Redstate

Posted at 10:31am on May 16, 2008 Shell: Shortfall in Crude Supply Will Boost Renewables

By Vladimir

Making the point that we can't just walk away from hydrocarbons while bridging to a future full of renewables:

Shell: Crude shortfalls will boost renewables

Royal Dutch Shell said the failure of crude suppliers to keep pace with accelerating demand may prompt the expansion of renewable energy.

There's "plenty of oil in the world," Shell's Scenario Team said today on a Webcast led by Global Business Environment Vice President Jeremy Bentham. "The important moment is actually not a possible peak of oil production;" it's when demand exceeds supply, which may "come well before a peak" in output.

Posted in Energy | Shell Oil — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:09am on May 16, 2008 ExxonMobil CEO Says We're Using Less Gasoline

By Vladimir

Maybe we've found that key point on the supply/demand graph -- the point at which consumers make economic judgments on the use of gasoline, and actually curtail its use (rather than just idly b*tching about it).

Sure, gasoline costs more than consumers are accustomed to paying at the pump, but our mass behavior sheds light on the actual value of the product, based on its utility [which is its rather unique ability to put the Family Truckster down the road 15-20 miles]. It also points up the validity of the drum yr humble correspondent has been banging in these pages for 3-1/2 years, which is that during the period 1984-2004, petroleum was in an oversupply situation, and thus very cheap. And we all got hooked.

...more...

Posted in Energy | Exxon Mobil — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:00am on May 15, 2008 Important Energy Security Conference honoring Senator Pete Domenici

By oilshale

HOBBS -- Sen. Pete Domenici will be featured speaker at a national energy policy conference May 27 at the Lea County Event Center titled "The Making of Energy Policy: Where Are We Going?"

The conference is sponsored by New Mexico Tech, the Economic Development Corporation of Lea County, and the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy. Co-sponsors are the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute.

Posted in Energy — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:53pm on May 14, 2008 Thank the Polar Bear for Higher Energy Costs

The Day That ANWR Died

By Bluey

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne gave a new meaning to the Endangered Species Act today. Only in Washington is it possible to call an animal "threatened" that has doubled its population over the past 40 years.

In the case of the polar bear, Kempthorne sided with left-wing activists and global warming alarmists, choosing to list the bear under the ESA -- a cause célèbre for the left.

The implications could be devastating. The decision opens the door for environmentalists and like-minded activist judges to wreak havoc on domestic energy production. Any new coal-burning power plant will be the subject of a lawsuit. And the long-running goal of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration is now officially dead.

There are few issues where I agree with Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), but this is one of them. "This abuse of Endangered Species law will have a devastating impact on the entire nation through endless litigation and regulation," he said.

Global warming alarmists are already salivating at the thought of what harm they can impose. The Sierra Club noted that a "listing will help us use the technology and tools we have to combat global warming."

Of all the animals the Interior Department could have listed because of global warming, the polar bear hardly warrants protection. It's population stands at 20,000 to 25,000, more than double the number from the 1960s. Unfortunately, as a result of the Bush administration's unwise action, Americans will be left to suffer with higher energy costs by relying even more heavily on foreign oil.

Posted in Endangered Species Act | Energy | Global Warming | Polar bears — Comments (23)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:32pm on May 14, 2008 While the US watched W. Va., the senate GOP took a shot at getting ANWR open and letting states drill offshore.

By skicougar

UPDATE: I found it !(the results of this amendment).

McConnell's amendment to Senate bill 2284, amendment # S.AMDT.4720; was considered on 5/8 and FAILED, 42-56 and withdrawn.

Allright, allow me to take this apart a little. It failed, 42-56; which means some republicans and most likely every democrat voted against the possibility of opening ANWR and allowing states the ability to drill off their coasts.

Posted in Energy — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:16am on May 14, 2008 So, you like that $4.00/gal. gas, huh?

By Achance

Well, once again the Senate has refused to sanction opening ANWR, story here: http://www.adn.com/anwr/story/405342.html

I love the irony of the Dems and even a few Rs, claiming they're doing something about fuel prices by stopping a few thousand barrels a day from going to the Strategic Reserve but refusing to take an action that would put 1 MM/bbl./dy. into the US supply in a year or two if the enabling legislation also limited the litigation. Guess Greenie money and votes are more important to the Honorable Gentlemen and Ladies.

Posted in Energy — Comments (195) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:32pm on May 13, 2008 ALERT: Financial Catastrophe if CURRENT Senate Global Warming Bill Passes

By patriotroom

Silly me. I thought this screw job wasn't coming until next year.

The Heritage Foundation has done a detailed analysis of a Bill Co-Sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner currently pending in the Senate.

Imagine this nightmare economic scenario playing out over the next two decades:

Posted in Energy — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 4:02pm on May 13, 2008 Global Warming Alarmists Using Polar Bear as a Pawn

Why it shouldn't be listed under Endangered Species Act

By Bluey

The Washington Post devoted its KidsPost page today to a sympathetic plea for the polar bear -- the predatory creature that environmentalists want listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. With a decision looming on Thursday for the Bush administration, the Post is apparently pulling out all stops, including liberal spin for kids.

Although the Post devotes just one paragraph in a 534-word article to the negative ramifications of listing the polar bear, there are plenty of reasons for Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to ignore the advice of environmentalists. Let’s start with a few of the consequences outlined by nine U.S. senators in a letter to Kempthorne last week:

• The worldwide polar bear population is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 today -- more than double the 8,000 to 10,000 that were living in the 1960s. If and when the Endangered Species Act is used, it should protect species with declining populations.

• Listing the polar bear is really just a ploy by environmentalists to shut down any chance of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or explore for oil in other parts of Alaska. Bloomberg columnist Kevin Hassett says listing the polar bear could mean $200-a-barrel oil. At a time when America is growing increasingly dependent on foreign sources of oil, now is not the time to clamp down on domestic exploration.

