ANWR: It’s Been ’10 Years,’ We Could Have Been Reaping Rewards Now

Ten years ago this month the Democrats defeated the bill that would have allowed us to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve (ANWR). So it’s happy anniversary to the loss of our energy independence once again.

It turns out that the tenth anniversary is known as the “tin” anniversary in that wonderful list of gifts one gives to celebrate such things. Tin is the perfect alloy when one notes the “tin ear” represented by the constant refrain the left always trumpets whenever we talk about drilling for oil, namely that it is pointless to do because we won’t realize any benefits for up to 10 years.

To that point, Democrat Representative Maria Cantwell disgorged that very talking point during that 2002 debate:

I believe there is no way to justify drilling in ANWR in the name of national security. Oil extracted from the wildlife refuge would not reach refineries for 7 to 10 years and would never satisfy more than 2 percent of our Nation’s oil demands at any one time.

Well, it’s ten years, folks, and because the Democrats continually defeat new efforts to drill or explore for oil on American soil we are once again out of luck for exploiting our own sources of energy. Thanks to Obama and his party we stay dependent on foreign sources of energy.

The Illinois Review reminds us that gas was about $1.37 per gallon in 2002 when the ANWR drilling bill went before Congress but now that gas is edging toward $5 per gallon, it is certain that we sure could be using that ANWR oil today, right?

Once again the left harms America in favor of its fealty to the religion of environmentalism.

This anniversary comes as Obama turns his attention to what he calls “speculators” on the energy market. To try and misdirect America’s attention from his dismal record on energy policy to those evil “speculators,” Obama has launched an effort to “crack down” on financial speculation in energy-futures trading. Without any proof of such, Obama and his party claim that this speculating drives up energy prices.

Obama announced the formation of yet another empty task force to investigate these speculators as part of a “5-point plan” to address rising energy prices. In true populist fashion, Obama is promising to stop the speculators from causing gas prices to rise.

U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) scoffs at Obama’s conceit as mere posturing.

…we hear that the President is announcing some kind of task force on oil speculation today. In other words, the same thing Washington Democrats always call for when gas prices go up.

If I were to guess, I’d say today’s proposal by the President probably polls pretty well. But I guarantee you it won’t do a thing to lower the price of gas at the pump. It never has in the past. White House officials admit as much. Why it would it now?

This is the same president that just recently scolded others who claim their plans can reduce gas prices. In the weekly radio address of March 17, Obama said, “Any career politician who promises some three-point plan for two-dollar gas – they’re not looking for a solution. They’re just looking for your vote.”

Yet less than a month later, here Obama is offering a “5-point plan” to do just that.

“We’ve got a President who told us he was a different kind of politician doing the same old things and using the same talking points politicians in Washington have been peddling for years,” McConnell said pointedly. “I mean, weren’t these kinds of gimmicks and stale talking points precisely the kind of thing President Obama campaigned against? I thought he was offering something new and different.”

Even the National Journal scoffs at Obama’s claim that his new effort can change gas prices. NJ points out that speculating on the market seems to have “little effect” on gas prices.

In 2008, an investigation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission concluded that speculation has little effect on the price of oil, which is still largely driven by the fundamentals of supply and demand.

So, once again, all we have is smoke and mirrors, simple election-year posturing to make it seem as if Obama is doing something when in truth his failed energy policy is what is in large part to blame.

Shortlink:

Posted by on April 18, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, Big government, Business, Congress, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democrats, Economics, Energy, House of Representatives, Liberals, Middle East, Oil.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • jim_m

    We are reaping the rewards that the left wanted: Higher energy prices, fewer jobs, reduced manufacturing and transportation industries. These are all things that the left has stood for and will defend.

    And true to form the left blames high prices not on reduced supply (as they strive to reduce and limit current and future supplies even further), but on evil capitalism and markets.  Too stupid to understand how jobs are created, money earned, or progress achieved, they place the blame for their failures on the very people who have been creating jobs, growing the economy and innovating new technologies.

    • Guest

      Bush “didn’t understand” either, and therefore did nothing when informed by the Saudis that speculators, not supply, was not driving up oil prices.

      The CFTC’s move against oil speculators who criminally profited from driving up prices in 2008 has put into sharp relief the current state of the oil markets, and the role of
      speculation. But according to some Wikileaked documents, Saudi Arabia told the US as far back as 2007 that speculation was artificially spiking prices, which should have triggered CFTC
      enforcement at the time.

      When oil prices hit a record $147 a barrel in July 2008, the Bush administration leaned on Saudi Arabia to pump more crude in hopes that a flood of new crude would drive the price down. The Saudis complied, but not before warning that oil already was plentiful and that Wall Street speculation, not a shortage of oil, was driving up prices. Saudi Oil Minister Ali al Naimi even told U.S. Ambassador Ford Fraker that the kingdom would have difficulty finding customers for the additional crude, according to an account laid out in a confidential State Department cable dated Sept. 28, 2008,
      “Saudi Arabia can’t just put crude out on the market,” the cable quotes Naimi as saying. Instead, Naimi suggested, “speculators bore significant responsibility for the sharp increase in oil prices in the last few years,” according to the cable.

      George W. Bush himself was told about this bank and hedge fund
      speculation. But his Administration promptly ignored the Saudi
      entreaties. Their regulators were too busy ignoring the risk of
      mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps CDOs.

      It took the Obama Administration years to build a case against a few
      financial firms for their role in the 2008 oil spike, but at least
      they’ve gotten around to it. The people most equipped to know the
      existence of the problem were screaming to the government at the time
      that speculation, not supply and demand, was driving prices.

      And, as you would expect both then and now, conservatives “just don’t understand” how speculation can drive up prices.

      Sorry, but you inability to understand things like this is just a source of amusement for many.

      • retired.military

        And Stephen / Bob shows up yet again.

        You can end speculation very easily. Simply pass a law to increase the margin the speculators have to put up. Instead Obama establishes another $50 million slush fund to pay off friends and cronies.

        And what has ALL the investigations in speculators and BIG OIL done by the left found in the past 30 years? Zip nada nothing.

      • The_Weege_99

        Ah, the “speculators are evil and criminal” meme.

        How banal.

      • EricSteel

        Obama really is a Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure. He’s been President for almost three and a half years, yet every problem is not his fault.

      • jim_m

         I don’t understand???

        What is it in your feeble little brain that enables this disconnect, that when obama declares that his policies will cause energy prices to rise and those prices do exactly that; that somehow the fault s not hat his policies worked just as he promised they would but that the price increases are somehow the fault of someone else that has been acting in the same manner as they always have?

        So you are claiming that obama and the Saudis are both correct that prices are entirely the fault of speculators and that supply and demand have nothing to do with pricing?  You are a complete ass.

        For my part I am willing to credit obama’s policies (which have limited supply and his Keystone policy is leading directly to future, permanent price increases from Canada)  for increasing prices.  obama has limited supply at every opportunity. 

        Sure we are exporting crude, but that is more a function of limited refining capacity and reduced demand from a failing economy.  If demand is falling we should see prices falling, instead we see prices climbing based on anticipated supply problems.

        • Guest

           More you don’t understand? How surprising. And how suprising that you can’t name a single policy of Obama’s and explain how that has effectd oil prices.

          Because reality doesn’t match your construct. None of Obama’s policies has contributed to the rise in oil prices. It’s purely speculators at work, and idiots like you at play pretending you know what you’re talking about.

          So you are claiming that obama and the Saudis are both correct that
          prices are entirely the fault of speculators and that supply and demand
          have nothing to do with pricing?  You are a complete ass.

          So there’s even more you don’t understand How surprising. Prices re not “entirely the fault” of speculators, and no one has said supply and demand has nothing to do with it – you apparently have the reading comprehension of a toad.

          But in this instance supply is up and demand is down, so you’re just playing the court jester again. The recent price rise is the fault of speculators, gambling on the unrest in the middle east and the debt crisis in Europe.

          Bush was told in 2008 by the Saudis that speculators, not supply and demand, was at fault – and Bush did notyhing. But hey, those Saudi oil producers don’t know a thing about oil prices, they should have asked Jim.

          If demand is falling we should see prices falling, instead we see prices climbing based on anticipated supply problems.

          Thanks, Sherlock, you just showed what a total ass you are by proving my point. And nobody will be surprised that you can’t see that, trust me.

          • Gmacr1

            “And how suprising that you can’t name a single policy of Obama’s and explain how that has effectd oil prices.”

            How about his moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico?

            You might want to check you six before spewing absolute stupidity.

          • Guest

            With demand down and prices rising, explain how more supply would push prices down.

            Clearly there is a disconnect between supply and demand and prices – and that’s the speculators at work. More supply doesn’t matter, and the tiny percentage increase on the world oil market that gulf drilling would prodce would be years away from trickling in the market, and even then have little or no effect.

            A gulf moratorium imposed by Obama does not effect oil prices one single penny today.

            Demand is down, you’re own cadre of commenter clowns admit that, and you can’t explain a single policy of Obama’s that is effecting the price of oil today.

            I’m not going to keep repeating the obvious – some people “dont’ understand” because they don’t have the intelligence to understand. others just don’t want to understand.

          • jim_m

             Idiot.  US demand is down but world wide demand is up.  China’s demand is growing like crazy.  I suppose you think that they wanted the Canadian oil just for grins?

            Also:  Canada was selling oil below the market rate.  They are stopping that practice and we will buy what we can get from them at the market price.  We did have favored status but the refusal to build Keystone has lead them to change that practice.

            So prices are going up because world wide demand continues to increase (regardless of US demand we are not the only ones that use oil, or had you not thought of that?) and prices are going up directly due to foreign responses to obama policies.

          • jim_m

            Grumpy old idiot:

            Look at this: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2012/04/20120402-195920.html

            “We cannot be, as a country, in a situation where our one and, in many cases, only energy partner could say no to our energy products. We just cannot be in that position.”

            His wide-ranging question-and-answer at the influential non-partisan think-tank — which also touched on border security, trade, the Arctic and Syria among other topics — followed a meeting with Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the White House for the sixth North American Leaders’ Summit.

            Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.

            So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude will be more competitive.

            So here is direct proof that obama’s policies are increasing the price of oil.

            Go ahead and deny that.  Perhaps you find the dictates of Dear Leader, your messiah, to be more believable than what everyone else in the world is saying and already knows.

          • jim_m

             Oh, and BTW, Canada is the US’s leading oil supplier.  So we will see prices jump because obama deliberately screwed over our largest trade partner and single largest supplier of oil.
            http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/100726/top-7-us-oil-importers

          • Guest

            But the price of oil rose before Keystone was halted – so again your prove my point, and prove what a moron you are.

            Halting Keystone HAD NOTHING to do with the current price of oil The price of oil spiked long before Keystone was a factor.

            Gee, you’re stupid and have no idea how stupid you look!

          • jim_m

             No.  I have said that world wide demand has also risen.  Rodney has pointed out that part of the price is due to weakness of the dollar.

            You are arguing that price changes are solely due to evil speculators because obama says so.  You deny that he has said that his policy is to increase prices and you deny that either he is getting what he planned or that he is incompetent .

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

            COme now.  Be fair. he is alsocreditingthe Saudis as his experts.

          • Guest

            Wrong again, Jim. No surprise, but once again you have no clue what you’re talking about.

            Oil demand worldwide is dropping.

            http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx

             

          • jim_m

            You are deeply dishonest.  You cleverly picked a graph that ends right in the middle of the recession when demand should be lowest. 

            It’s all very convenient when you use a graph that ends 3 years ago dumbass.

            Try one that runs at least to last year and you will see consumption is still climbing. In 2010 consumption exceeded production by over 5m barrels per day for the first year ever, as world oil stocks were run down. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/oil-production-and-consumption

          • Guest

            Not clever, just truthful Try it some time

            Hers’ more proof that you are dumb

            http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx.

          • jim_m

            You linked the same graph.  Your data still ends in the middle fo the recession. You are still claiming that there hasn’t been any growth since then. My link shows growth in 2010.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            The FAIL is strong with the old fart.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            He also managed to destroy quite a few jobs when the rigs packed up and went elsewhere.  Companies can’t afford to have multi-million dollar rigs sitting idle, waiting for permission to drill… if ever.

            And from 2009 -

            “Harry Reid has, according to Amanda Carpenter at TownHall.com,  called the US Senate into extraordinary session in order to remove thousands of acres of US lands from “unprotected” status to “endangered” status.  This would have the effect of removing the acreage from the possibility of oil exploration and drilling.  I guess that now that gasoline is well under four dollars a barrel Reid no longer feels that there is an energy crisis of any kind, nor does he feel any further pressure that one might otherwise feel from the country’s over-reliance on foreign oil supplies — problem solved.”

            Google up “land off limits to drilling”  -  but wait, I forgot the superior creatures who occasionally come on here to attempt to ‘educate’ us, because we don’t have the ‘ability to understand’ their incredible wisdom don’t need to actually look things up – we’re just supposed to accept unquestioningly what they pull out of their… imaginations.

          • jim_m

              And how suprising that you can’t name a single policy of Obama’s and explain how that has effectd oil prices.

            The illegal and continuing moratorium on drilling (yes, they are approving limited permits but so slowly that companies are going elsewhere, and while the moratorium proper was in effect rigs were moved out of the gulf never to return).

            The opposition to the Keystone pipeline.  We were receiving a below market price from Canada for their crude. No longer thanks to obama.

            The admin has opposed oil shale resource development.  According to Argonne National lab there is enough oil in the Green River Basin deposit to supply 100% of the US needs for oil for 400 years.  But the EPA is stacking new regs that will make it impossible to extract that oil.

            I could go on.

            We could discuss how obama is shutting down the coal industry, which means that power plants will need to move to oil or gas to fire their boilers.  Increased demand will mean increased prices.

            What gets me is that y9ou cannot see that obama promised prices would go up.  Now that they are and he is finding out that the public doesn’t like that fact, he is trying to blame the price increases not on his policies, but on someone else.

            Hey, you have two choices:  either obama’s policies work as he plans them to and it is his fault, or his policies are a total failure and completely ineffective.  So which is is?  Is he a complete incompetent or is he deliberately destroying America?

            You can’t have neither one of those choices. It has to be one or the other.

      • Hank_M

         “conservatives “just don’t understand” how speculation can drive up prices.”

        Well, unfortunately, some of us listen to Obama.

        On March 23rd, USA Today reported that Obama blamed Iran for higher gas prices.

        On Tuesday, according to TPM, he blamed “global trends” for the higher prices.

        On April 3rd, according to the World Tribune, he blamed Israel for higher gas prices.

        On March 29th Obama blamed Big Oil for higher gas prices.

        And of course, we all remember when Senator Obama blamed Bush for high gas prices.

        So, cut us some slack. We listen carefully to what Obama says. And having listened to Obama, it seems he’s the only one not responsible for higher gas prices.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Murphy/100001624276605 Ryan Murphy

        So let me get this straight … you are taking the word of the Saudis?

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Hey, it fits with what he wants to believe – therefore what does it matter whether it’s true or not?

  • GarandFan

    Remember back when oil/gas prices rose during the Bush administration.  The libs were ‘wink-wink, nudge-nudge, figures, they’re OIL MEN!’.

    So what’s Barry’s excuse?  He always has one.

    • jim_m

       So what’s Barry’s excuse?

      Any criticism of him or his policies is borne solely out of racism.

    • UOG

      If we were to ask him, I expect he’d make a sour face and remind us that this is just part of the mess he inherited when he came to office. After all he’s only had 39 months! I’m sure there hasn’t been enough yet to address every facet of that mess Bush left him, and that he’s been working 24/7 since then and he’s still learning just how serious that mess was. Why, it wasn’t just a mess, not even a messy mess. No sir, it was a monster mess. And he’s going to need another four years to set things straight. It’s not the time to change horses now that he’s finally starting to get his arms around the whole problem. No, way. He needs four more years and we need to give them to him… or something like that.

      Ok, so I get a little sarcastic on Wednesdays. Fact is, at my age people can get sarcastic on any day ending in the letter Y. So by confining myself to Wednesdays I’m actually doing pretty good.

      • Gmacr1

        Live the dream! I do it every day and it feels good.

        And the trolls here are on the wrong side of the sarchasm gap to.

      • jim_m

          After all he’s only had 39 months!

        It takes a long time to undo 2 centuries of capitalism.

        • http://2012.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

          Sadly, that’s not far off what the Obamarrhoids would actually say.

  • Wild_Willie

    The democrats lack vision even though they profess they possess it. All successful business models look ahead 10 years and constantly adapting and adjusting toward that goal.

    Obama was asked about why the senate doesn’t have a budget proposal. He responded “I don’t have an opinion on that matter.” Our country is broke, we need vision and guidance and our leader doesn’t have an opinion on the matter, but he does on Travyon Martin. Just a few more months of this useless incompetent. ww

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      If you don’t have a budget, you can’t overspend.

