With America on the verge of achieving energy independence in the next five years by dramatically expanding domestic energy production, why should anyone be surprised that it’s Big Oil money that’s out to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline to prevent competition.

Most Americans were stunned when the U.S. State Department on January 18th denied the Keystone XL building permit to construct a 1,661 mile pipeline through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas in an election year. The media blamed the rejection on opposition from environmental activists, such as Robert Redford, who commented: “Canada wanted to send the dirtiest oil on the planet through the heart of America so that they could access export routes.” But polls demonstrated the promise of 6,000 unionized construction jobs and lower energy costs fostered 67% support to build the pipeline and only 25% against.

For the last three years, the mantra of the Obama Administration, the United Nations and the Agenda 21 “sustainability” crowd had been the coming of “Peak Oil”, the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction would be reached, then the rate of production would terminally decline and the prices would rise exponentially. This justified more money worldwide for the first time being invested in alternatives versus traditional energy sources to generate electricity. Projects for wind, sun, water and biomass captured $187 billion, while only $157 billion went into coal, oil and gas. Unfortunately for “sustainable” investors, this was before the realization that “fracking” and other new technology was drastically increasing U.S domestic energy production, causing the price of gas to be cut in half. Based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration data,; wind now costs 50% more, photovoltaic 300% more and solar almost 500% more in comparison to burning natural gas to generate electricity.

(more…)

Michael Silver, CEO of American Elements and contributor to Big Government, appears on Bloomberg TV (below) to discuss America’s need for a plan to collect and produce rare-earth materials for the manufacture of modern technology, especially the types of alternative energy touted by the Obama administration.

“America has zero production on all the metals that we currently need,” he says. “China, controlling all these materials, is really set to become the Middle East of the 21st century in the sense that they’re going to control alternative energy sources.”

Highlighting the need for rare-earth material in various military technologies, Silver also suggests the creation of a Strategic Metal Reserve.

The segment below, from the Washington Post:

(more…)

As a repository of reader insight adding context to or exposing flaw or omissions of a paper’s news and editorial pages, the letters section of the Wall Street Journal is typically unmatched among other outlets.

I have spent some time on the phone and in correspondence with the Letters editor to conclude he is thoughtful and on the ball, though exceptions to the page’s excellence occur. While we do not expect perfection here on earth, sometimes these exceptions are so ridiculous as to demand ridicule. Saturday’s Letters page is a case in point.

Wind’s taxpayer lifeline is expiring, and you can feel it in the air. Responding to a piece touting shale gas, a windmill enthusiast wrote to defend the honor of his beloved pinwheels against gas, a proxy for abundant, reliable (they always work, so you can actually run an economy on them…wind, well, not so much) fossil fuels:

The energy to service a wind farm is free. For gas generation you need water, steel, energy, labor, chemicals and food stocks…

If there is a point here it must be to imply that wind energy is cheaper. It is a twist on the old line spouted by “renewables” pushers, “the wind and the sun are free!”, ignoring that wind and solar power are bloody expensive.

(more…)

As the Administration’s push for alternative fuels grows stronger, Congress is set to consider H.R. 1380, which would create very generous tax credits to manufacturers who retrofit existing work vehicles to run on natural gas rather than on that terrifying global menace known as oil, and very generous subsidies to natural gas vehicle consumers: $7500 per car and a whopping $64,000 for heavy-duty trucks and 18-wheelers. It’s common knowledge in DC that Texas hedge-fund operator and natural gas-magnate T. Boone Pickens is the force behind this bi-partisan, pork-laden legislation, possibly because his natural gas empire would greatly profit from the sudden influx of billions of taxpayer dollars in the form of subsidies listed in the bill.

But hidden behind the scenes is another multi-billionaire, one with a much more sinister motive than mere profit. A man who’s vast fortune of nearly $7 billion is being used to subvert nearly every American institution to conform with his dream of a worldwide socialist utopia.

George Soros.

According to the website GuruFocus, which tracks the investment habits and portfolio trends of some of the world’s richest people, George Soros has made some intrigiung investments into alternative fuel companies of late, specifically those at the forefront of natural gas. This would not be so troubling except that, as GuruFocus points out, Soros has accurately predicted both economic bubbles and quickly growing industries. As a result, Soros’s funds have turned out a 30% return on investments since their inception.

(more…)

I still find it strange when those who claim they believe in free enterprise, limited government, reducing government intervention in the marketplace and fiscal responsibility, suddenly take an “Everywhere but in my house” approach. I am referring to the more than 80 House Republicans, many of whom claim to be conservatives, who are co-sponsoring H.R. 1380, otherwise known as the Pickens Plan after Texas energy tycoon, T. Boone Pickens.