• Set aside all the compassionate gibberish from WWF and it becomes clear why the polar bear is just a pawn: environmentalists will turn to activist judges citing the Endangered Species Act to halt construction of new power plants and factories that emit fossil fuels. The Green Policy Fairness Coalition already cites efforts by global warming alarmists to use lawsuits against the federal and state governments bypass the legislative process.

The nine Republican senators who signed the Kempthorne letter -- Jim DeMint (S.C.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Jim Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), John Cornyn (Tex.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Wayne Allard (Colo.) and John Barrasso (Wyo.) -- deserve praise for standing for sound principles. Meanwhile, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, Jon Kyl (Ariz.), also opposes listing the bear, telling bloggers yesterday it would open the door for environmentalists to do devastating harm to America’s energy needs.

The decision should be simple for Kempthorne. Caving to radical environmentalists who want to use the Endangered Species Act to achieve their goals is the wrong approach. It’s not about the polar bear for the left; it’s really a ploy to impose even higher energy costs on Americans.

Posted in Endangered Species Act | Energy | Global Warming | Polar bears — Comments (8)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:18pm on May 13, 2008 The polar bears will drown the US energy industry, not themselves.

By skicougar

Yes, I know; we all love the cute coca-cola polar bears, but the truth is they are not dying out or drowning and are not worthy of putting on the endangered species list at the expense of our economy..

Instead, polar bears have increased their numbers substantially, from an estimated 8,000–10,000 in 1965–1970 to 20,000–25,000 today. Clearly, any warming that has occurred has not had an adverse impact on polar bear numbers. This is true of the polar bear populations in Alaska, Canada, Russia, and other nations.

Posted in Energy — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:22pm on May 12, 2008 Your Tax Dollars at Work: Energy Subsidies

By Vladimir

Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)

That's a link to a Wall Street Journal editorial that is guaranteed to make the top of frequent poster moderich's head explode.

It is a look at how much energy we're getting for our subsidy dollar. An exhaustive look, by the Energy Information Agency (EIA) of the Department of Energy.

Posted in alternative energy | Energy | Tax Policy — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:15pm on May 11, 2008 Clarity About Crude Addictions

By ntrepid

This is most likely way out of context but I recently read something where the author was stressing the importance of the ability (and I’ll add desire) to see the world clearly and then to draw the correct conclusions from that information.

That line of thought emerged from my memory banks yesterday and my heart warmed as I heard a Fox News Channel Market/Stock-type talking-head nearly come to tears while she lamented that we (the United States) have not taken important steps to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by maximizing drilling here at home.

Wait a minute…that’s not what she said.

Unfortunately, she was really quite adamant that we (the United States) need to increase gas taxes “to the hilt”…presumably to encourage and immediate reduction in our (the United States) demand for that vile substance because, all together now, WE ARE ADDICTED TO OIL.

Those last five words are absolutely true but absolute clarity on the subject requires a step back to look at it from an even larger perspective. (Brace yourself.) The world…the entire civilized world as well as great portions that remain uncivilized…is addicted to our consumption of oil. And, unfortunately for the “addicted to foreign oil”-chicken little’s and Fox News talking heads out there, this is not going to change in any meaningful way for at least another 50-75 years. Probably much longer.

More...

Posted in Energy — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:05am on May 10, 2008 Corn on the Cob, NOT Corn on the Car

By Warner Todd Huston

So, here is the rub, you think you're saving the planet and, therefore the human race, by proposing that we grow our gasoline in our corn crops instead of using those eeeevil fossil fuel, right? You say let's make ethanol from our corn and all will be in balance? You feel really, really good about yourself -- after all "feelings" are what counts, not results.

But, the next thing you know, they are starving in Haiti and rioting over the 40% rise in basic food costs because of you and your neato ethanol idea.

Posted in Energy — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:21pm on May 9, 2008 OPEC to World; Up Yours - Again

By Marcus Traianus

As if OPEC needed any more image challenges in the current energy environment we now had this. Here’s the salient quote;

This year, the U.S. had contributed $362.7 million to WFP just through May 4, according to the website. That figure does not include another $250 million above the planned yearly contribution that was promised by President George W. Bush in the wake of WFP’s April warning that a “silent tsunami” of rising food costs would add dramatically to the world population living in hunger. Nor does it include another $770 million in food aid that President Bush has asked Congress to provide as soon as possible.

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia, with oil revenues last year of $164 billion, does not even appear on the website donor list for 2008.

Yes, but they all really like us; well at least the one's Obama wants us to talk to anyway.

Please do read on

Posted in Energy — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:31pm on May 7, 2008 Conservation is not enough

By Josh Painter

With all the kerfuffle over high gasoline and diesel prices, I've heard it said and seen it written that if only we Americans would use less oil, prices would drop like a stone, and we could return to the good old days of two-dollar gas.

Unfortunately, that's not true, and it's not that simple. We need to reduce our consumption, yes, but we also need to increase domestic production and refining. Unfortunately, we've been going in the other direction for way too long a period of time. From 1990 to 2007, US production decreased by 31% at the same time as consumption increased by 24%.

Posted in Energy — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:51am on May 7, 2008 John McCain, Read This - Is Washington and Big Oil Burying This?

By GordonTaylor

When I received an email from a friend of mine in Alabama, I was skeptical about it's contents, it was a cut and paste for a newspaper article claiming a Tifton, Georgia man had discovered a way to may $0.25 a gallon fuel.

So, I visited my local Yahoo search engine, and it appears the story is true, at least at face value.

It seems the only outlet to pick up the story was the WND.

Some snippets and a link to the article.

Posted in Energy — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Read More »