Category Archives: Energy

World To Obama, Ease U.S. Oil Export Ban

Mmm, lub me some ultra-light, sweet crude.

President Obama is facing growing international pressure to ease the long-standing ban on crude oil and natural gas exports, with South Korea and Mexico joining the European Union in pressing the case for U.S. oil shipments overseas.

10 Most Expensive Avg Gas Prices-7-28
It was $1.84 per gallon in January 2009.

Never ceases to amaze me how the president must be drug screaming and kicking to the oil independence table that will create high-paying jobs (mostly union jobs), lower the cost of fuel, food, and transportation, stimulate the economy, as well as the family incomes that have been falling ever since his “recovery” began.

If the president had any balls at all, he’d be the first one calling for this. More than any sanctions he could muster against Putin’s Russia, having the ability to lower the price of crude worldwide would be the most effective pressure he could put on Putin because Russia’s economy is totally driven by oil and natural gas.

It should be a no-brainer. Americans, Europeans, Asians would all benefit from increased availability and lower energy cost. Then again, we’re dealing with Barack Obama and the greenies.

Link: Exclusive: From Seoul to Mexico City, pressure mounts to ease U.S. oil export ban

Obama By-Passing Congress Again

Refusing to take no for an answer, Obama (not The White House, but Obama) is by-passing the Democrat-controlled Senate on a Useless Nations climate agreement.

King Obama is engineering a UN Climate Accord without Congress. As the media and Democrats in Congress marvel as the lawless Obama administration goes from “deeming” bills passed (ACA) to announcing at a SOTU speech that he’ll go around Congress, and now doing a retroactive re-write of an existing 1992 treaty instead of asking Congress again. Really?

Link: Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

Economy Shrinking, Not Bush’s Fault

Amid the news that the GDP is shrinking it will be amusing to hear President Obama spin this into his recovery. No one in his media will dare ask him that question, so never mind.

Meanwhile, Cap and Trade having been repeatedly defeated in Congress (you know, the Constitutional way), President Obama is moving on to Plan B. National Community Organizer that he is, he is using regulatory agencies (all of whom should have their regulatory authority stripped) to do what Congress would not. Flipping the Bird to you, Congress, and the Founding Fathers. The effects of which is represented in this info graphic below.

energyinfographicjpg-01

Link: Economy Shrinks in First Quarter of 2014: GDP Revised to -1 Percent | Obama Is Bypassing Congress Again. This Time It’s Going to Cost You.

Caracas Burning, Army Sent In, Maduro Blames U.S.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro says “fascist” forces financed from the United States were plotting against his government. Probably has caracas-burning_unrestnothing to do with corrupt elections and election campaigns, seizing media outlets that print or say anything against him or his party, empty shelves in stores, high crime and unemployment. It other words, the failing of another socialist/communist state.

Maduro ordered the arrest of a top opposition leader and a former military chief as he claimed “fascist” forces financed from the United States were plotting against his government.

Here’s the plan President Nicolás Maduro should follow. Stop selling oil to the United States. Immediately. He can do that. He owns the oil industry. But Maduro needs our money. So Plan B is for the U.S. to stop buying Venezuelan oil. We don’t need their oil. We have access to plenty of our own. It’s time to turn the tables and use our oil to our advantage. Not Venezuela, not Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else besides home.

Link: Army sent in to Venezuelan cities as unrest prompts coup warning

aSide Order

keystone_pipeline_protest_11_07_2011

XL Pipeline Reduces Overall Carbon Emissions, State Department Environmental Impact Report

Seems the long-awaited environmental impact analysis of the XL Pipeline has environmentalist shorts in a wad.  Turns out, having the XL Pipeline will reduce carbon emissions compared to not having it. In transportation alone, whether by trucks, trains, or barges and ships, the pipeline emits no carbon emissions whereas all the alternative means of transportation do. When you consider that Venezuelan oil which we buy is shipped in oil tankers, the pipeline could not only end our need to buy it from them, but would cut the global carbon emissions by not using their tankers or Warren Buffet’s trains, which derail, explode, and burn. (How’s that for an environmental impact?)

It’s ironic that their excuse for nixing the pipeline just went away. Not only that, but since it creates a reduction in carbon emissions, they find themselves to be scientifically (but not politically) in favor of it. To make matters worse for them, Democrats are now calling for the President to use that pen he was talking about in his SOTU and approve it.