The bill revolves around several main arguments, the first of which is that America must become energy independent. I fully agree with those sentiments: America only produces 5 million barrels of oil a day, yet consumes 20 million, meaning 75% of our oil comes from other producers, some of whom have no love for this country. The second argument builds off the first: we must tap into American energy sources to gain more independence. Again, I completely agree with that argument. The third argument is that natural gas is one of the best American energy resources, therefore we must tap into it, as we have more than 100 years of natural gas that we can produce domestically. There is of course nothing wrong with any of the above arguments.

But where the Pickens Plan starts to go awry is when you look at the nuts and bolts of how the Plan would work. First, as many know, American cars and big rigs don’t currently run on natural gas, so there would have to be a massive overhaul of vehicles.

(more…)

Consider these two dueling headlines in today’s ClimateWire and their sub-heads (subscription required), as helpful reminders of how absurd U.S. energy politics have become (and why no one points to Europe any more as our ‘green energy’ model).

More important, they bring a little more focus on what appears to be the Republicans’ moment of deciding who they are, and who they will be.

1. BUSINESS: Solar industry sees some economic clouds after Italy slashes subsidies

…Italy, which last year installed 14 percent of global new solar capacity, recently became the latest country to slash its solar subsidies, delivering another blow to the industry as falling solar panel prices and weak demand have led several manufacturers to downgrade their sales and profit forecasts for the year.

2. FINANCE: Bill Gates calls for more U.S. clean energy investment…

Yes, Gates in an ‘investor’ in these things that, according to the various industries’ own press releases, exist only by the grace of, and cannot survive without, wealth transfers and other favors from the government. Oh, on a related note, another erstwhile windmill promoter — because that seemed to be a good way to use the state to create more market share for his gas interests — has decided, upon the failure of said windmill schemes, that a Plan B is in order.

And on cue, while we’re worried about spending and subsidies and distorting markets in favor of things that can’t make it happen on their own, (and told that our political class, are too), 180 Members of Congress are trying to create a new energy subsidy, one that would divert a product used in numerous other applications critical to our economy.

Because these interventions have worked out so well in the past. Hmm. Maybe, the plan is such a brilliant idea that the economy just can’t see it. Er, four ethanol boondoggles — toss in state-dependent wind, solar and natural gas cars — are better than one. Or something.

(more…)

On Friday, we all woke up to the happy news that gas prices might go down a teensy little bit after Memorial Day. Even though that “teensy bit” might just mean “down to $3.50, that news was welcome in a slow economic climate that an administration pre-occupied with it’s own image seems unwilling to acknowledge. But Americans should make no mistake: the tiny decline in gas prices has little to do with the administration’s energy policies, and this week, they’re going to demonstrate that to the nation as they put “Big Oil” on the chopping block in a new round of finance committee hearings chaired by that perennial failure at basic economics, Chairman Max Baucus.

From Politico:

Senate Democrats are looking to bring to the floor next week a plan to strike billions of dollars in annual tax incentives for the five biggest oil companies.

“That’s what we’re thinking,” a Senate Democratic leadership aide told POLITICO Thursday evening, adding there won’t likely be a vote on the measure next week.

Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) will also hold a hearing next Thursday on gas prices and oil tax incentives for the biggest oil companies — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips.

One major question for the Senate leaders: how any money saved from reducing the tax incentives would ultimately be used. Many Democrats are pushing for the money to go toward deficit reduction, the leadership aide said.

Now this all might sound well and good, using money that we pour into domestic industry to pay down the deficit…but that’s merely a sound bite being used by Democrats to sway a public they think will respond to lip service and key words, and won’t dig deeper into their nefarious plans. The truth is, oil companies, like other companies, rely on tax breaks to be competitive in the world market and to spur on a thriving American industry in times of economic recession, like now.

(more…)

Rhetorically, President Obama prides himself on bashing “greedy corporations.”  Insurance companies, the health care industry and Wall Street have all been subjected to verbal abuse from the president.  Despite his statements, the Obama Administration policy often rests on corporatism – the policy of using government to enhance market share of a few favorite firms.

The record is clear — President Obama has little reservation about plying companies with tax incentives, bailout money, secured loans – even to promote off-shore oil drilling in Brazil — or policy initiatives if it fits his worldview.  The president continues to tout the “success” of corporate bailouts for Wall Street and the car companies.

