Recently in Energy Category

If there is anyone left without any doubt that the Obama administration is hell-bent on destroying the economy of the United States, they are either:

a.     Naïve

b.     Stupid

c.     Lying

d.     A Democrat

e.     All of the above

FOX NEWS AND HUFFINGTON POST REPORTS:  Shell Oil just announced that it must scrap its plans to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean this summer.  Drilling off the northern coast of Alaska will terminate before it gets a chance to get off the ground due to a ruling by the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits.

The oil giant has spent five years and close to $4 billion dollars in its quest to explore for oil in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.  The leases cost an additional $2.2 billion, which makes Shell Oil's investment over $6 billion and it has nothing to show for it.  Next thing you know the liberals in Congress will be complaining that Shell took the $6 billion loss as a deduction on its corporate tax return and are therefore not paying its fair share of taxes.  That's the liberal mentality; create a problem and then dance around and try to deflect responsibility through political sleight-of-hand and class warfare.  

Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says that obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take somewhere around 45 days.  But the Appeals Board's rationale for denying the permits is that the drilling would be hazardous to people who live in the region.  The folks who would ostensibly be victimized live in the burgeoning metropolis of Kaktovik, Alaska, one of the most remote places in the United States.  The village is one square mile in area and sits on the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles from the proposed drill site.  Population:  245.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the drill area has an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil.  That is two and one-half times more oil than has flowed down the Trans Alaska pipeline in the 30 years of its existence.   That pipeline is precipitously low on oil and is carrying only about one-third of its capacity.  The production on the North Slope is declining at a rate of about 7 percent per year and pipeline officials say they will be forced to shut it down if the volume gets any lower.  

Now for those of you who are mathematically impaired (or too lazy to get out your calculator,) the United States imports 160 million barrels of oil a year from our "friends" in Saudi Arabia.  So we could replace all of Saudi Arabian oil for 168+ years.   In 2010 the oil cartel OPEC exported 1,783,170,000 barrels of oil to the U.S.   Just the oil from this Arctic find could replace all the oil we import (from nations that seek to destroy us and use our petrodollars to finance terrorism and buy off our politicians) for 15 years.  Is that going to give us all the oil we need in the long term?  The answer is no.  But we haven't included the oil in Bakken, ANWR or off our coasts.

What the Heck is a Bakken Formation?

The Bakken formation, initially described by geologist J.W. Nordquist in 1953, is a rock unit from the Late Devonian to Early Mississippian age occupying about 200,000 square miles (520,000 km2) of the subsurface of the Williston Basin, covering parts of Montana, North Dakota, and Saskatchewan. The formation is entirely in the subsurface, and has no surface outcrop. (Source:  Wikipaedia.)

The mother of all Bakken estimates comes from Dr. Leigh Price, who worked for the U.S. Geological Survey. Price estimated that the Bakken could generate between 271 billion and 503 billion barrels of oil with an average of 413 billion barrels. Price came up with a higher amount than his peers because he argued that oil from the Bakken had not migrated to the Mission Canyon or Madison formation and was thus still trapped within the Bakken. Price also put a recoverable estimate at the Bakken resource at 50%, implying that approximately 200 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from here. (Source:  Investopaedia)

How Much ANWR Oil Are We Talking About?

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) examined ANWR's coastal plain, specifically Area 1002, to estimate the amount of technically recoverable oil. Based on the geology, the USGS projected that there could be anywhere from 5.7 billion to 16 billion barrels of oil (average = 10.4 billion barrels). Of this potential oil, 74 percent lies on federal lands, with the remaining oil on state and native lands. So 7.7 billion barrels of oil might be located on the federal portion of ANWR (based on the average numbers). For comparison, the rest of the undiscovered, recoverable oil within the United States is estimated at 120 billion barrels [source: U.S. DOE]. Therefore, the estimated oil within Area 1002 is about 8.7 percent of the total undiscovered, recoverable oil within the United States. Since 1998, there have been no further surveys of ANWR oil.  (Source:  US Geological Survey.)

Even if these estimates are off by 50%, we could have enough oil to be self-sufficient for several decades.  That's certainly more than enough time to find an alternative, viable and cost-effective energy source to power our economy.  So, anyone telling you we are running out of oil is just flat out lying to you.  But what else would you expect from ideologues who believe America is what's wrong with the world and it needs to be "transformed." 