Their new arguments against it are now in development. How they will justify not supporting the reduction in carbon emissions should be interesting, if not entertaining.

endofstory

Dinesh D’Souza / Bill Ayers Debate at Dartmouth College

They begin by each taking 18 minutes to state their positions. After that is complete they respond to each others positions for 5 or 10 minutes each, and then they begin asking each other questions directly. After that ends the Q&A begins.

If you don’t have too much time I’d recommend skipping the 18 minute speeches and begin where they are responding to each others speeches at around the 42 minute mark. But you’ll be missing out on some great stuff, I assure you, especially D’Souza’s view of the greatness of America.

h/t the rightscoop

endofstory

Charles Krauthammer Explains Obama’s Lawlessness In 50 Seconds

If a Republican president tried what Obama has already done, he would have been impeached already, and with bi-partisan support.

http://youtu.be/yQwfPu1E3rk

So where are House Republicans on this? Spineless, that’s where.

Warren Buffet’s Oil Train Derails, Explodes, Burns

In the second train derailment and explosion in six months, two of Warren Buffet’s BNSF trains in North Dakota collide. The resulting explosion and fire caused authorities to evacuate all 2,400 people living in Casselton, N.D., about one mile from the derailment.

Official estimates of the extent of the blaze varied. BNSF Railway Co. said it believed about 20 cars caught fire after its oil train left the tracks about 2:10 p.m. Monday. The sheriff’s office said Monday it thought 10 cars were on fire. Officials said the cars would be allowed to burn out.

Authorities haven’t yet been able to untangle exactly how the derailment happened. BNSF spokeswoman Amy McBeth said another train carrying grain derailed first, and that this knocked several cars of the oil train off adjoining tracks.

Chalk up another failure of the Obama administration for 1) continuing to drag their feet on rail car safety for Buffet’s trains carrying crude oil and 2) not giving the go-ahead for the XL Pipeline project. Pipelines have not been known to crash and burn, ever. But, pipelines are not major DNC contributors.

Maybe this incident will bring the XL pipeline issue to the fore and make the case for getting it started. Ya think? Even the media is regrettably stating half of the obvious.

The incident will likely prompt discussion about the safety of transporting oil by cross-country rail. Fears of catastrophic derailments were particularly stoked after a train carrying crude from North Dakota’s Bakken oil patch crashed in Quebec last summer. Forty-seven people died in the ensuing fire.

The XL pipeline being the half they don’t mention.

Liberal Blowtorch Burns Ring Of Fire

Mike PapantonioWas checking in to one of my favorite liberal, progressive, downright wacko websites, the Ring of Fire1, to see what they had to say about the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report on climate change. Who according to them, is the world’s authority on the greenhouse effect.

I previewed the report in a comment on one of their posts a few days before its release. Where their scientists had to admit that there has been no global warming in the last seventeen years.

Harken back to 2007 when the global warming nuts were saying that the arctic ice would be gone by 2013. When in fact the arctic ice grew by 29%, over a half million square miles, in the last year.

But alas, not only is my comment gone, but all comments are gone (not that they had very many in the first place). In fact, they have disabled comments altogether. So now, the Ring of Fire has been reduced to a blow torch. No ring, no two-way. Like Obama himself, no negotiations. Just fun food for their lemmings.

On slow news days, the big lawyers post about big lawsuits against big pharma, big energy, and whoever else has big, deep pockets.

endofstory

1 The Ring of Fire is a Liberal (they’ll say Progressive) talk radio show, co-hosted by Attorneys Mike Papantonio and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and another lib named Sam Seder. The Ring of Fire is unique in terms of a talk radio show in that they don’t take calls live. Like Obama, they screen all questions emailed to them or left on their answering machine. Lord only knows what happens after that. Their show is scripted to pump out whatever liberal blather is on their page, regardless of what is going on in the news of the day. They really have a mis-named show. Not unlike Obamacare being called affordable. There is no ‘ring’ left in the Ring of Fire. They are unique in another way too, compared to ‘America’s Anchorman.’ They are not supported by advertisers. They don’t have a product anyone but other law firms want to be associated with. If they were ‘supported’ by advertisers, their show would have died when Air America Radio died, when its founder and Papantonio grew tired of personally footing the bill.

Wealth Creation Through Cost Reduction

Noted economist and former Florida gubernatorial candidate Dr. Farid Khavari exemplifies what thinking ‘outside the box’ is. When politicos in Washington believe that the government can create wealth by spreading it around, they’re not creating anything, and spreading misery. Government doesn’t create wealth, it consumes it.

