From: Washington Free Beacon
The United States could add thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity by speeding up approval of the 20 remaining liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals currently being reviewed by the Energy Department, according to a report released Thursday.
A report by American Council for Capital Formation estimated LNG exports would create up to 452,300 jobs between 2016 and 2035. Over the same period, the United States could add between $15. 6 billion and $73.6 billion annually to the gross domestic product.
“Each project can take five years or more to move from approval to export flow,” the report stated. “Without a faster approval process, it is unlikely that the United States will achieve the economic and job growth benefits that would arise from the higher production of natural gas since other countries may gain market share at our expense.”
The advent of hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” has opened up huge natural gas deposits in the United States, and the country now has the potential to become a net exporter of natural gas by 2016, according to energy forecasts.
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, speaking earlier this year at a congressional hearing, said the department “will expeditiously work through the remaining applications, … reviewing each one on a case-by-case basis to ensure that all approvals are in the public interest.”
Moniz said there would “absolutely” be decisions on the export terminals sometime this year.
However, increased natural gas exports have been opposed by environmental groups, who argue the long-term environmental impacts are still unclear, and manufacturers, who fear spikes in energy prices.
The ACCF report argues exports will allow the free market to determine prices and accomplish the Obama administration’s energy goals.
“The administration has an opportunity to advance the president’s goal to double exports within five years by utilizing one of our most vital and plentiful natural resources in a manner that carries comprehensive benefits for our economy both today and far into the future,” the report reads “DOE should allow free markets to determine how much LNG is exported and allow free trade of this valuable resource to aid our recovering economy. From corn to cars to wheat, exports have proven to be a net positive boost for the U.S. economy and LNG exports shouldn’t be treated differently.”
The Energy Department declined to comment on the report and directed the Washington Free Beacon to Moniz’ earlier statements.
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy. Show all posts
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, October 08, 2012
‘Sometimes we have to step outside the boundaries of the Constitution'
From: WashingtonExaminer.com
Environmentalists want to ban hydraulic fracturing in Las Vegas, N.M., and the surrounding county and they don’t plan to let the United States Constitution stop them.
“What people don’t understand is sometimes we have to step outside the boundaries of the Constitution to get things done,” Paula Hern, a board member with Community for Clean Water Air and Earth, told the ABQ Journal. “Laws are made to protect corporations and we need laws that protect Mother Earth – earth, air and water.”
Hern was defending a “community rights ordinance” banning fracking that the Las Vegas (N.M.) City Council passed but the mayor refused to sign. “The way it reads, it will supersede everything – our city charter, state and federal laws,” said Mayor Alfonso Ortiz.
City attorney Dave Romero defended the mayor’s position. “To sign a document that declares those sacred documents — the city charter, the New Mexico Constitution and the US Constitution — are inapplicable would violate the oath of office [the mayor] swore to uphold,” Romero argued. “[H]idden within the ordinance are radical, inappropriate statements that essentially claim that no other entity governs when it comes to this particular ordinance,” adding that “It takes away rights of due process and property.”
CCWAE’s Lee Einer said that the mayor should “Let it play out in court.”
“What people don’t understand is sometimes we have to step outside the boundaries of the Constitution to get things done,” Paula Hern, a board member with Community for Clean Water Air and Earth, told the ABQ Journal. “Laws are made to protect corporations and we need laws that protect Mother Earth – earth, air and water.”
Hern was defending a “community rights ordinance” banning fracking that the Las Vegas (N.M.) City Council passed but the mayor refused to sign. “The way it reads, it will supersede everything – our city charter, state and federal laws,” said Mayor Alfonso Ortiz.
City attorney Dave Romero defended the mayor’s position. “To sign a document that declares those sacred documents — the city charter, the New Mexico Constitution and the US Constitution — are inapplicable would violate the oath of office [the mayor] swore to uphold,” Romero argued. “[H]idden within the ordinance are radical, inappropriate statements that essentially claim that no other entity governs when it comes to this particular ordinance,” adding that “It takes away rights of due process and property.”
CCWAE’s Lee Einer said that the mayor should “Let it play out in court.”
Monday, June 04, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
GAO: Recoverable Oil in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming 'About Equal to Entire World’s Proven Oil Reserves'
From: CNSNews.com
The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the world’s proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.
The GAO testimony stressed that the federal government was in “a unique position to influence the development of oil shale” because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land.
“The Green River Formation--an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming--contains the world's largest deposits of oil shale,”Anu K. Mittal, the GAO’s director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified.
“The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves.”
In her oral statement before the subcommittee, Mittal said that developing the shale oil would create wealth and jobs for the country, but also challenges for government.
“Being able to tap this vast amount of oil locked within this formation will go a long way to help to meet our future demands for oil. The U.S. Geological Survey, as you noted, estimates that the formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil of which half may be recoverable,” she said.
“As you can imagine having the technology to develop this vast energy resource will lead to a number of important socioeconomic benefits including the creation of jobs, increases in wealth and increases in tax and royalty payments for federal and state governments,” she said.
“While large-scale oil-shale development offers socioeconomic opportunities it also poses certain socioeconomic challenges that also should not be overlooked,” she testified. “Oil shale development like other extractive industries can bring a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stressed on local infrastructure. Development from expansion of extractive industries has historically followed a boom-and-bust cycle making planning for growth difficult for local governments.”
In her written testimony, Mittal noted that three-fourths of the Green River shale oil is under federal land.
“The federal government is in a unique position to influence the development of oil shale because nearly three-quarters of the oil shale within the Green River Formation lies beneath federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM),” she testified.
The Green River Formation, a largely vacant area of mostly federal land that covers the territory where Colorado, Utah and Wyoming come together, contains about as much recoverable oil as all the rest the world’s proven reserves combined, an auditor from the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Thursday.
The GAO testimony stressed that the federal government was in “a unique position to influence the development of oil shale” because the Green River deposits were mostly beneath federal land.
It also noted that developing the oil would pose “socioeconomic challenges,” which included bringing “a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stress on local infrastructure” and “making planning for growth difficult for local governments.”
“The Green River Formation--an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming--contains the world's largest deposits of oil shale,”Anu K. Mittal, the GAO’s director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified.
“The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves.”
In her oral statement before the subcommittee, Mittal said that developing the shale oil would create wealth and jobs for the country, but also challenges for government.
“Being able to tap this vast amount of oil locked within this formation will go a long way to help to meet our future demands for oil. The U.S. Geological Survey, as you noted, estimates that the formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil of which half may be recoverable,” she said.
“As you can imagine having the technology to develop this vast energy resource will lead to a number of important socioeconomic benefits including the creation of jobs, increases in wealth and increases in tax and royalty payments for federal and state governments,” she said.
“While large-scale oil-shale development offers socioeconomic opportunities it also poses certain socioeconomic challenges that also should not be overlooked,” she testified. “Oil shale development like other extractive industries can bring a sizable influx of workers who along with their families put additional stressed on local infrastructure. Development from expansion of extractive industries has historically followed a boom-and-bust cycle making planning for growth difficult for local governments.”
In her written testimony, Mittal noted that three-fourths of the Green River shale oil is under federal land.
“The federal government is in a unique position to influence the development of oil shale because nearly three-quarters of the oil shale within the Green River Formation lies beneath federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Bureau of Land Management (BLM),” she testified.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Friday, October 07, 2011
Salazar Endorses Hydraulic Fracturing
From: U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said hydraulic fracturing is "a necessary part of the future of natural gas." He went on to note that natural gas is "a very important domestic source of energy for us."
I'm glad that the secretary appreciates the role hydraulic fracturing has to play in developing our energy resources.
As noted in Free Enterprise magazine, the benefits from a "natural gas renaissance" are real in terms of the number of jobs created and new revenue for governments in the Eastern United States:
“The potential is enormous,” Tom Ridge, former governor of Pennsylvania and former U.S. secretary of Homeland Security, who now leads Ridge Global, his own international security and risk management firm, headquartered in Washington, D.C., told Free Enterprise magazine. “I see natural gas potentially as a transformational fuel at least for the first half of the 21st century. Pennsylvania is only a drop in the bucket. We only have 2,000 wells, and they’ve created about 50,000 to 60,000 jobs, with an average salary of more than $60,000.”