Alaskan officials are fuming over the EPA ruling.  Alaska's DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan said:  "It's driving investment and production overseas.  That doesn't help the United States in any way, shape or form." 

As a side note, the Environmental Appeals Board has four members:  Edward Reich, Charles Sheehan, Kathie Stein and Anna Worgast.  They are all registered Democrats and Ms. Stein was an activist attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund; one of the foremost so-called environmental groups responsible for our inability to drill for domestic oil, natural gas and the building of nuclear and clean-coal-fired power plants.

Put together with the moratorium on deep water drilling, the denial of leases to drill in ANWR, the Bakken fields and off-shore, and you have a formula for economic destruction.

Yes, that's change we can believe in.


| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Since the disastrous tsunami and earthquake his Japan, we've been subjected to non-stop, 24/7 coverage of the nuclear power plant that is about to rain down nuclear contaminants worldwide.  Our so-called mainstream media has been inundating us with apocalyptic scenarios that contemplate a nuclear meltdown.  Even FOX News' Shepard Smith, who is on site in Japan, can be seen wringing his hands (much like he did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) and wondering what will become of mankind.

So much for fair and balanced.


Here is what you don't know: UPDATE AS OF 11:20 A.M. EDT, FRIDAY, MARCH 18:


"Reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are in stable condition, with workers continuing to provide seawater cooling into the reactors. Containment integrity is believed to be intact on reactors 1, 2 and 3, and containment building pressures are elevated but are within design limits.


Site radiation doses have been decreasing since March 16. Radiation dose rates are fluctuating based on some of the relief operations, such as adding cooling water to the used fuel pools. Recent readings at the plant boundary are about 2 millirem per hour. Radiation dose rates at reactor 3 range between 2,500 and 5,000 millirem per hour.


The Japanese Self-Defense Force restarted cooling water spray into the Unit 3 reactor building and spent fuel pool at around 1 a.m. EDT on March 18. Plans are to spray 50 tons of water on the reactor 3 reactor building/spent fuel pool using seven fire-fighting trucks.


A diesel generator is supplying power to reactors 5 and 6. TEPCO is installing high voltage cables from a nearby transmission line to reactors 1 and 2. Once electricity supply is re-established, priority will be given to restoring power to reactor heat removal systems and cooling water pumps. Workers are seeking to install electrical cables to reactors 3 and 4 components in about two days.


All four reactors at Fukushima Daini remain shut down with normal cooling being maintained using residual heat removal systems.


Daiichi Accident Rated 5 on International Event Scale


New International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) ratings have been issued for the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants, the International Atomic Energy Agency said.


Reactor core damage at the Daiichi reactors 2 and 3 caused by a loss of cooling function has resulted in a rating of 5 on the seven-point scale.


The loss of cooling and water supply functions in the spent fuel pool of reactor 4 was rated a 3, or "serious" incident. The loss of cooling functions in the reactors 1, 2 and 4 of the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant has led to a rating of 3.


The rating for the Chernobyl accident was 7, or a "major accident" on the INES scale. The Three Mile Island accident was 5, or an "accident with wider consequences." For more information on INES, see the IAEA's website and this IAEA leaflet."


This report can be found at:


I know that sensationalism sells, but isn't it about time our media, exercise a little judgement.  All it is doing is putting another nail in our coffin by never letting a crisis go to waste.  The real crisis though, is the ability of the United States to supply enough electricity to sustain itself.  And make no mistake, we're in a battle for our very existence. 


The environmentalist movement's push to move us back to the Stone Age continues unabated.  We've been inundated with gruesome details of a nuclear catastrophe unless we stop building nuclear power plants.  They say we must move away from oil because it pollutes; no nuclear because it's too dangerous.  Only wind and solar power will be acceptable in the New World Order.  But let's look at the realities. 

What is more dangerous:  Nuclear or Wind power?  The following is an article by Ed Hiserodt writing in The New American that might open your eyes:


"Nuclear power is portrayed by the major media and by environmental activists as dangerous and perhaps even sinister.  Wind power, on the other hand, is considered benign. But the track records of nuclear power and wind power present a different picture.


Nuclear power has been been used to produce electricity for more than four decades, beginning with the Shippingport nuclear power plant in 1957. Today there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States generating some 60 billion kilowatt hours per year of electricity. There have been no deaths from radiation in more than 40 years of American nuclear plant operations. Even considering the "catastrophe" at Three Mile Island,  there has not been a single case of injury to any member of the public. (There were fatalities at the Russian Chernobyl plant, but that plant was radically different from an American nuclear power plant. It did not even have a containment structured around the nuclear reactor.)


How about wind power? How does it fare compared to the perfect record of the American nuclear power industry?  Believe it or not, there is an organization, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, that keeps data on wind-power-related accidents and/or design problems. Caithness is based in Great Britain, where homeowners have already grown tired of the noise and other wind-turbine-generated problems. Their "Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 31 December 2008"  reports 41 worker fatalities.  Most, not unexpectedly, were from falling  as they are typically working on turbines some thirty stories above the ground. In addition, Caithness attributed the deaths of 16 members of the public to wind-turbine accidents.


A summary of accidents includes:


• 139 incidents of blade failure. Failed blades have been known to travel over a quarter mile, and that is from turbines much smaller than those being manufactured today. This type of accident has caused some European countries to require a minimum distance of about one mile (2 km) between occupied housing and wind turbines.


•110 incidents of fire. When a wind turbine fire occurs, the local fire departments (without 30-story ladder trucks) can do little but watch. This isn't a problem unless the wind is blowing sufficiently to scatter the debris into dry fields or woodlands -- or maybe onto your roof.


• 60 incidents of structural failure. This includes turbine failure and tower collapse failures. While not now a problem for the public -- except having to gaze upon at a bent-over wind turbine -- it may well become one as governments, under pressure from environmental activists, encourage marginal- and hastily-sited wind projects in urban areas where such an accident could kill and maim.


• 24 incidents of "ice throw" with human injury. These data may be a small fraction of actual incidences, with 880 icing events reported in a 13-year period for Germany alone.


Why these fatalities for wind compared to none for the American nuclear power industry? Nuclear energy comes from a reactor core about the size of a living room where it can be monitored and contained in-depth. It would take 2,000 30-story tall wind turbines to produce the power of a typical nuclear plant, assuming 90 percent and 30 percent capacity factors. How many accidents would you expect when building 2,000 30-story turbine generators as compared to pouring concrete for a single containment building of a few thousand square feet?"


If you think you'll see any "reporter" on the alphabet networks cite these facts, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.   


So next time you see perky Katie Couric or some other talking head looking forlorn when opining about the dangers of a nuclear disaster, try thinking. 

It's makes their job so much harder.

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Yes - completely OUTRAGEOUS!

California energy regulators have allowed a temporary 7% - 15% electricity rate increase. This comes amid the Standard and Poors's downgrades in bond ratings to the only step above junk status.

While the dust of the much maligned - deregulation policy still settles, Utilities are hemorrhaging billions more in cash (energy expenses) than they have been allowed to collect from customers.

While deregulation is bearing the blame it is rather a two-pronged fork that is the fulcrum for this energy crisis:

1) artificial price caps in place which do not allow the utilities to charge a market rate ...
2) A policy of 'No energy Policy' save that of no search, no find, no production of same.

Looters masquerading as consumer advocates professed outrage at the temporary increase and referred to the current pricing structure as 'gouging'. While one spokeswoman gleefully indicated that 'she didn't care if the utilities went out of business'; I would urge us all to contemplate the full measure of her wish.

When Private Utility Companies are forced out of business in California, there are only a couple of options: Let the entire state grow dark and literally grind to a halt or (more likely) have the 'State' step in and take over the 'obviously failed policies of private ownership.'

Could this be the 'shot across the bow' for the rest of our nation? Environmentalist and Consumer Advocates lobby for legislation that disallows Private Sector Companies from producing a profit, then forces those same companies to continue to provide goods and services to those same groups based on need.

What does it signify when the 'motor of business' (the profit motive) is carved from the enterprise and what does it indicate about those (looters) who are willing to participate? How - in America ( you know - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness), can it be that these plunders are allowed to roam free without the public outcry and condemnation that these criminal acts demand?