About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

America's Regional Energy Crisis

 

Dust off those bicycles! Saddle them horses. That's right everybody...we're running out of oil!

 

Or are we?

 

But if the world is running out, how is it that drillers keep finding more crude everyday; and in places all over ther globe? 

 

-Occidental Petroleum recently struck a "gusher" in Kern County, California; experts estimate the find could turn out to be a bonanza of 1 billion barrels, located in the petroleum-rich San Jaoquin Basin.

 

-British Petroleum announced a "giant oil discovery" in the western gulf (of Mexico). BP's chief of exploration, Michael Daly, termed it "very significant" with an estimated 4 billion to 6 billion barrels of oil in deep water.

 

-Anadarko Energy, a US mid-size producer, announced it had found a whole new oil basin stretching 1100 km from the coast of Ghana to Sierra Leone .

 

-The Brazilian government-run oil firm, Petrobras, announced their new "ultra-deep" Tupi field off the coast of Sao Paulo, holding as much as eight billion barrels of recoverable light crude. With this discovery, plus a string of others in the Santos Basin, Brazil may possess reserves in the 50-billion-barrel range - the seventh or eighth largest capacity in the world.

 

But to liberals everywhere, this presents a horrible-horrible conundrum! For them, it's back to the drawing board: apparently, we CAN drill our way out! But will they ever admit it - or permit it?

 

More than 200 large crude oil discoveries have been reported so far this year in dozens of countries around the world. According to Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cambridge, Massachusetts) 2009 could be the most productive oil discovery year since 2000.

 

But as some parts of world's economies (Brazil- West Africa- China) are flourishing, what are we experiencing in the world's richest country? -good ol' all-American stagflation!

 

ITEM: The U.S. will lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery at its Tupi oil field. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser, James Jones, will meet with Brazilian officials to discuss the loan.

 

ITEM: China’s top refineries are expected to raise their crude oil processing up to a record high as new facilities are brought online.

 

ITEM:  China will have added some 900,000 barrels/day of new refining capacity this year, to feed a recovering economy - cashing in on a margin-protected fuel-price commodities' strategy

 

ITEM: The state-run Chinese oil giant, Sinopec Corp. finalized a $2 billion pact to develop Iran’s huge Yadavaran oilfield - part of Beijing’s plan to help ensure a stable, secure supply of oil for the world’s second-largest consumer.

 

So let's see here...The ENTIRE world is moving fast-forward with fossil fuel energy development - except for the richest country in the world...America.

 

But who cares? Let those silly countries waste their time and money drilling for oil and building new refineries; things are just peachy for all us Americans - the wealthiest people in the world.

 

Our liberal-controlled Congress continues to place most of the Outer Continental Shelf, the Arctic, the oil-rich fields in the Alaskan Chukchi Sea, as well as ANWR; and the shale-rich Rocky Mountain West -OFF-limits!

 

Certainly our wonderful, forthright Congresspeople MUST know something all those stupid other countries don't know.

 

And what about Mr. Obama? He embraces offshore drilling in Brazil, yet forbids the U.S. to explore in Alaska or along our East and West Coasts, which may be our equivalent of Brazil's giant Tupi oil field.

 

But why? Surely he must have some real slick trick up his sleeve...and we sure would like to find out!

 

Yup; it's still a free country, we Americans have a right to wonder why Obama is willing to underwrite  Brazilian oil exploration, yet condemns a similar policy  at home. Maybe it has something to do with their offshore oil being cleaner than that dirty stuff we've been known to spill every once in a while - like back in '69 at Santa Barbara.

 

Surely Mr. Obama and those nice liberals in Congress must know what they're doing - stopping us from drilling our own prodigious oil reserves.

 

But perhaps we should - like little elementary schoolers - write Mr. Obama a letter, asking him WHY he's trying to prevent we Americans from the benefits of an estimated two million oil-exploration/refinery jobs, much lower gasoline prices; plus a booming economy.

 

So boys and girls, let's take out our pens and write letters to our wonderful President!

 

Dear Mr. Obama:

 

My Dad used to work up in Houston, and I heard him tell Mom he used to make between $70 and 80 thousand a year. But now, he's not been working lately, and we might have to move from Texas. My Dad says its because we are not allowed to drill for oil.