The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue says that drillers have paid more than $1 billion in state taxes since 2006. The revenue department also identified some $214 million in personal income taxes paid since 2006 that can be attributed to Marcellus shale lease payments to individuals, royalty income, and asset sales.
As with any activity, commonsense regulation is needed to efficiently extract natural gas while protecting the environment. That's what is happening in North Dakota, which is sitting on top of the energy-rich Bakken Formation:
A big part of what's happening where shale formations are being tapped, through hydraulic fracturing, is partnership with state regulators. [Former U.S. Senator Byron] Dorgan said one reason the Bakken is thriving in North Dakota is the cooperation between industry and state officials. It's not a question of whether hydraulic fracturing will be regulated, he said, but how.
Let's hope policy makers in Washington heed Secretary Salazar's words and let hydraulic fracturing continue to provide much-needed jobs and domestic energy.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Even unions see Obama killing coal and a quarter-million jobs
FROM: Washington Examiner
President Obama's cap-and-trade bill died in the Democrat-run 111th Congress, but that hasn't stopped the chief executive and Lisa Jackson, his U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator, from finding regulatory paths to achieve the same goals.
Topping those goals is the abolition of coal as an electrical power-generating fuel. More than half of the electrical power used every day by Americans is generated by power plants fueled by coal. And 90 percent of all the coal consumed in the U.S. goes to electrical power generation.
But that doesn't matter to Obama and Big Green, they are determined to kill the coal industry because of its alleged contribution to global warming.
It appears that Jackson's EPA has now found the perfect regulatory tool to accomplish that goal - the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), which, according to the agency, would apply to all "Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units."
The MATS proposal has sparked massive opposition from among energy industry groups and conservative think tanks, but now a huge coalition of unions that normally are vocal supporters of Obama are warning of the loss of millions of jobs, substantial power-generation capability, and other harmful consequences radiating throughout the entire U.S. economy.
The group is the Unions for Jobs and the Environment (UJAE), a 501(C)(4) foundation whose 15 member-unions represents "more than 3.2 million workers in electric power, transportation, coal mining, construction and other industries."
Naturally, the union coalition's first concern is the impact of MATS on employment. In a July 8 letter to EPA, UJAE notes that, while some"tens of thousands of jobs" would be created by the proposed rule's requirement for installation of new emissions equipment, "on the other hand, a potentially much larger number of permanent jobs may be lost in the mining, electric utility, and transport sectors if large numbers of coal-fired generating plants were closed in response to the rule. We regard this risk as real and substantial."
The UJAE also cautions EPA that its proposed three-year grace period for compliance with MATS is "utterly inadequate for designing,financing, permitting, and constructing the multitude of retrofit pollution controls needed to comply with the rule."
Most worrisome for UJAE's members, however, is the terrible impact MATS would have on the ability of the U.S. to build new electrical power-generating plants in the future. The proposed rule would effectively ban construction of any new plants using coal:
"The proposed MATS rule would preclude the construction of any new coal-based electric generating units due to the severity of its emission limitations for mercury, acid gases and particulate matter ('PM.')," UJAE said in its letter.
President Obama's cap-and-trade bill died in the Democrat-run 111th Congress, but that hasn't stopped the chief executive and Lisa Jackson, his U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator, from finding regulatory paths to achieve the same goals.
Topping those goals is the abolition of coal as an electrical power-generating fuel. More than half of the electrical power used every day by Americans is generated by power plants fueled by coal. And 90 percent of all the coal consumed in the U.S. goes to electrical power generation.
But that doesn't matter to Obama and Big Green, they are determined to kill the coal industry because of its alleged contribution to global warming.
It appears that Jackson's EPA has now found the perfect regulatory tool to accomplish that goal - the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), which, according to the agency, would apply to all "Coal and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units."
The MATS proposal has sparked massive opposition from among energy industry groups and conservative think tanks, but now a huge coalition of unions that normally are vocal supporters of Obama are warning of the loss of millions of jobs, substantial power-generation capability, and other harmful consequences radiating throughout the entire U.S. economy.
