It is not just coal whose use is targeted by the EPA; fracking technology has unleashed a boom in natural gas, but the Obama Administration has nominated an enemy of natural gas to chair the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Ron Binz regards it as a “dead end” because he too is a believer in carbon capture and storage. His answer to a non-existent global warming is “renewable” energy sources such as solar and wind. Solar currently provides 0.01% of the electricity fed to the grid and wind provides just 2%. FERC oversees much of the gas business and could effectively deter the growth of this industry with all of its attendant benefits from jobs to the reduction in the cost of electricity.
Energy is a big part of the entire Middle East discussion. Many people believe that if the U.S. were not dependent on OPEC oil, we’d have no involvement in the centuries-old tribal conflicts. Any vote for the President’s plan should be tied to decreasing dependence, increasing independence—or, more accurately, North American oil security. Two specific policy directives are needed. First, tie any authorization of military action in Syria to approval of the Keystone pipeline,.... Second, allow access to domestic oil and gas resources and expedite drilling permits on federal lands.
Obama doesn’t believe in the technology, creativity, and entrepreneurial spirit of Americans, Pendley told me. He believes in big government and its regulations. Pendley points out how he’s given the environmentalists a seat at the table where Reagan denied them the moral high ground. When the environmentalists—who for the previous two decades had been cloaked with an aura of inevitability, invincibility, and infallibility—said they “spoke for the planet and the needs of all living things not human,” Reagan responded: he “spoke for the dream of the American people and for the unborn generations to be free and prosperous.”
President Obama recently chose a steamy day at Georgetown University to announce his new climate action plan. But a new report from the Heritage Foundation is throwing lots of economic cold water on Obama’s overheated agenda.
Oil depletion allowances, the first category, principally apply to small independent producers, with similar benefits available for all mineral extraction, timber industries, etc., allowing them to pass the depletion on to individual investors. Large integrated corporations haven’t been eligible for these since the mid-1970s. Expensing indirect drilling costs involves writing off expenses in the year incurred rather than capitalizing them and writing them off over several years. Closing this “loophole” would only change the timing of taking he expense, not the total amounts of the so-called “subsidy.” The third category, a tax credit for taxes paid to foreign nations, is available for all international companies. This provides an offset to foreign taxes, often paid as royalties, so that the companies aren’t taxed twice on the same income.
Current EPA regulations are already closing coal-fueled power plants at an alarming rate—which New Mexico Public Regulations Commissioner Pat Lyons calls “the real energy crisis that no one is talking about.... Progressive thought leaders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhous state: “Energy poverty causes more harm to the poor than global warming” and cheap energy “makes the poor vastly less vulnerable to climate impacts.”
By circumventing Congress and unleashing the vast powers of the administrative regulatory state in the name of combating “climate change,” President Obama has – yet again – revealed his determination to subject the American people to the unchecked whims of the federal bureaucracy.
Natural gas is in plentiful supply these days. But now a company in Ohio has opened a test plant to convert this abundant energy source into diesel fuel.
Finding affordable and abundant sources of domestic energy has become a big priority in recent years. And while many options are being looked at, one that has taken the nation by storm is the development of shale gas.
Does hydraulic fracturing produce more wastewater than conventional natural gas production? Surprisingly, Dr. Brian Lutz, professor of biogeochemistry, says ‘no,’ and is here to explain why. . . .
Drilling opponents claim to be protecting the environment. In reality, they simply detest hydrocarbons, modern living standards, free enterprise and personal liberty. Commonsense policies will rejuvenate our economy, put Americans back to work....
Opponents of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, also known as “fracking,” have long claimed that it contaminants drinking water. Unfortunately for them, they have been unable to find such contamination . . .
New advances in extracting oil and natural gas from shale formations hold great promise for America’s energy future. Indeed, recent analysis indicates the West alone could generate 1.3 million barrels of production per day by 2020, exceeding our current daily imports from Russia, Iraq, and Kuwait combined.
It’s very apparent that the real intent is to make oil and gas more expensive in order to make the heavily subsidized, unreliable and costly ”renewable” energy programs they are pushing more cost-competitive. This is the Tonya Harding approach to energy… break your opponent’s kneecap if you can’t win fair and square.
My favorite parts of the movie were the extensive sections featuring the landowners who lease their land for frac’ing -– who are portrayed in Gasland and Promised Land as unwitting dupes of evil industrialists. But these landowners knew far, far more about both frac’ing and water than the pseudo-documentarians who infantalize them.