 

A friend of my Dad works out of state during the week and comes back on the weekends to be with his family; and he says its terrible for all of them, but their mom said she won't move the rest of them to where he works.

At school the teacher always tells our class that America is the richest country in the world. But my Dad is poor, my Uncle Bill just lost his job, and a lot of my school friends are always asking me for money at lunchtime, because their fathers are also out of work.

 

Gee, Mr. Obama, can't you do something? You are such a good president. I have a hard time believing what my Dad and Uncle keep saying about you; that you are are big liar and a socialist, and deliberately want to keep people out of work so they must depend on the government, and will have to vote for you again. 


Please help my Dad and my family Mr. Obama. Please make it possible for him to go back to where he used to work up in Houston as an oil engineer.  He was happy then, and not real mad all the time and fighting with my Mom.

 

And I think a lot of the other fathers of the kids I go to school with would also be happier if they had jobs, instead of being on welfare, and having to pretend nothing is wrong.

 

Good luck to you Mr. Obama. Please help everyone in our great country. I know you will do your best for America.

 

signed:

 

A sixth grader from Hardtown, Texas
 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Place your bets: alternative energy vs. oil addiction...can anyone win?


Uh-oh, it’s back to the future time. Here we go again! President-elect Barack Obama has selected Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu, as his energy secretary (er...energy czar). Chu is director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases by developing new energy sources.

 

And make careful note of that phrase..."developing new energy sources". (More on this later). 

 

The President-elect vowed to, "move beyond our oil addiction and create a new hybrid economy." The selection of Chu, a Chinese American who shared a Nobel Prize for physics in 1997, received widespread praise on Capitol Hill.

 

Obama was peacock-proud about the selection: "His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago. "We must control our own destiny; America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it. And this is not a challenge for government alone; it's a challenge for all of us".

 

Umm hmm... once again, Obama used that ominous phrase..."develop new forms of energy".

 

And just what new forms of energy is he talking about? While Obama huffs and puffs about wind and solar, there's just one little teensey-weency fact that the science-challenged president elect hasn't mentioned: what about all the nearly 300 million vehicles currently residing in our nation’s driveways and garages, that are powered by internal combustion engines? Will we just trade 'em all in for the new-fangled hybrids of the future?

 

Last August, during his Denver convention speech, Obama was quoted: "As president, I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy; wind power and solar power and the next generation of bio-fuels..."

 

Thus, this brings up another vehicular conundrum--just drive by any large construction site today and witness the actual nuts and bolts of a growing economy. There will be nonstop activity: heavy trucks coming and going; cranes moving busily hoisting materials up and down; yellow front-loaders and Caterpillar bulldozers moving all about . And every worker in step, doing his own individual job as efficiently as possible.

 

So this begs the question, how could our country function without the heavy diesel vehicles that are vitally instrumental to a growing economy? Are they supposed to run on old french fry oil, which is basically how you derive biodiesel?

 

But Obama and his leftist, enviro-marxist democrats despise oil, and all its refined forms of energy, and want to tax all fossil fuels out of existence. They will permit no new drilling, and no new refineries. And what might occur if Obama has his way, and levies heavy consumer taxes on gasoline and diesel, to FORCE us into the green energy era? America must be aware of Obama's creeping socialism-- do we really want the government regulating us for everything, including what we shall drive?

 

Sales of elecric cars are plummeting in Europe. Why? Basically it’s the same reason that Americans are to find out the hard way when Obama interferes with the domestic auto market: Even in green-obsessed Europe, people still like powerful, sexy cars. 

 

Belgium is trying to force mandatory caps on European manufacturers of gasoline and diesel-powered cars, but is running into fierce opposition led by France and Germany. And not only are the ugly electric cars no fun and lack power, the bedeviling problem of their 40 mile range won't be solved until the battery can be replaced with some new breakthrough, which might not come in this century. 

 

How practical is it to talk about developing the new energy sources of the future? Ask the Chinese, who recently showed off a modern line of electric-powered buses that ran in an eight block area of Beijing to ferry passengers for the Olympics.