      See how that solves all our financial problems?

      Libs just don’t bother thinking beyond the next election cycle.  Anyone with half a brain would have understood that we were still going to be needing oil in 2012 back in 2002 – but it was politically expedient to pretend sheer horror at the prospect of drilling in ‘sacred’ land.  (The photos at the time of supposed ANWR were apparently of a mountain range a few hundred miles away.  The real ANWR is flat tundra, inhospitable and unremarkable.)

      But that was 4-5 election cycles ago.  (Ya gots your two year and your four year…) Ancient history, to folks who can’t think more than one election cycle ahead.

  • Hank_M

    Typical Obama.

    Assign blame, spend money and ignore reality.

    Problem is, some are paying attention. Over at NR, they’ve pointed out that we’ve seen this act before.

    Last June: The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether oil companies have
    engaged in anticompetitive practices or manipulated crude oil prices,
    the government’s latest salvo to rein in high energy prices.

    Last April: With U.S. gasoline pump prices soaring, the Obama administration on Thursday
    unveiled a working group of federal agencies to probe potential fraud in the
    energy markets.

    Last March: Obama said he had ordered a review of why oil companies aren’t producing more
    petroleum on federal land, and said his administration would monitor
    “any possible manipulation in the oil markets”

    Aug 2009: Energy traders and companies will face fines of up to $1 million a day
    if they manipulate oil markets, the Federal Trade Commission ruled on
    Thursday in a crackdown on fraud that they said causes widespread damage to the
    U.S. economy.

    The man is clueless.

    • jim_m

       Probably the reason he has no response to the nationalization of YPF in Argentina is that obama is evaluating his options for doing exactly that here in the US.

      • Hank_M

         Jim, that’s just……cough (auto industry)…….cough (housing)…..
        cough (health care)……..cough (Wall St)…..cough (student loans) …not plausible.

  • iwogisdead

    Since “speculators” never actually buy any oil, it’s hard to see how they have any impact on oil prices. All “speculators” do is buy and sell futures options. It’s a little like saying that the betting on a horse race has some impact on the race itself.

    • jim_m

      Funny, how in 2008 obama said that under his policies gas prices would necessarily increase and now that they have it isn’t the result of his policies, it’s someone else’s fault.

  • retired.military

    There is a cheap easy way to stop speculation.  Change the law to rasie the margin for speculators.  Doesnt take $50 million going to Obama donors and special interest groups to stop “speculators”.  This is just another Obama slush fund.

  • 914

    Barry doesn’t need an excuse, he needs more Solyndras..

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Makes me wonder if he’s going to bail before the election.  All that money’s got to have gone somewhere… maybe Brazil?

  • Joe_Miller

    People have complained for years that the country doesn’t have a coherent energy policy. Sure we do. We’re against it. Isn’t that obvious?

  • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

    A dolt demands:

    With demand down and prices rising, explain how more supply would push prices down.

    Wrong question.  Gas is not expensive, the dollar is cheap: http://wizbangblog.com/2012/02/23/perspective-is-the-price-of-oil-increasing-or-is-the-value-of-the-dollar-decreasing/

    Domestic production cuts into that in two ways.  Since we’re trading our own paper, vice competing internationally, the cost tends to match the expense of production plus markup.  Second, since we’re trading less paper overseas, the dollar tends to regain some strength due to relative scarcity.

    Clearly there is a disconnect between supply and demand and prices – and that’s the speculators at work.

    No, that’s Tubo Tax Timmy and teh bernanke hard at work devaluating the dollar.

    • jim_m

       He says demand is down and shows a graph that shows that demand was down in 2009 in the middle of the recession.  What a shock.  He ignores the last 3 years of data because it does not support his argument.  He’s just another dishonest lefty.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        I had that:

        He’s just another dishonest lefty.

        figured out after reading his first few comments.

      • iwogisdead

        Well, not only that, but the dolt’s graph shows consumption peaking in 2008/2009. What was the oil price doing around that time? Peaking.

        http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M

        Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than this graph shows, since the value of the dollar was fluctuating at the same time and I don’t have the math skills to figure it all out exactly.

        I still want to hear about the mechanism by which the doltists believe that the “speculators” (who trade ONLY in futures options contracts) can alter the spot market price of oil.