The group is the Unions for Jobs and the Environment (UJAE), a 501(C)(4) foundation whose 15 member-unions represents "more than 3.2 million workers in electric power, transportation, coal mining, construction and other industries."
Naturally, the union coalition's first concern is the impact of MATS on employment. In a July 8 letter to EPA, UJAE notes that, while some"tens of thousands of jobs" would be created by the proposed rule's requirement for installation of new emissions equipment, "on the other hand, a potentially much larger number of permanent jobs may be lost in the mining, electric utility, and transport sectors if large numbers of coal-fired generating plants were closed in response to the rule. We regard this risk as real and substantial."
The UJAE also cautions EPA that its proposed three-year grace period for compliance with MATS is "utterly inadequate for designing,financing, permitting, and constructing the multitude of retrofit pollution controls needed to comply with the rule."
Most worrisome for UJAE's members, however, is the terrible impact MATS would have on the ability of the U.S. to build new electrical power-generating plants in the future. The proposed rule would effectively ban construction of any new plants using coal:
"The proposed MATS rule would preclude the construction of any new coal-based electric generating units due to the severity of its emission limitations for mercury, acid gases and particulate matter ('PM.')," UJAE said in its letter.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
How Dangerous Are Energy Efficient Light Bulbs?
From: American Thinker
New evidence of CFLs causing fires -- even exploding -- as well as new environmental concerns have come to light since my article The CFL Fraud published. Here are some of the additional fires:
"I had one of these CFL's in my garage socket, and it blew a component (not the glass corkscrew) and caught fire. Fortunately, I was standing four feet away at the time. I turned off the power and smothered the bulb with a towel." LINK
"I heard a sizzling sound like bacon, looked in the direction of the sound and watch the CFL burst into flame with flames licking up onto the ceiling of my house." LINK
"I've had two burn through their base, leaving a hole large enough to stick my little finger in, and scorching the fixture. They are a fire hazard." LINK
"I've had two CFLs explode on me. One in our bedroom overhead light.... I took a long time cleaning the bedspread and carpeting, because of fears of the mercury residue. Had another one explode in the family room." LINK
How was that bedspread cleaned? Was the person aware it must not be put in a washing machine, according to EPA, "because mercury may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage"? Was that person aware EPA also says never to use a vacuum cleaner to clean up a broken CFL on a carpet? Vacuuming will disperse mercury into the air and contaminate the vacuum cleaner, which for all practical purposes is impossible to decontaminate. LINK
In recognition of the problems of fires and exploding CFLs, Armorlite is marketing a product with a package labeled "A Safer CFL." It is a CFL inside what looks like the shell of an incandescent bulb made with some special coating. Notice that is says a "safer CFL" -- not that it is "safe," just "safer." In other words, less dangerous. The package states: "We do not make any claims or provisions that mercury or glass cannot escape coating."
Armorlite claims a lifetime of 10,000 hours, or nine years, based on 3 hours of use per day, but the warranty is for only two years. So much for all the B.S. about how CFLs last so many thousands of hours longer than incandescents.
If the bulb fails in two years, you can get a replacement from the company. The package states:
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Barack Obama's "Marie Antoinette" Moment
The video is about four minutes long and the comment comes at the end, but it's telling. "Let em eat cake" is now "You Might Want To Think About A Trade In". All this as gas prices rise. Funny stuff. It sure is good to know that as he said "remembers what it was like to pump gas". The common touch. Absolutely amazing. Here it is:
Of course, Barack Obama has never liked low gas prices or utility bills. Higher energy costs are the price we will pay for his green energy policy. Don't believe me? Here's a reminder:
"Necessarily skyrocket". Yeah, but hey at least he remembers pumping gas. If we were patriotic we would shell out $42,000 for the "VOLT". After all, we already paid for it with our taxes. When Barack Obama said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, he meant it. We all pay the price as while someone else pays for his gas.
Of course, Barack Obama has never liked low gas prices or utility bills. Higher energy costs are the price we will pay for his green energy policy. Don't believe me? Here's a reminder:
"Necessarily skyrocket". Yeah, but hey at least he remembers pumping gas. If we were patriotic we would shell out $42,000 for the "VOLT". After all, we already paid for it with our taxes. When Barack Obama said he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, he meant it. We all pay the price as while someone else pays for his gas.
