Posts Tagged by Barack Obama
|April 4, 2012||Posted by Beth Shaw under Energy, Issues|
Even though President Obama has indicated that he may (or may not) rethink his rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline, his initial rejection of it has caused Canada to rethink their energy partnership with the United States. After all, Canada has to look after their own interests.
“Look, the very fact that a ‘no’ could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets,” Harper said. “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.”
The Prime Minister also mentioned that Canada has been selling oil to the United States at a discounted price. But now that the Great White North is expanding its oil export market, that discount will probably disappear.
Get that? The U.S. will not only have less access to Canadian oil but it will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude is expanding (and therefore more competitive).
“We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy,” Harper said. “We’re still going to be a major supplier of the United States. It will be a long time, if ever, before the United States isn’t our number one export market, but for us the United States cannot be our only export market.”
This is what happens when you try to make everybody happy on both sides of an issue. Everyone ends up unhappy. Either way, we end up paying more for less oil.
|March 30, 2012||Posted by Beth Shaw under Energy, Issues|
Today’s failed environmentally friendly stimulus program is A123 Systems, hailed by former Democratic Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm as a federal stimulus ‘success story. Nancy Pelosi called it a ‘great example of how Recovery Act funding is helping American companies.’ Nearly $300 million of Obama Recovery Act Funds and $135 million in tax credits and subsides used to keep jobs and money in Pelosi’s state.
So how’s this Obama tax-payer funded money working out for us? Well, it’s on the verge of bankruptcy. Another Solyndra? Is there any end to the Obama funded eco-friendly businesses that just aren’t working? At what point do we learn that utilizing the resources that are abundantly available to us in this country are not only the answer to our energy problems but also the answer to our economic and employment problems?
From Michelle Malkin:
How’s the return on government investment? This green dud will have taxpayers seeing red. A123′s official company motto is “Power. Safety. Life.” But the firm’s reality is “Out of power. Endangering safety. Clinging to life.”
Earlier this week, the company announced a recall of malfunctioning battery packs manufactured in Livonia, Mich. A123 makes the products for Fisker, Chevrolet and BMW electric cars. Consumer Reports flagged the potentially hazardous defect caused by faulty calibration earlier this month. The recall will cost upward of $55 million.
A Deutsche Bank analyst wrote: “We no longer have enough confidence that (A123) can raise sufficient capital (without massive equity dilution) and/or continue to augment their book to future business. Recent quality issues may lead to concerns over (A123′s) ability to manufacture with quality at high volumes, potentially leading to customer defections or at least difficulty in procuring new contracts.”
When it rains, it pours. The dead battery debacle follows news of 125 layoffs in November due to diminished vehicle production by top client Fisker Auto. That troubled company (which A123 has itself dumped $20.5 million of stock equity and cash into) admitted faulty wiring problems with its electric cars.
While Michigan workers lost their jobs, Massachusetts executives burned through $155 million in cash this year and the company stock plummeted to just over $1. A123 lost a net $172 million over the first three quarters of 2011 and has yet to see a profit. Like Solyndra’s top brass, A123 managers have been living high on the hog and partying it up with Democratic Party bigwigs.
The Michigan-based Mackinac Center reports that in February, “A123′s Compensation Committee approved a $30,000 raise for (Chief Financial Officer David) Prystash just days after (its primary customer) Fisker Automotive announced the U.S. Energy Department had cut off what was left of its $528.7 million loan it had previously received.”
Prystash’s hike was 8.5 percent, taking his base salary from $350,000 to $380,000. One A123 vice president, Robert Johnson, received a 20.7 percent pay increase that saw his salary grow from $331,250 to $400,000. Another vice president, Jason Forcier, vice president of the automotive solutions group, climbed from a $331,250 base salary to $350,000.
Analyst Paul Chesser of the D.C.-based National Legal and Policy Center raises pointed questions about the timing of the pay raises: “Were their actions intended as greater protection for their executives in the case of a sale or bankruptcy of the company?” Inquiring House GOP investigators looking into the Obama Department of Energy’s big green boondoggles should want to know.