 

But hidden nearby in an off-limits area, there were 2 full time robots, operating to change all the dead batteries from buses that were drastically limited in their operating range.  Each high-tech swap took about eight minutes. But this could be the last charging station in China: the Chinese are now faced with the environmental problem of hundreds of non-recyclable dead battery clusters from the 'modern' buses, which now no longer operate in Beijing any more.

.

High costs, coupled with a lack of clear policy support from the central government, could limit China's one-time use of battery powered buses, trucks and cars to the Olympic weeks. Meanwhile, the country is struggling to plot a future course for an alternative vehicle industry.

 

So far, China's car buyers have shown little interest in alternative vehicles. Only 414 shoppers last year bought the only hybrid car available on the Chinese market. Feng Fei, deputy director in China for the Industrial Economy Department at the State's Development Research Center, revealed that China's alternative auto industry is in disarray. He blames a lack of clear plans for development.

 

Basically, whether you examine Europe or Asia, its the same chicken vs.egg conundrum:  does it pay to create a market that's virtually non existent for alternative energy vehicles? Or do you wait for the demand, and then take on the engineering costs to develop them? And China has 6 times more engineers than the U.S.; yet they, like the Europeans, remain 'oil-addicted.'

 

Thus, given the econo-scientific reality of all these false hopes, picture the enviro-Obamian economy after 4 years: People shunning the green cars of the future...gas lines winding around the block...men pushing cars toward gas pumps...drivers anxiously leaning out their windows looking ahead...white bags covering the nozzles...violent arguements about "next in  line"... worried driver facial expressions-- civil disorder as people suffer across America-- all waiting for the magical appearance of the "alternative energy sources of the future".

 

And magical is no exaggeration! The Democrats are the know-nothing party when it comes to the hard scientific hurdles that delay the onset of alternative energy. Mass produced electric and hydrogen cars are decades away. They remain prohibitively expensive. The battery and fuel-cell reliability problems have yet to be solved; and only hybrid vehicles with gasoline assist are practical now, yet remain expensive and unpopular. 

 

We cannot replace oil and coal, with solar or wind anytime soon. Just ask any engineer; (preferably, a republican) if you want to get the real story: We are at least fifty years from seeing alternative energy being mass produced; and right now alternatives account for just 1.5% of America's total energy BTU's produced. But coal is at 60%.

 

Obama is either dreaming or misleading. If we all understood physics a little better, we'd know you cannot take money away from drilling, and then use it to INVENT a new alternative type of energy. Once again, ask any engineer in America, or Europe, or in China.

 

Was coal invented? Oil? Nuclear? Electricity? How about the great invention of the wind?

The last great energy "breakthrough" was 160 years ago, when Drake struck oil in Pennsylvania. Ask Isaac Newton..."energy cannot be created or destroyed"...it's Newton's first law of physics. And Obama probably thinks physics is an old remedy sold at the drugstore for people who can't properly 'go'.

 

Obama might not be cognizant of it, but his "damn the fossil fuels-save the environment" energy policy will destroy economic growth, jeopardize our military security, and ruin our economy. Bulldozers and all heavy vehicles run on diesel. There will never be an all-electric freight train, or fuel cell airliner this century; nor any wind powered tanks or solar-driven fighter jets.

 

So will Obama's "jolly green-environment" spike gas prices to $6 a gallon in the next four years? The only people who would benefit would be the bicycle shops --the rest would suffer. This no-growth policy will prolong the recession, give OPEC more leverage, and put us on the road toward becoming the world's most advanced third world country. 

 

And to where will all this government environmental extremism take us? Since when did we lose faith in our free markets? They've worked for 235 years to make America great. And now, Obama and his liberal do-gooders, have decided to throw it all aside, and claim more government development of alternative energy is the answer to a problem that doesn't even exist.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Will the next Abe Lincoln please step forward?"

All hail Nancy Pelosi, Queen of Congress! Recently the regal Ms. Pelosi has been more of a dictator than queen, with her Gestapo-like maneuvering of House procedural rules. She has resorted to extraordinary methods to block any votes on domestic drilling, under the guise of "saving the planet". But recently, it was revealed she holds a large position in an alternative energy company owned by T.Boone Pickens. But she'll  be re-elected in a landslide in her San Francisco district (and knows it). So she can block every drilling measure between now and November with impunity. And the media doesn't say boo about how her position affects gas prices.