Dr. Khavari explains how free-market capitalism and political leadership, as opposed to government control and dependency, can lift up all boats, reduce poverty, and increase both personal and national wealth. Here’s how . . .

CREATING ECONOMIC SECURITY FOR EVERYONE DOES NOT COST, IT PAYS

Farid A. Khavari, Ph.D.

A baby born today may live 90 years or more.  Ideally, that baby would grow up healthy, get a good education, get a good job, and earn enough to live a good life and to save for a comfortable retirement.  By working at a wealth-creating job, that person earns and spends money, generating more economic activity than he or she earns each year.  In doing so, this baby will contribute far more to the economy than he or she costs, adding to the net wealth of the economy. The economy can continue to grow and provide opportunities for millions of other babies.

Or maybe the baby will eat a poor diet, get a poor education, join the growing millions of permanently unemployed, and suffer health problems as well.  In place of his or her contributions to the economy, we have social costs which reduce the net wealth of the economy: health care, unemployment and welfare, perhaps even a prison term that can cost more than a Harvard education.

Creating and maintaining an economy where everyone can earn and enjoy economic security for life is not only desirable, it is possible, and it costs much less than having a growing proportion of the population destitute and dependent on government. In fact, ultimately it costs nothingto create such an economy.  And ultimately, no other kind of economy is sustainable anyway.

Virtually every nation in the world has the necessary resources to create an economy where national and personal wealth grows and every person lives a dignified and secure life. Willing workers, technology and materials are primary ingredients for wealth creation, and they are abundant. All that is necessary is the will to do it and a plan to make it happen.

How is this possible, and why don’t we have it now?  We have brilliant economists and honest politicians who care about us, don’t we?   One ingredient missing in every economy is common sense.

What makes every major economy today unsustainable is simply consuming more wealth than is created.  Building a house, or manufacturing almost anything, creates wealth.  Trading stocks and other financial activities at best transfer existing wealth from one party to another and at worst divert wealth from wealth-creating activities.  Costs like interest, health care, insurance and government consume wealth. In order to be sustainable, an economy must create more wealth than it consumes.

The economic situation today is the result of a long term trend away from wealth-creating jobs to more wealth-consuming jobs.  Each year we have less manufacturing and construction jobs (and the jobs that support these and many other wealth-creating activities), shifting to more financial, health care, and government jobs — and more unemployment — all of which consume net wealth in the economy.

Everyone’s life has plenty of costs:  food, shelter, clothing, health care, energy, insurance, taxes, and on and on. Ideally, everyone’s income would cover the costs with enough left over to enjoy life and save for a secure retirement.  In fact, incomes are shrinking as costs of every kind rise faster and faster, while millions are unemployed.  When people cannot earn enough to pay these costs themselves, ultimately private costs become social costs, which put a further burden on working taxpayers and further reduce the net wealth of the economy.

There are more opportunities to create wealth in our economy than is generally understood.

Let’s look at eight elements of a healthy, sustainable economy, which provide the opportunity for economic security for everyone, comparing the wealth-increasing benefits of having them and the rising costs of not having them. Then we can see how we can have such an economy at much lower cost.

1.  Jobs for all willing workers, with good pay.  We need more wealth-creating jobs and less wealth-consuming jobs.  Wealth-creating jobs create more jobs.  To the extent that people cannot earn enough for themselves, society must make up the shortfall.  We can either pay the social costs, or enjoy the benefits of wealth-creating jobs, which cost nothing to create and dramatically reduce social costs.

2. Affordable home-ownership available to everyone. This means short-term, low-interest financing in a stable market, so one does not slave for 30 years to own a home.  Rising housing prices are not a sign of “economic recovery”, they are a sign of inflation. Eventually prices rise until no one can afford to buy, then the bubble pops and starts over again.  Every dollar paid for mortgage interest is a dollar that cannot be spent into the economy to create more wealth, or saved for retirement.  What is a greater component of economic security than owning a home free and clear?

3. Affordable health care for everyone.  Eventually, everyone needs health care, but every dollar spent on health care consumes wealth in the economy.  There are huge opportunities for reducing costs while improving quality of care and outcomes. This is obvious when we see high-cost countries like Switzerland spending half of what the U.S. spends, with better results.  What are not obvious are the tremendous opportunities for wealth-creating jobs which improve health care while reducing costs.