And taxpayers should want to know more about the cozy ties between A123 and the White House and Democratic politicians. A123 Systems CEO David Vieau showered Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and key Democrats on Capitol Hill with nearly $17,000 before receiving the stimulus injection. A123 enviro-boodle also flowed to Mass. Sen. John Kerry and Rep. Ed Markey. Betting on “smart grid” cronyism has been a bonanza for the well-connected — and a big, bad bet for taxpayers.
|February 16, 2012||Posted by Beth Shaw under Energy, Issues|
Native Alaskans are being snubbed by the Obama Administration’s EPA. All an Alaska Native consortium wanted was a chance to ask Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Director Lisa Jackson for assurance their villages and native culture will be preserved. They were denied the opportunity which in turn denies the opportunity for jobs in an area in the midst of devastating economic depression.
Abe Williams and Lisa Reimers of Nuna Resources (an Alaska Native consortium) went to Washington last week with a very reasonable request. They had written and asked for a meeting with EPA Director Lisa Jackson to talk with her about the Pebble Mine Project in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska.
You see, they represent the area of Alaska that is most affected by whether or not the enormous copper deposit is harvested. The situation for the tribes of that area is dire. The Native Alaskans of the area have little opportunity, and so many are leaving behind their homes and community to seek opportunity elsewhere. The migration away from the area is decimating the Native Alaskan culture, traditions and community. Without opportunity, few will be left to pass the traditions along to subsequent generations.
Williams and Reimers went to Washington to ask for the opportunity to save their community and culture. They didn’t ask for an bail-out. All they asked for was fair hearings for the Pebble Limited Partnership.
Nuna Resources and its native village constituency want to allow impartial scientific studies to build the Pebble Mine near their homes and villages. The natives do not specifically endorse the mine, which would exploit the largest known ore body of copper on the planet. But they want its proposed developer, the Pebble Limited Partnership, to be given a fair hearing for its claims of environmental and cultural protection on Native traditional lands.
Jackson would not even give Williams and Reimers a meeting. The EPA’s emailed reply their request for one — on Feb. 6, 7 or 8 — came just two days before their already-scheduled flights: “While the Administrator greatly appreciates this request, she will unfortunately be unavailable.”
The note ended, “Have a nice day.” Really.
If the Pebble Mine Project is safe, then they can have jobs and a chance to save their community. It would seem that fair hearings would be a very reasonable and rational request. Unfortunately for Williams, Reimers and the Native Alaskan community they represent, that doesn’t fit the party line. Their request was denied.
You have to HAVE ‘green’ to BE ‘green’ and no one is giving Nuna Resources millions of dollars like is being filtered through to the radical environmentalists. The monied left and well-heeled environmentalists don’t have a problem having their voices heard. They are backed by big money to fund AstroTurf faux outrage through groups like ‘Stop Pebble Mine’ and ‘Save Bristol Bay’. They have almost unlimited funding for advertising and public relations (propaganda?) from the millions donated by the likes of Gordon Moore of Intel, Tiffany Company Foundation and Brainerd Foundation who funnel money through anti-development Big Green groups like Natural Resources Defense Council, Trout Unlimited and EarthWorks.
While the Native Alaskans of the area are facing devastating economic hardships (paying $9 for a gallon of milk and $8 for a gallon of gas!) environmentalists are loudly declaring that harvesting the ample supplies of copper in the area will endanger the native salmon. The radical left ignores the reality of the situation. The area can have their fish and their jobs as well. The Pebble Mine study has just been released. The exhaustive scientific study conducted over 7-years at a cost of $150 million using more than 40 respected independent research firms represents the company’s commitment to protecting the fish and the environment as an integral part of the project.
Is it really better to get our copper from China than from Alaska? Will China be more concerned with protecting the environment than Americans? I think not. It seems to be more of a ‘not in my backyard’ kind of argument. We have to have copper so it will come from somewhere. Why insist it come from somewhere without the regulations and restrictions that will undoubtedly be MORE damaging to the environment? That’s irrational and counterproductive to the very cause they claim to embrace. But when has reason ever stopped a good money-making ’cause’. Buckets of money, in fact.
The problem is that while it’s a ‘feel good’ issue for many of the environmentalist – you know, stand up and make a big stand about something that you only know anything about at a very shallow level – its being done standing on the necks of the people who live in the area. The native people are suffering so some environmentalists can feel like their lives have meaning or some of the major financial backers can have even more money in their own portfolios.
In reality, mining copper and gold from the Pebble Mine Project in Alaska is a win-win situation for everyone involved (other than those who have a financial interest in stopping it). It is better for the environment (as opposed to getting the copper from somewhere else), it already is providing jobs in Alaska and will provide tens of thousands of jobs in the long run in a depressed area of the country and it will provide American’s copper at a better price than if it were bought from other countries.
