will U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) spend eternity on? I don't know, but Anne Leary has some thoughts about this at Backyard Conservative: It's Dick Durbin's deathbed conversion. How long have you been in the Senate Dick? And only now you want to drill for oil in the US? Now that we're croaking on high gas prices, having to import 70% of our oil because you Democrats have been blocking drilling in major fields for 30 years!!! She continues: There should be a special circle in hell for you Dick Durbin. THE FULL SCATHING THING... Also see: DURBIN'S HELL ON EARTH

Analyzing Joe: Why Orange Matters Here

Many of know that Alderman Joe Moore is full of crap, but here's further proof that the 49th Ward Dictator is a hypocrite. He claims to be the Green Alderman. Let's see why green really does not matter to Moore.

Joe lives in a big house on Fargo, about two blocks from his ward office. Yet, he often drives his car to work. Nice carbon footprint.

How much energy must it take to heat the big house in winter? Nice carbon footprint. Are there solar panels anywhere in sight? Nope.

The photo here shows Joe's trash, taken yesterday evening. Click for larger image and notice the cardboard. Does it look ready for recycling to you? Notice the plastic orange Home Depot bucket. Wow...Home Depot.

We've got several issues here.

(1) Plastic buckets are made from petroleum ("oil"), the use of which currently increases our dependence on foreign oil, further enriches the Big Oil companies, leaves a large carbon footprint, and is not bio-degradable.

(2) Is that paint or caulking in the bucket? I don't know, but again, petroleum is involved. Furthermore, how dare he live in a house with paint? Doesn't he know that it would be greener to live in a mud hut somewhere?

(3) Home Depot?!? Say, that's a Big Box store! My God, Mister Anti-Big-Box shops at Home Depot?!? He should be run out of town. Why couldn't he have purchased a locally hand made wooden bucket from a locally owned store or artisan in Rogers Park?

Joe Moore. What a piece of work.

Changing the Oil

Congress giveth and Congress taketh away. The nation's largest oil and gas companies are about to lose some big tax breaks. This could be good. It could be bad. It's probably a little of both. Donny Shaw's article at OpenCongress today sums it up: Now it appears that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is planing on reattaching the House's recision of $14 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies and the mandate for utilities to produce 15 percent of their energy through renewable fuels. House and Senate Democrats on Wednesday unveiled a $ 21 billion energy tax package that in large part repeals tax breaks for the biggest oil and gas companies to fund long-term extension of renewable-energy tax credits and encourages biofuels and energy efficiency. FULL ARTICLE...

Synthetic Oil, Real Challenges

Kheris is an avid follower of the business of energy, and she puts together an interesting analysis and some good links about producing synthetic oil and the threat it poses to nearby water supplies, especially ground water. New technologies offer hope, but the clock is ticking and nothing is perfect. The notion of producing synthetic oil from the kerogen locked in shale deposits in Colorado and Wyoming has great allure for those looking for a magic bullet to 'end our dependence on foreign oil.' However, there are risks and costs to such production, something the Canadians are learning with their own tar sands operation in Alberta. MORE at The Living Room in Rogers Park...

Of Tortillas and Ethanol

There is a crisis in Mexico: Tortilla prices are rising. The government, of course, will get involved. It will also try to blame the United States. Notice the demonization of the U.S. ethanol industry, which is being blamed in part for the rising cost of corn, thus driving up the price of your basic corn tortilla. What a complicated world we live in. President Felipe Calderón signed an accord with businesses on Thursday to curb soaring tortilla prices and protect Mexico's poor from speculative sellers and a surge in the cost of corn driven by the U.S. ethanol industry. (Full story from Miami Herald) Here's a suggestion for Mexico: Clean up your act, amigos, and stop repressing people in Oaxaca and elsewhere, privatize PEMEX and maybe - just maybe - you can grow enough corn in your huge, highly arable, mineral rich nation to make tortillas at a reasonable price. Maybe. PEMEX, the Mexican oil company, sits on the world's fifth largest known reserves, but because it is owned and operated by an inept, corrupt government it is on the verge of bankruptcy. If land reform became a reality, there should be no reason why Mexico would be so dependent on corn from Kansas. Or money sent home from the more than 10 percent of its exiled population. Related: Commentary from Oaxaca

Pages

Related articles

Related articles: