Oil Diaries Part Two; The Left's Hit Job on Big Oil (Taking Down the Competition)

C.T.

The Left is constantly bantering that we need to be using "renewable energy sources" and so we can get off oil, because we are running out and it is bad for the environment. Renewable energy sources are fine, if we had spent the time to find one that is an acceptable alternative to oil and can produce the same output, economically. To date, there is not a technology that is in existence, to my knowledge, that can accomplish this. Solar, wind, water, hybrids, none of them have any of the capacity, right now, to replace oil. So, why all the blistering debate; environment, security, lifestyle? Nope, it is about money, control, and elimination of competition through the government.

Investment activities that focus on companies or projects that are committed to the conservation of natural resources, the production and discovery of alternative energy sources, the implementation of clean air and water projects, and/or other environmentally conscious business practices. In fact, investing in "green" companies can be riskier than other equity strategies, as many companies in this arena are in the development stage, with low revenues and high earnings valuations. [1]

Green tech, as noted above, is a risky and volatile investment right now. Let's get real though, if you have an industry that is growing, the government is backing it up, and you are the government how much risk are you actually taking? But there is a huge problem with this equation and that is Big Oil. Oil companies, if allowed to exploit coal, shale, and offshore drilling would be able to extend the life of petrol products for quite along time. No one would really see a need for renewable energy sources in the near future.

Look at the potential for fossil fuel development just here in the United States alone.

The reserves of oil sands, which are actively being mined in Canada's Alberta Province, are estimated to be 1.8 trillion barrels. Experts estimate that much of this can be produced for $45 per barrel or less. Global reserves of oil shale are estimated at more than 3.3 trillion barrels, with 70 percent in the United States (primarily in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming). [2]

Shell Oil Co. last year announced it has developed a process for extracting the oil from the shale, without mining, at a price of roughly $35 per barrel. The United States also has the world's largest reserves of coal — enough for hundreds of years of production at present levels. Coal also can be turned into liquid petroleum (as the Germans and South Africans proved decades ago). Current estimates of the conversion cost are as low as $35 per barrel. [2]

Really? Proven technology in place, clean, safe, and cheap.

Why not develop it then? All we hear about is the environmental impact, derricks look ugly in the distance, the spotted owl, yadda yadda yadda. Feel good reasons and stupidity which will inevitably undermine the very economic fabric of this nation. This will force us to wait for a sound renewable energy source while remaining dependent on foreign oil and playing hostage to the Middle East and others. Yup, that sounds like a great plan.

If it were only that easy in my own twisted little mind. The only other conclusions I can draw are these. Money in big oil is already tied up with a certain list of players and I would hardly think that it includes any Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's, or Al Gore's. So, they aren't in the club. Watching past fiascoes like Y2K, I think they learned something about panic and how much money it can generate, or maybe they already knew it. Secondly, the oil companies are already entrenched and would create to much competition for green tech/renewable energy. Especially if they were allowed to process coal, shale, and untapped oil. The Left must destroy or severly cripple these corporations through insane government regulations to create a need. If there is a gaping hole and green tech is the only way to fill it, imagine the money. Thirdly, through outrageous scare tactics and clever marketing, they have already created a market in the US and Europe to peddle their pill. At this point it is just a matter of removing the competition. All of this may be the why, but what about the how? Here you go.

Does it seem a bit odd that the current price of oil is more than twice the cost of producing all the oil the world presently needs and will need long into the future? The reason the price is so high is that the supply has been artificially constrained by governments. Most (88 percent) of the conventional oil reserves are owned by governments, and these governments have underinvested in new production. As is well-known, the U.S. government has restricted offshore and onshore drilling, shale development, and coal conversion. [2]

Although, there is one "small" problem and it is the American people. Let's look at a very popular Rasmussen poll taken not to long ago.

Six out of 10 Americans (61%) say Congress should return to Washington immediately to vote on lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But voters overwhelmingly expect Congress to adjourn this year without taking action. [3]

Seems the polling data might have scared the High Priestess of the Cult of Obamafornia.

On Monday Pelosi reversed course and said she was willing to allow such a vote – in September. [3]

With all of this in mind I am not against the development of renewable energy sources. This, from a free market perspective, is a great thing. A new and potentially profitable market to tap into and it will spur some competition. Not to mention the potential it has for space exploration, medical industries, information technologies, etc. But, as of now, it is not ready for prime-time.

C.T.

[1] Green Investing
[2] Oil and Oily Politicians
[3] 61% say Congress Should Vote on Offshore Drilling Right Now

P.S. If I am right about the way the Left is going about this, their behavior is criminal and they are using the average American's future as a bargaining tool. On the other hand, I could just be giving them way to much credit for their intelligence and they are as short sighted, cultish, and idiotic as ever. I dunno.

Continue reading ...

Those Crazy California Nuts

C.T.

The enviro-left is at it again. This time they are trying to label the best enviro friendly cars, trucks, and SUV's in California. We all know we aren't smart enough to figure out which vehicles are the best for economy or the environment. Now, what this article doesn't mention is that the labels can be removed once the car is purchased from a dealership, so there is a mild plus side.

California is making it mandatory for cars to be labeled with global warming scores, figures that take into account emissions from vehicle use and fuel production. [1]

The labeling law forces cars for sale to display a global warming score, on a scale of one to 10, which is based on how vehicles in the same model year compare to one another. The higher the score, the cleaner a car is. The score takes into account emissions related to production of fuel for each vehicle as well as the direct emissions from vehicles. [1]

My main problem with this is it is another attempt of government regulation and encroachment into something stupid. We are all smart enough to figure out that a Hummer is less efficient than a Prius. I don't need Uncle Sam or the elitist, Berkley dwelling, Birkenstock wearing, eco-terrorists holding my hand like a five year old.

The government needs to be worried about how to lower fuel prices (Don't try and snow job me and tell me this will solve our energy problems either), dealing with our security, and our infrastructure. Let the market regulate this, more than enough people are informed consumers and there are more than enough outlets that a person can find information about vehicles.

Now here is where our European friends are going to help the government make a buck off of this. I knew there had to be a money trail in here somewhere. I am sure our pinheads, on this side of the pond, will take a cue an try and make this green more about the color of money than the environment.

A law endorsed by the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety would make governments put a monetary cost on the emissions of vehicles they plan to purchase, and add that to expense calculations. The law would exclude certain types of vehicles, such as ambulances and fire trucks. [1]

I do not give much credence to Global Warming cultists, nor do I give them much airtime on this blog. But, when they use their scare tactics as a tool to increase the size of government and its control I have a major problem with that. This is a very very small example of what we can expect in the coming years, if we let this go unchecked.

C.T.

[1] New Cars in California Must Display Global Warming Score

Continue reading ...