Obama’ s Nonexistent Role in Fossil Fuel Development

0
Share

President Obama thinks we are back. Last February, he said, “…our plane is up there and we are at cruising altitude.” We are not only not back, he is going to sink us further into recession if he has his way with fossil fuels.

There is a reason North Dakota is thriving – it’s drilling. The environmentalists are after them already, trying to claim they are destroying the earth. We used to think of these people as extremists – loons if you will – now we vote them into the presidency.

The only fossil fuel Obama has said he supports is natural gas but that will end after the election. There is a war on fraking.

President Obama has cut drilling in public lands by half, he is shutting down all coal plants, and he’s going after fraking after the election. The EPA is chomping at the bit to pass their new impossible-to-meet measures.

In the second debate, Obama raves about being a great fossil fuel proponent:

The real Obama wants solar and wind, period. He is that extreme.

President Obama is campaigning as a champion of the oil and gas boom he’s had nothing to do with, and even as his regulators try to stifle it.

In August, the Interior Department decided to close off from drilling in nearly half of the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. We are not talking ANWAR her.

  • In 1976, the National Petroleum Reserve was designated by Congress as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the “energy needs of the nation.” Alaska favors exploration in nearly the entire reserve.
  • The feds reviewed four potential development plans, Alaska strongly objected the most restrictive, which is the one Interior chose.
  • Interior Secretary Ken Salazar gave the usual talking points, not worth repeating. Almost no one in the energy industry and in the state itself agree with him.
  • The entire Alaska delegation in Congress—Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young—call it “the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades.” This decision, they add, “will cause serious harm to the economy and energy security of the United States, as well as to the state of Alaska.” Mr. Begich is a Democrat.
  • They sent a letter with this information, also stating that it “will significantly limit options for a pipeline” through the reserve. Mr. Salazar said the pipeline could still be built. [Like Keystone XL]
  • The government is going to make it the next ANWAR, which cannot be drilled for faux environmental objections…[WSJ]

During the debate, Obama said that gas prices under Bush were lower because the economy was poor. In mid-February 2012, he said this, “gas prices are on the rise again because as the economy strengthens, global demand for oil increases.”

Of course, he doesn’t explain the low gas prices for 7 years of a good economy under Bush, or the low gas prices under Clinton or Reagan.

Must we now assume that if he improves our economy even more, our gas prices will go to Energy Secretary Chu’s desired $8 – $9 a gallon?

Lowering prices is not a goal, getting us to stop using gas as a resource is the goal:

Investors.com reported in February of this year that Chu claimed “the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up.” At the same time, Obama has repeatedly feigned an inability to do anything about oil prices even though we are awash with oil and gas.

Whenever Obama has had the chance to encourage production, he’s done the opposite:

• He needlessly halted Gulf drilling permits after the BP oil spill, and continues to slow-walk them. Permit approvals are less than half their pre-Obama average, and approval times have nearly doubled.

• Obama scuttled the 700,000-barrels-a-day Keystone XL pipeline, despite approval by the State Department after an exhaustive three-year review.

• And he endlessly demonizes oil companies while pushing to sharply raise their taxes.

The truth is that for Obama, low gas prices are the problem, since they would hamper progress toward his “green” Nirvana is where we all hop on government trains and putter around in government-approved electric cars. It’s just that he’s smart enough not to say this out loud.

Let’s not forget that he wants electricity to skyrocket – it’s a necessity. The costs will have to be passed onto consumers.

It will skyrocket because the new rules coming out after Obama’s re-election when he has “more flexibility” will destroy new and old coal plants.

The EPA has promised to destroy coal:

This next speech is from 2008. The key phrase Obama uses in the next video at 2:18 is “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that is being emitted…”

Instead of using the system of taxing emissions, which did not pass Congress, he has the EPA doing it through impossible regulations, most of which are coming after the election:

In March, 2012, the EPA was about to issue stringent carbon emissions standards on coal that will prevent the building of any new coal-fired facilities in the United States. [The worst rules have now been delayed until March 2013]

  • The standards are deliberately unattainable and will soon limit facilities already built. Many existing plants will shut down as opposed to upgrading at great expense – it won’t be worth the expense only to have the EPA throw more and more rules at them, which you know they will.
  • One new rule requires double the containment of greenhouse gases that all but two new coal plants are capable of achieving.
  • The rule will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.
  • At the present time, 45% of the electricity in the United States comes from coal. A more gradual transition from coal to natural gas would have eased the economic consequences which the left insists will be insignificant. Coal is cheap but is blamed for extensive pollution. Obama has refused to pursue clean coal as he promised before his election. He will destroy it in a second term.

He will bankrupt coal and he doesn’t care about he loss of thousands of jobs:

He can lie during a debate but the proof is in his actions. The jobs he will destroy are insignificant to him. It has never been about jobs, but rather, it is about his ideology, right or wrong, and no matter what the people want.

Our country has more oil and gas than any mid-East country. We could build solar and wind farms if we would also drill for our own rich natural resources. We could be independent of the foreign oil, something Obama promised to do and claims falsely that he is doing.

If Howard Dean is right about our following Kyoto as he claims in the audio clip at the end, it means we will also involve the U.N. in our destruction of fossil fuels. They want a global tax on emissions.

Howard Dean claimed to have seen an executive order in 2009 which required the U.S. to follow the Kyoto Treaty.

“Most people don’t know that. But the fact is I actually for the first time in July of 2009 read an entire presidential executive order, which is over 50 pages of legally gobbledygook which requires the government of the United States to comply with Kyoto. Luckily the Republicans never – I guess most of them can’t read that far anyway. And it’s an extraordinary thing.” ~ Howard Dean, discussing the Executive Order

Share