4. Free education from kindergarten through university or trade schools—and continuing education   and training for adults who need jobs. Too many people cannot earn what they need, or contribute to the net wealth of themselves and the economy, because they cannot afford sufficient education.  The result is higher social costs.  Ironically, a university education still costs less than incarceration.  The wealth not added to the economy due to lack of education is incalculable.  Those who somehow manage to get higher education end up an average of $35,000 in debt—and will ultimately pay twice that or more including interest.  We can be sure that people with a trillion dollars of student loans to pay are not buying many houses or new cars.  If that money were available for spending or saving, the added social costs of free higher education would be repaid by trillions of dollars of wealth creation and the resulting decrease of total social costs.

5. Free energy though decentralized solar, wind and other alternatives for homes and businesses.  Energy costs are constantly rising, consuming more wealth in the economy.  The costs of not having free energy are clear to every homeowner and businessperson when they pay the monthly bills. What is not easy to calculate is the impact on the economy of spending money on energy rather than on products, services and savings.  We spend more than almost half a trillion dollars each year on electricity.  As more electric cars become available, more opportunities for savings are created—and more opportunities for wealth-creating jobs as well.

6. A financial safety net for the disabled, the unemployed, and those who really need it.  We can improve on what we have, and save money not by reducing benefits but by creating an economy where less people need the safety net.

7. Protection from disasters and destructive events which can cause people financial ruin: a form of insurance.

8. A secure and dignified retirement for everyone.  People who have earned economic security throughout their lives, own their homes and have saved for retirement create a lot less social cost than people who struggled at minimum wages all of their lives.  A sustainable economy as described above is much better for people, and for society, than one where senior citizens are hungry.

This is not some socialist Utopian vision.  In fact, any economy can become sustainable more easily if government’s role is leadership rather than ownership.  A robust private sector creates more wealth than any government enterprise.

How can we achieve this?

The good news is that a wealth-creating job eventually creates more wealth than it cost to create the job.  We can have as many wealth-creating jobs as we want, at zero net cost. Further, each wealth creating job causes more jobs to be created, and so on.  The key is that wealth-creating activity must be greater than wealth-consuming activity.

The better news is that there are opportunities today to create millions of “SUPER-JOBS” which can multiply and accelerate wealth creation in the economy. A “SUPER-JOB” is a wealth-creating job which provides a product or service which reduces costs for the customer.

Anyone—even economists!—can understand that we can create wealth by manufacturing or building things.  When people work at such wealth-creating jobs, the economy has more wealth at the end of the day than it did in the morning.

But what economists overlook is that we can create even more net wealth for the economy and everyone in it by reducing costs.  In the case of building a house, for example, the house maintains its value over time, and generally can be sold for enough to buy another house.  But if the house has a solar system on the roof and reduces energy costs by $100 per month, in time the solar system pays for itself several times over—adding more net wealth to the owner and the economy than it cost.

Every dollar not spent for some kind of cost is available for spending or saving, which benefit both the individual and the economy. This means that many activities which are currently wealth-consuming can be partially transformed into wealth-creating ones.  Reducing permanent costs like insurance, interest, health care, education, and many more through innovation and efficiency provides countless opportunities to create new wealth for individuals and the economy—and countless job opportunities, too.

Here is a simple example of how government leadership –not government money—can create SUPER-JOBS in the private sector, without subsidies or giveaways.

Let’s say the governor of Florida presents a program calling for half of Florida’s 9,000,000 households to acquire a solar water heater within 10 years.  That calls for about 500,000 solar water heaters per year. The governor announces that in such volumes, a fair price can be guaranteed for all such systems manufactured in Florida, and that XYZ Bank is offering low-interest financing so that people can acquire these solar heaters for a monthly payment equal to their savings on electricity.

Manufacturers would rush to Florida to meet the demand.  Over 15,000 good jobs would be created in manufacturing and installation.  Those 15,000 workers will earn over half a billion dollars per year, and drive five billion dollars or more per year in new economic activity in the state.  This in turn creates tens of thousands of more new jobs and many billions of dollars more in activity each year.

This program costs the government of Florida nothing–but how much does the government gain when more people are employed and pay more taxes?  And how many billions of dollars in social costs will ultimately be saved by this one simple program?

Now apply these principles of Zero Cost Economics in other ways and in every state.  Announce that thousands of the vehicles the state buys each year will be electric vehicles manufactured in the state. Add solar electric carports to replace the cost of gasoline.  The list is as endless as the opportunities.  Government takes a leadership role and organizes demand, while the private sector invests in providing the products and services.

Any government could apply these concepts instantly and at zero net. Whether by legislation or simple executive policy decisions, millions of jobs can be created and the balance can tip from wealth-consuming back to net wealth creation. We can have economic security for everyone, much cheaper than the alternative.

However, the principles of Zero Cost Economics can be applied by the private sector in any country without waiting for government action.  This described in a brief paper, “The Zero Cost Cities Project.”

endofstory

You can request a copy via email at fk@zerocosteconomy.com , or get a free download of the book Towards a Zero Cost Economy from www.zerocosteconomy.com   Farid A. Khavari, Ph.D. is noted economist and author of ten books, including the classic Environomics, and numerous articles.

Mexico’s Energy Reform, Introduce Private Enterprise

The United States isn’t the only country in the hemisphere suffering from an incoherent energy policy. An effective energy policy is one that gets energy instead of one that won’t use all energy resources available.Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto listens to an attendee at the annual Allen and Co. conference at the Sun Valley

Mexico’s problem . . .

Mexico is the world’s 10th-biggest producer of crude oil, according to OPEC data, yet output has fallen by a quarter since hitting peak production of 3.4 million barrels per day in 2004. The country also is a top oil exporter to the United States but has to import nearly half of its gasoline due to a lack of domestic refining capacity.

Our problem? We haven’t built a new refinery in decades. The government limits the energy industry by restricting access to available resources to the bidding of regulatory agencies and special interests whose goals, although noble, are not ready for prime time nor economically feasible at this time. Not only that, but the oil industry has become deformed as a private enterprise, a result of growing government intervention.

Parallels abound between the role government plays in United States and that of Europe and Mexico. Economically, Europe, and toss Russia into the mix too, is introducing more capitalism, private sector business and ownership, as a way to raise them from the economic malaise that their socialist models have produced. On the energy front, Mexico is looking to change from their total government-controlled and owned energy sector to one that, for the first time, introduces private enterprise into the mix.

The teachable moment here is where we, as a country, are going wrong. Economically, we are trying to go to a place that from experience, Europe is trying to get away from. On the energy front, the political party in power is inclined to nationalizing the energy industry whether by fiat or through regulatory agencies. The opposite to what, from experience, Mexico sees as a solution.

It’s been proven it can be done. They just took the health care industry, sixteen percent of our entire economy. And just like in Mexico, there are challenges to making real reform. We should know why Europe and Mexico envy what we have accomplished under free-market capitalism. Which is why we should resist any changes that take us to a place from which they are running.

Link: Mexico energy reform due this week, debate over contracts

Only The Names Have Changed In Dept. of Labor

Labor Secretary Perez is hitting the ground running with a new and improved Department of Labor 2014-2018 Strategic Plan Outreach. I think it would be a mistake to think that President Obama picked Thomas E. Perez for Labor Secretary for the purposes of helping to turn this sorry economic situation around.

20130723-PerezBioPhoto-200

On the contrary, through the smoke and mirrors of his bullet points, the message is clear. The government has no intention of taking its boot off business’s throat. “Ensuring” access to opportunities that are already there means more government intervention.

Ensure access to opportunity . . .

  • to earn a fair day’s pay
  • for workers and employers to compete on a level playing field
  • to retire with dignity and peace of mind
  • opportunity for people to work in a safe and healthy environment
  • and with the full protection of our anti-discrimination laws.

The names have changed, but the agenda? Not so much. A higher federally mandated minimum wage that won’t be a minimum wage, but a “living wage.” Undermining the employer/employee relationship through government intervention. Increasing labor union membership, bailing out labor union underfunded pensions. And other than putting more pressure on the coal industry, working in a safe and healthy environment isn’t an opportunity. It’s not only to the employer’s benefit to have a safe work environment, but is required. The antidiscrimination issue is code for lowering or eliminating job qualification standards, forcing employers to hire more people to make up for the loss in productivity.

To his credit though, Sec. Perez says he will allow you to take part in a live web chat starting Monday Aug. 5 at 2 pm. Make sure you are heard. And let’s see how sincere he really is in his method of finding common ground via “collaboration, consensus-building and pragmatic problem-solving.”

Link: Department of Labor 2014-2018 Strategic Plan Outreach