 

And we have Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and the 4.75% loan he got from Countrywide, saving him $77,000 interest on his mortgage. Is he even the least bit concerned with this blatant violation of congressional ethics? Naw...not one of his peers has initiated any action against him; these clubby Senators know that if you don't rock the boat, constituents will continue to vote you in for life. Dodd is in his 35th year as a Senator, and short of committing murder, he'll be a "lifer" who'll only be replaced upon death.

 

Oh by the way, how's New York Senator Chuck Schumer doin' these days? He's the Senate's numero-uno anti-driller.  He's quite fine with the $60 billion we send OPEC every month, and the $4.85-gallon price his N.Y.City constituents pay for gas. Despite his near-treasonous position on domestic energy, he'll probably win re-election in a breeze. And the list goes on. So despite our desperate gasoline and food inflation situation, there'll be nothing certain about  gas prices and domestic drilling other than window dressing before November, at the earliest. But meanwhile, the politics of deadlock grievously affects our quality of life.

 

What's become customary in Congress is now completely contrary to our Constitution's concept of government of, by, and for the people. People now have a single digit approval of Congress, but over 90% are projected to be be re-elected.


Maybe we should require every newly-elected legislator to memorize the Preamble before they can be sworn in, because it's quite obvious that the current crop of lawmakers has totally forgotten why they were elected. But sadly, most of these incumbents will return to office, as WE THE PEOPLE continue to act blindly toward the nation's best interest seemingly everytime we vote.


The world markets clamor for more oil and gasoline; Congress has outlawed new refineries and domestic drilling. The world clamors for more food and corn; but Congress has foolishly subsidized methanol corn production.  All these world shortages can be traced back to the action or inaction courtesy of the U.S. Congress.

 

Americans have been forced to take on a more peasant approach to eating: less meat, more potatoes. People have stopped cable TV, going to movies, and eating out. Congress has their limos, private jet flights, and private Senate and House restaurants. They vote themselves pay raises. They pass legislation (ethanol subsidies) that have caused worldwide food riots. And their arrogant self-righteousness is rooted in our voting tradition...the incumbent-RE-election factor. They're literally ''sentenced'' to life to the congressional monarchy, with their own court (staff), and their subjects (constituents) who ''serve'' them via lifelong re-election status. 'Till death do they part. We survive, while these elitists prosper. But considering the criteria which most people use to ascertain a candidates worthiness to serve, we bring upon our own woes.

We constantly vote on which candidate is the best-looking, or the ''funniest'', or the ones who have good hair; and favor the one who can con the voters with the most exorbitant promises (job creation). How would craggy, homely, honest Abe Lincoln do against a congressional incumbent this November? Despite his brilliance, he'd probably have little chance. If ever there was a time for the next Lincoln, we could certainly use him bigtime this November. Honesty and Congress have become oxymoronic polar opposites. Patriotism has been washed away by a sea of special interest money.

 

Looking back, how was it possible that our country won World War II in the 40's...began building the interstate highway system in the 50's...completed the glorious NASA moon landing mission in the 60's...and built the Alaskan pipeline in the 70's? And here we are today; spinning our wheels in the mud of congressional gridlock.

 

So in retrospect, let’s play, ''the impossible". Today, could the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 ever pass? Impossible...congressional environmentalists would block it; too many animal habitats would be disturbed. If space flights were just coming to the fore now, could we afford the Apollo moon-landing project? Impossible…Congress recklessly has spent the budget on their pork barrel earmarks, debiting our nation's treasury to the tune of a $9 trillion national obligation. Could the trans-Alaska pipeline be built today? Nope: no new drilling in Alaska allowed! 


So is it any wonder that Congress feels safe in doing nothing while the gas pumps suck the people dry? Is it any wonder they don't repeal without delay their ethanol-corn fiasco, while the grocery stores bleed us literally to financial anemia? Just re-elect them all again and see where we're at after four more years.

 

Maybe we best revert  back to a Middle Ages, feudal-type system, where the aristocracy (congress) rules, and the peasants (people) endure. And God help America in this next election, because a change from all this may require divine intervention.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"We can't inflate our way out of this energy crisis"

 
Poor Obama. His candid reply at a recent rally to a seemingly innocuous question has boomeranged!  Hoots of riducule everywhere are mocking his on-the-spot solution for the energy crisis...we'll just inflate our tires to energy independence! Who needs offshore drilling when new spark plugs and points for the ole engine will do the trick! Obama is a master orator; but lo, now we discover that he's also a master mechanic.
 