        The “speculators” in reality perform an important and necessary role in stabilizing markets. They do this by providing liquidity to the futures markets so that businesses which need to buy or sell commodities in the future can protect themselves against market fluctuations.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_XMNVKOTFHONWIUGQTPPDXMYKNA Michael McClellan

    2009* Administration cancels leases on 77 parcels of land in Utah (February).* Administration delays new offshore leasing plan by adding another half year to comment period (February).* Administration proposes billions in new taxes on oil and gas industry in FY 2010 budget proposal (February).* Following protests by environmentalists, BLM suspends sale of 31 drilling tracts in Utah that had already been purchased (June).* Administration revisits Utah leases, continuing suspension or permanently withdrawing most (October).* Administration announces new round of oil shale research and development leases in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah with significantly reduced lease acreage and unattainable lease terms (October).* Administration shortens lease terms for upcoming Central Gulf of Mexico lease sale (November).
    2010* Administration proposes additional regulatory hurdles for development on federal lands (January).* Administration proposes billions in new taxes on oil and gas industry in FY 2011 budget proposal (February).* Administration cancels the remaining Alaska lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas offshore and withdraws Bristol Bay from the program (March).* Administration cancels the Virginia offshore lease sale, despite bipartisan support from Virginia’s governor and congressional delegation (May).
    2011* Administration proposes billions in new taxes on oil and gas industry in FY 2012 budget proposal (February).* Administration releases a draft forest management plan that proposes a ban on horizontal drilling in the George Washington National Forest (April).* Administration issues an ANPR regarding new regulations for gas gathering lines that would substantially impact development of the Marcellus Shale (August).* Administration proposes one-size-fits-all new source performance standards that, lacking a phase-in period to manufacture the control equipment, may significantly hamper oil and gas operations (August).* Administration again proposes billions in new taxes on the oil and gas industry (September).* Administration issues new 2012-2017 five-year plan that fails to open any new offshore areas to oil and gas development (November).* Administration releases final study plan on potential impacts on groundwater from hydraulic fracturing that fails to address concerns regarding the transparency and scientific validity of the study’s approach (November).* Administration raises the minimum bid amount for offshore lease blocks in water depths of 400 meters and greater from $37.50 per acre to $100 per acre (December).* Administration produces a draft report outlining the findings of its groundwater investigation in Pavillion, Wyoming and receives extensive criticism for questionable scientific methodology (December).* Administration cancels a planned auction of public lands in the Wayne National Forest to review scientific information regarding horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (December).
    2012* Administration rejects permit for Keystone XL pipeline (January).* Administration begins testing water wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania despite having no new information to justify reversing previous statements that laboratory data did not indicate that water quality presented an immediate health threat (February).* Administration recommends removing from leasing availability over 1.8 million acres of oil shale and tar sands energy resources in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming (February).

  • Guest

    In 20 years half our energy will come from solar.

    We don’t need to destroy the environment for decades just for the sake of energy today.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Been hearing that for more than 20 years now.

      Right now Solar is one of the least cost effective means of electrical generation.  Only wind power is less cost effective, and both survive solely as functions of tax farming.

    • sablegsd

      What little glitter fairy are you basing that on?
      Solar is a FAIL.  Throwing more billions at it wont make it work.
      We would not have to deal with the fucked up koranimals if we had started 10 years ago.
      PPSSTT Every other country in the world is drilling for oil.
      So us doing it would just tip the planet over and kill it, right?
       

  • Guest

    I don’t usually reply to idiots who haven’t a clue what theyre talking about, but the cost of solar energy is dropping and is  expected to continue to drop exponentially in the years going forward.

    Forbes on the falling cost of solar energy.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/04/06/the-cost-of-solar-power-is-expected-to-decline-50-over-the-next-decade/

    The cost of solar modules dropped 40-50% in 2011.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cost-Of-Solar-Modules-twst-2227438817.html

    I could go on, but I’ll save the rest for the next idiot that comes along.

    By the way, the Forbes article is the one that mentions solar the probably primary source of energy in 20 years.

    I think that there are two trends working in solar’s favor as the
    primary power source of the future.  The first is, as the Bloomberg
    article notes, relentless reductions in the costs of solar.  But the
    other trend is that the price of coal and other fossil fuels are going up.  It’s a combination that is amenable to solar.

    No matter how hard conservatives try to drag us into the past we’re headed for bright new, oil-less future.

    You really haven’t a clue.