Obama's 'Let them eat cake' moment deep sixed by media
Quote Barack Obama: "If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon"Obama said laughingly. "You might want to think about a trade-in."
From: American Thinker
As gasoline prices soar, while domestic oil production struggles under regulatory and permitting burdens imposed by the Obama administration, the American public is suffering, and so are Obama's reelection prospects. The sad fact is that Obama wants high energy prices.
From: American Thinker
As gasoline prices soar, while domestic oil production struggles under regulatory and permitting burdens imposed by the Obama administration, the American public is suffering, and so are Obama's reelection prospects. The sad fact is that Obama wants high energy prices.
"Under my plan of cap and trade plan makes electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket"'; "coal powered plants, natural gas, you name it..whatever the plants were...they will have to retrofit their operations..that will cost money and they will have to pass those costs onto consumers"
In 2008, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar indicated he would still oppose a measure to open up offshore areas to new oil and natural gas drilling even if gasoline prices reached $10 a gallon.
Yesterday, speaking to a crowd in Pennsylvania, responding to a question about high gasoline prices, the mask slipped, and Obama revealed how out of touch and arrogant he is.:
"If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know," Obama said laughingly. "You might want to think about a trade-in."
This is truly a "let them eat cake" moment. People struggling to pay for gasoline rarely have the resources to buy a new car. Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out that "the last time anyone drove an 8-MPG vehicle that didn't include a half-track was in the mid-1970s." When do suppose the last time was that Obama filled the tank on his own car?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
YID With LID: Barack Obama's Oil Lease LIES!
"Yid With Lid", consistently one of the best blogs on the internet exposes Barack Obama's "energy" policy.
From:YID With LID
Once again he wants to present "incentives" for the energy industry to drill on existing leases. You see, his feeling about the oil executives is the same as his feeling about the American people, they are complete and total idiots,paying for leases but not bothering to take the product out of the ground so they can make money.
All of those stupid executives (according to the POTUS) run their companies by paying fees instead of collecting revenue. getting the product out of the ground so they can make money. This is nothing but Presidential subterfuge.
What the President is not telling you is that these oil leases purchased by oil companies is for exploration and drilling, not just drilling. Oil is not equally distributed across the each potential drilling location, there are unlucky oil companies that get stuck with a lease for a parcel that doesn't hold any oil. What make those companies really unlucky is that the parcel right next to them might be the new Saudi Arabia.
Even if the leased location is a bonanza of black gold, that oil company still might not be drilling. This may be surprising (not), but there is a lot of red tape to get through once you find oil on a site before you start drilling. This red tape has gotten even more complicated during the Obama administration. Even if everything runs smoothly, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities, and more years to move from exploration to drilling.
From:YID With LID
Barack Obama's Oil Lease LIES!
How do you know which parts of Obama's energy speech were either lies or misleading? Only the parts where his mouth was moving. This morning President Obama once again tried to pull the energy policy wool over America's eyes.Once again he wants to present "incentives" for the energy industry to drill on existing leases. You see, his feeling about the oil executives is the same as his feeling about the American people, they are complete and total idiots,paying for leases but not bothering to take the product out of the ground so they can make money.
All of those stupid executives (according to the POTUS) run their companies by paying fees instead of collecting revenue. getting the product out of the ground so they can make money. This is nothing but Presidential subterfuge.
What the President is not telling you is that these oil leases purchased by oil companies is for exploration and drilling, not just drilling. Oil is not equally distributed across the each potential drilling location, there are unlucky oil companies that get stuck with a lease for a parcel that doesn't hold any oil. What make those companies really unlucky is that the parcel right next to them might be the new Saudi Arabia.
Even if the leased location is a bonanza of black gold, that oil company still might not be drilling. This may be surprising (not), but there is a lot of red tape to get through once you find oil on a site before you start drilling. This red tape has gotten even more complicated during the Obama administration. Even if everything runs smoothly, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities, and more years to move from exploration to drilling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