But through all his obfuscations and flip-flops, what direction is Obama coming from regarding his true energy policy? He's coming from the left, and bigtime indeed.
 
Perplexingly, Mr Obama has been a energy chameleon throughout this campaign. He talks evasively about oil; but effusively about alternatives. In a recent CNN interview he commmented..."We need to adjust to changing energy conditions;  prepare for long term changes in our energy use, while developing new sources of alternative power."  But of what kind of power does he speak?  Could this be his subtle decree that the gasoline engine will be going the way of the kerosene lamp?
 
Read between the lines...Mr Obama ascribes to the "thou shalt drive less" ideology. And cannily, he offers no answer to American commuters unable to afford swapping their SUV's for  tiny cars. His preference for pricey gasoline would leave people like this in the lurch. He postulates that higher gas prices are good...good for the environment.  But aren't people also part of the environment? And what good is having a clean environment with a bankrupt citizenry riding around on golf carts, scooters and bikes?  Is this Mr Obama's change for the future?
 
Along with his zero-new-oil plan, Mr Obama enthusiastically proclaims, "YES WE CAN" to solar and wind. He speaks glowingly of biodiesel.  Mr Obama seems to think..."who needs petroleum?  Just fill 'er up with cookery grease and away we go!"  So are we to become the Saudi Arabia of  french fry oil?  Would McDonalds be replacing Exxon as our top energy producer in Mr. Obama's utopian future?  But despite our world pre-eminence in fast-food sites, biodeisel cannot be mass produced; its not a fungible commodity like crude oil.
 
How about Obama's wind power idea?  A cross-country proliferation of 20-foot diameter wind blades would be a visual environmental travesty. It would ruin the pristine beauty of the western states, which ironically, are the windiest.  Windmills are NIMBY-intensive; no one wants them in their backyard; just ask Senator Kennedy. Would Mr Obama be okay living within sight of one?.
 
And a seismic shift from coal to solar power would bring upon the need for a titanic infrastructure project: an entire new grid of power lines. How cost-effective could that be? And how many arrays of solar panels would be needed to equal the mega-wattage of one nuclear facility? Do we even have enough sun-drenched states to accommodate where all these arrays would go?  Why is no one asking Mr. Obama these questions? 
 
Make no mistake, Obama would sacrifice our nation on an altar of environmental self righteousness. He earnestly believes oil must go. He's against  drilling. He's for cleansing the planet unilaterally by forcing Americans to drive less, and set a "green example" for all the world, despite the great hardship we'd endure. It's idealism at its worst...good intentions run amuck.
 
Obama's naive altruism could leave us without a viable energy supply in the time to come.  Could our economy flourish in the future if burdened by onerous gas prices, inflating our currency, and shortchanging  future economic expansion?
 
He also shuns nuclear power.  He lectures fervently about wind and solar. Well then, will a wind-powered Ford 150 pick-up, or solar- powered Pontiac G-6 be appearing in the show rooms anytime soon? The sheer scientific folly of his energy plans should be a warning flag to all enthralled by his oratory. It's a beguiling style, but lacking any realistic substance. Substantially damaging  our economy is not worth four years of his idealistic oration. What counts now is judicious, science-based planning; and doing it realistically rather than idealistically.
 
And where does all this alternative energy idealism end?  This election will be a transcendent, game-changing  decision...but yet a simple choice. You're voting for either more supply, or less demand. Do we drive to work, or ride the bus? 
 
And will the Obama bus, fueled by his alternative energy figments, drive us down a road of economic disruption to a third world nation? Could  we really be secure with him in the drivers seat? Or do we go status quo, and stay with oil?
 
Obama is anti-oil, anti-nuclear, and anti coal. Does he really intend to expand U.S. energy production? Or is he only bent on expanding his political power? Where would that leave us during his recently proposed 10 year plan? It could leave us without a viable energy supply for this entire 21st century. We cannot grow our economy using energy conservation. We can't inflate our way out.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »