America's Energy Policy : No oil - No coal - No Nuclear

Why is it I have such a hard time believing our government has our best interests at heart? With the declaration of the Polar bear as an endangered item, we have set up yet another road block to energy independence. Why are they doing this? Everything that we have in this country is related to an adequate fossil fuels supply and will be this way for the foreseeable future.

The frustrating thing here is there is no threat to the polar bear - numerous studies have shown, in fact, the population of the polar bear has grown - why then has the Bush administration declared them endangered? What possible reason can they have to acquiescs to the demands of the eco-terrorists? What can they gain from stopping our exploration for oil that is the very bed rock of our economy?

I'm afraid you will find this article depressing in that it seems all common sense is gone from our leaders on both sides of the aisle - and it not just oil production they want stopped, it's coal fired electrical generating plants and all nuclear plants. Just how do they purpose to run the country with demand growing three times faster than supply?

Who are these people? Where in hell do they come from?

Sigh - please stay alert and write or call your representative demanding some common sense here. Meanwhile keep the faith, this way you will know the battle is joined.

Endangered energy acts*
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
*Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008

Fresh assaults on the future of energy supplies land daily. The U. S. government yesterday declared polar bears to be a "threatened species," a move that does nothing for polar bears but poses a major risk to future energy development in Alaska and the North.

In Canada, a federal court threw a roadblock yesterday in front of Imperial Oil's $8-billion Kearl oilsands project in a case that has come to focus on carbon emissions. Neither the polar bear nor the Kearl decision alone has an immediate impact on the supply or price of oil. But both have wide ramifications, giving environmental activists fresh foundations from which to delay, freeze, stall and ultimately permanently halt oil and gas exploration and development projects. They come on top of dozens, even hundreds, of regulatory barricades and government-imposed obstacles to energy production that have been and are routinely erected by governments all over the world. No wonder oil is at US$130 barrel.

And why not start thinking of US$200 or US$300?The Bush administration's polar bear decision is a pathetic capitulation to activists whose real purpose was not to save the polar bears -- which are not endangered or even threatened --but to shut down energy exploration. The Interior Secretary's press release was a sad display of self-deception. The decision contains a rule that "will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska," it said, a sentiment nobody else was buying.

Green Web sites were jumping at the news. Andrew Wetzler, director of the Endangered Species Project with the Natural Resources Defense Council, was quoted on GreenTech as saying the "threatened" designation is as good as an "endangered" designation. "No government permits may be issued affecting the polar bear without all concerned government agencies having a say." Mr. Wetzler said it's not likely any of the oil industry's oil and gas exploration projects would be found to be legal by the courts.

If the Democrats take the White House, it's expected that "no move affecting the polar bears in Alaska will go without a court challenge."Much the same conclusion was reached by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a pro-energy development group and opponent of global warming theory.

Iain Murray, an energy fellow at the group, said the so-called rule protecting "vital energy production" has no legs. It "just delays the day when global warming activists will be able to impose their policy of energy suppression."Up in Alberta, activists see the same opportunity emerging out of the Kearl decision. With greenhouse gases now declared the equivalent of pollution, Simon Dyer, the Pembina Institute's "director of oilsands," sees a trend. "You're going to see more of these challenges until we get adequate mitigation that does actually result in real and absolute reductions in greenhouse gas pollutants."

Other energy sources for North America are also behind numerous and mounting barriers to new supplies. Liquid gas terminals are under attack and are being postponed or cancelled. Exploration of other parts of Alaska are stalled for reasons other than polar bears. Mexico's energy production, under incompetent control of the state, is faltering.

In the United States, moreover, a new energy bill -- the Consumer-First Energy Act -- is rumbling around Congress. It promises windfall profit taxes on major oil companies, including taxes on the foreign operations of U. S. oil companies. The result of such legislation would be to further curb the development of new energy sources by major U. S. corporations working abroad. It is absurd to attempt to punish market-owned U. S. energy giants for price increases that they are not responsible for. The companies --Exxon, for example--are among a dwindling group of competent private energy giants that are being driven out of power by governments.

Around the world, in fact, more than 80% of the oil industry is in the control of governments and state enterprises whose efficiency and competence is dubious at best. In Russia, state interference has led to the beginning of a decline in production, posing an immediate threat to world supplies. State control is curbing the supply of oil and gas on a global basis, driving up prices.

Exxon said recently that its production out of Africa had fallen 20% as high oil prices and contract stipulations forced it to hand over production to local governments. Many of these states also limit investment in new supplies. That's one reason Gold-man Sachs recently issued a US$200-a-barrel price warning.

"Key oil-exporting countries for the most part continue to restrict foreign investment, which will likely keep a lid on how fast supply can grow."Between environmentalists and state planners and controllers, plus animosity toward the energy industry, keeping a lid on supply is the name of the game in energy these days. Pathetically, the Bush administration's polar bear release hailed the government's wind and solar energy strategy as the alternative.