A classic example of corporatism is the recent news reports that Steven Westly a major contributor to the Obama campaign and a promoter of “alternative energy,” received half-billion dollars in federal aid for his venture capital firm.   The Center for Public Integrity discovered that since Westly raised the money for Obama, four companies in the portfolio of The Westly Group, his venture capital firm, received $510 million in loans, grants and stimulus money from the U.S. Department of Energy. And, the report added, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, on the White House’s recommendation, appointed Westly in August to the 12-member Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board.

The sad reality is that Westly will look like a piker when Google is done ravishing the Treasury.  Google has entered the political ring siding itself clearly in the left’s corner.

Google is President Obama’s favorite corporation.

(more…)

So Senate Democrats failed again to pass a measure to halt “offshoring” of jobs, meaning employing people overseas either directly or indirectly. They oppose that but, looking at the elements of the (fortunately) languishing “Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act“, offshoring includes investing overseas in any number of circumstances. What should trouble responsible policymakers is that which prompts companies to actually “offshore” jobs when, all other things being equal, the U.S. was as rational a location for the investment as other options.

This of course is the ever-expanding regulatory state, which makes other places more attractive options for growth or even continuing investments here and which, oddly enough, the Dems embrace. Like grim death.

Even more absurd is the Democrats’ simultaneous obsession with the latest excuses for massively expanding the state, thereby offshoring jobs. These include President Obama’s ‘green economy’. The job-killing nature of this enterprise escapes Democrats. They speak as if they actually believe that mandating you use all sorts of politically divined things, like windmills and solar panels, means that surely they’ll be made here, too. Except that they will be made in those places that don’t lard on such mandates. China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia are a few countries that come to mind as places that have so far ended up manufacturing the green gadgets forced on us by our political class vapidly boasting of the jobs that such mandates will create.

That these jobs will be created elsewhere — followed by many others, incidentally, for the same reason: such mandates result in much manufacturing becoming uneconomic — is the most foreseeable outcome in the world, even if it’s always reported in terms, when it occurs, of somehow being an unforeseen consequence.

(more…)

One way or the other, one of us is going to go down. President Obama, by insisting that he will go to the mat on his “green jobs” agenda, which is simply central planning with a coat of green paint, indicates he will risk his presidency on getting the cap-and-trade, gas tax and windmill mandate through the Senate (with a stranglehold on domestic energy production to boot), then through the House again on a conferenced bill.

If he succeeds he will have doomed us; if he fails, politically the effort will have finally, fully exposed him for what he is: a Power Grabbing Statist whose economics are recklessly dogmatic while at the same time ignoring those societies he claims are his model.

Obama reminded us how as a candidate he set out what he called a set of principles, which he acknowledged were passed by the House, in a vote almost precisely one year ago today.

Here is what he said then about cap-and-trade, which the House passed. This discussion occurred in the apparent context of how to mount his and his team’s big-ticket agenda items:

“The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important, and force their representatives to do the right thing. That requires mobilizing a citizenry…And climate change is a great example.”

You got it: this is the community organizer, refusing to allow a crisis to go to waste, but instead seeking to use it to do what he’s trying to do.

(more…)

E&E Daily reports that, speaking before a lobbying group gathered to promote more ethanol-style boondoggles (but for windmills), “Sen. John Kerry is predicting widespread support from electric utilities, chemical companies and Big Oil as he enters his seventh month of closed-door negotiations on a comprehensive energy and climate bill that still hasn’t made its way into public view.”

Along the way Kerry says some very silly things as putative lead author of this, the Senate’s cap-and-trade bill now being styled as an “energy” bill on the heels of a memo by pollster Stanley Greenberg that the public weren’t buying “cap-and-trade” or “global warming”. As quoted by E&E:

“Ironically, we’ve been working very closely with some of these oil companies in the last months,” Kerry said, referring to BP, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. “And I want to tell you they’ve acted in good faith and they’ve worked hard with us to try to find a way to get us to a solution that meets all of our needs. And I believe, when we roll out a bill, and we will very, very soon, we’re going to have a unique coalition.”

Actually, Baptist and Bootlegger coalitions are not remotely unique, as Kerry presumably knows full well. But this whole setup has been telegraphed for some time, and I detail the whole scam, just in time, here.

The truth is that Kerry’s partner in drafting this bill, BP, lost the plot some years ago in its zeal to pretend it was “Beyond Petroleum” (check its balance sheet to see the reality). Working closely with none other than Enron, BP focused on getting the Kyoto treaty and cap-and-trade schemes with subsidies for their otherwise failing wind and solar boondoggles. Along the way BP chased out their most talented people by telling them the future lay elsewhere.

(more…)