Seriously, what is the downside?
The problem is that it flies in the face of the monied environmentalists that Obama is courting for his re-election campaign. He’s playing nice with the environmentalists while America jobs are being lost and the environment damaged by having us obtain copper from countries where how it is extracted from the Earth is not so well monitored.
Unless something is done, Obama and his environmentally radical EPA will ‘Keystone’ the Pebble mine project.
Here’s what you can do:
- Add your comments to the article written by Ron Arnold. Tell the nay-sayers they are out of touch!
- Share this story with your friends and family on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks. Use this link to share: http://bit.ly/yV2XPQ
- Tweet this story using the hash tag #GivePebbleAChance. You can follow and mention us @ResourceEarth as well.
- Join the nearly 40,000 others in our Facebook community by clicking here.
|January 20, 2012||Posted by Beth Shaw under Issues|
Canada’s Prime Minister Steven Harper has expressed his ‘profound disappointment’ in Obama’s decision to deny permits for TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline to be shared with the United States. Harper has said it seems to be best for Canada to look at diversifying. At this point Canada and the United States partner on most of the imports and exports of crude. Instead of putting all their eggs in the United States’ basket, they’ll look to China.
President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”
The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.
Currently, 99 percent of Canada’s crude exports go to the U.S., a figure that Harper wants to reduce in his bid to make Canada a “superpower” in global energy markets.
Canada accounts for more than 90 percent of all proven reserves outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to data compiled in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Most of Canada’s crude is produced from oil-sands deposits in the landlocked province of Alberta, where output is expected to double over the next eight years, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
“I am sure that if the oil sands production is not used in the United States, they will be used in other countries,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said in an interview before a speech at Imperial College in London today.
Is Obama putting his own job security ahead of the national interest of the United States. What happens if Canada decides to build the Keystone XL Pipeline to their west coast – and on to Asia – to be refined instead of through the United States? Do the radical environmentalists really think that China will refine that oil more cleanly than the United States? Or perhaps they just will feel better about themselves that they accomplished something. But what will they and Barack Obama have accomplished?
Losing the Keystone XL Pipeline will further weaken America’s standing in the world. Tens of thousands of American jobs will be lost. The American economy will lose an excellent opportunity to help jump-start our faltering economy. Gas prices will rise. Meanwhile, Canada will develop stronger bonds with China and China’s economy and global standing will continue to grow. Ironically, whatever damage might (or might not) be done to the environment will be worse because China’s regulations are no where near as stringent as those in place in the United States.
There really isn’t an upside to losing the opportunity for the United States to participate in the Keystone XL Pipeline. Yet Obama is willing to do just that in hopes of getting the environmentalists votes for his re-election. Where is the hope and change in that?
Please help us make this madness stop before it’s too late. Sign the petition!
[FACEBOOK] http://on.fb.me/yomDu2 Sign the petition! Urge the Obama Administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline by the February 21 deadline.
[TWITTER] Sign the petition: http://bit.ly/A8K2mV Urge #Obama to approve the #KeystoneXL pipeline by the February 21 deadline! #YesKXL
|May 18, 2011||Posted by Resourceful Earth News under Energy, Issues|
The Obama administration has come out in support of oil production; too bad it’s in the “wrong” America. During a trip to South America, the President endorsed off-shore drilling off the coast of Brazil. But why doesn’t the administration support the same strategy on its home turf?
The most remarkable event this week was President Barack Obama endorsement of more oil production—in Brazil. In a speech to CEOs in Brasilia, Obama said:
By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States. We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.
I’m all for more oil production in Brazil, but what’s good for Brazil would also be good for the United States. Were the federal government to open some of America’s vast untapped offshore and Alaskan oil resources, it would lower our trade deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, provide billions of dollars in royalties to the federal treasury, create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs not subsidized by taxpayer dollars, and contribute significantly to our long-term prosperity. Given the economy’s current dismal long-term prospects, continuing to lock up our resources is detestable.
President Obama’s remarks in Brazil show that he understands this. He clearly thinks prosperity is good for Brazil. But it is something that he is working mightily to deny to Americans. He and his administration have adopted policies that they know will reduce oil and coal production, raise energy prices, and make Americans poorer. As the President said when gas prices reached $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008 when he was running for President, the problem wasn’t the price, but that prices had risen too suddenly. In fact, the Administration is full of senior officials who are on record supporting much higher gasoline and electricity prices, starting with Energy Secretary Steven Chu.