KingDollar Will Cut Oil Prices

Friday, 16 Mar 2012 | 4:40 PM ET

By: Larry Kudlow
CNBC Anchor

No matter how much President Obama protests, the simple fact is that he continues to oppose and mock and disparage oil and gas drilling. He is a prisoner of the environmental left, and he remains on the wrong side of energy history.

And that’s exactly why he has a 59 percent negative rating on the economy, according to a recent poll, even though jobs and other indicators have actually picked up.

It’s about $4 or higher gas at the pump. Polls overwhelmingly show that Americans want drilling in ANWR and offshore, and that they want hydraulic fracturing of shale for oil and gas. They also overwhelmingly want the Keystone Pipeline (by roughly 70 percent).

And they believe the government can act quickly to lower gas prices in the short run.

But the president scoffs at all this. In his energy speech this week, he suggested that the drill, drill, drill crowd (of which I have long been a member) would have founded the Flat Earth Society. He says we might even have sided with 19th-century president, Rutherford B. Hayes.

Ha, ha, ha. Very funny.

But the reality is, oil, gas, and coal -- not wind, solar, geothermal, and algae -- are going to be crucial to America’s transportation, electricity, and economic growth for many decades to come.

What’s particularly galling about Obama’s riff is his constant use of a false statistic. The president argues that America uses more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, although “even if we drill in every square inch of this country, we still only have 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves.”

This is just patently untrue. According to the Institute for Energy Research, when you include oil shale, the U.S. has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil. That is enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for about the next 200 years, without any imports.

With the technology revolution in the energy business, including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking, the old idea of proved oil reserves that Obama keeps using is replaced with the new concept of recoverable resources. Many thanks to Investor’s Business Daily for its story that the U.S. now has 60-times more recoverable oil reserves than Obama claims. And that doesn’t even include the natural-gas shale revolution, which has already slashed electricity prices for homes and businesses and will eventually be used more and more in transportation.

And then there’s the EPA, which is holding up oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska’s North Slope, ANWR, Utah tar sands, and the whole Green River Formation in Wyoming and neighboring states. Energy development on private lands is leading to greater development and production. But the Obama administration is still way behind on permits for drilling on federal land or offshore.

Steps could in fact be taken to lower gas prices in the short run. EPA mandates for boutique gasoline supplies and ethanol mixtures could be eased, perhaps saving 50 cents a gallon -- without sacrificing clean air.

But the best idea I’ve heard to ease gasoline prices comes from Joint Economic Committee vice chairman Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican. He has proposed the Sound Dollar Act, which would require the Fed to monitor gold and the foreign-exchange value of the dollar . He would also replace the Fed’s dual mandate with a single mandate for price stability.

A stronger dollar is key. The Joint Economic Committee just put out a study showing that a 10 to 15 percent appreciation of the greenback to pre-recession levels (before the Fed launched its massive dollar-creation, pump-priming campaign) would lower gasoline prices by 43 cents. So if the Treasury and the Federal Reserve strengthened the value of the dollar, oil and gasoline prices would decline.

It’s an excellent idea. The best one out there. A return to King Dollar would boost consumer real incomes, attract capital from all over the world, and grow the economy at a faster rate.

So there is an action plan on energy. The laws of supply and demand will work to hold back prices. So will a strong dollar. So will easier regulatory mandates. And if market forces generate clean-energy alternatives, then fine. But a true all-of-the-above strategy would take the handcuffs and the sarcasm off of fossil-fuel drilling.

Rutherford B. Hayes can’t do it because he’s dead. But Obama could. Or more likely, a new White House occupant will.

oil

Obama and our Oil Dependence

Why not make us more dependent upon 'foreign oil' ...
We have until recently, been purchasing almost 50% of our oil from Canada (which, technically is foreign, but is not a Middle Eastern tyranny nor a hotbed for terrorism aimed at the US).  Mr. Obama has basically told the Canadians we are not interested in any oil beyond what we already have shipped to us (such as oil in a pipeline that would decrease our dependence on foreign oil, funding governments who support terrorism).

And now Canada will turn to China - a country that is swallowing up the earth's oil.

Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline

By Theophilos Argitis and Jeremy Van Loon –

Jan 19, 2012

Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Chris Huntington, partner at New Energy Advisors, and Sabrina Willmer and Jeff Green of Bloomberg News talk about President Barack Obama's decision to deny a permit for TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL Pipeline. They also talk about the prospects for a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. private-equity fund dedicated to energy. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television's "Taking Stock." (Source: Bloomberg)

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 fromoil-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 Londontoday.

‘Profound Disappointment’

Harper “expressed his profound disappointment with the news,” according to the statement, which added that Obama told Harper the rejection was not based on the project’s merit and that the company is free to re-apply.

Canada this month began hearings on a proposed pipeline by Enbridge Inc. to move crude from Alberta’s oil sands to British Columbia’s coast, where it could be shipped to Asian markets.

Environmentalists and Canadian opposition lawmakers welcomed the Obama administration’s decision. Megan Leslie, a lawmaker for the opposition New Democratic Party, said the Keystone pipeline project was harmful to Canada’s energy security.

“What I’m opposed to is continuing the unchecked expansion of the oil sands,” Leslie said by telephone.

New Flashpoint

Enbridge’s pipeline may now become the new flashpoint between Harper and the opposition. Harper has said building the capacity to sell the country’s oil to Asian markets is in the national interest, and the government will review regulatory-approval rules for new energy projects so they can be done more quickly. Harper has also said he will look more closely into complaints that “foreign money” is being used to overload the regulatory process.

“We have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time, and processes that cannot be hijacked,” Harper said at a press conference Jan. 6 in Edmonton.

The Keystone decision is the latest of several U.S. moves that have irked Canadian policy makers. Canada objected to “Buy American” provisions in the Obama administration’s $447 billion jobs bill that was blocked by Republicans in Congress, as well as the restoration of a $5.50 fee on Canadian travelers arriving in the U.S. by plane or ship.

Approval of Keystone is a “no-brainer,” Harper said in a Sept. 21 interview with Bloomberg.

Cornerstone of Development

Yesterday’s rejection “certainly introduces new uncertainties into the economic relationship,” said David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies inWashington. “This is a cornerstone of economic development for the country.”

The denial came before a Feb. 21 deadline set by Congress after Obama postponed a decision in November. TransCanada said the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) project would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast, crossing six U.S. states and creating 20,000 jobs.

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy,” Obama said today in a statement. “We will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security.”

Canadian policy makers said they remain optimistic TransCanada will eventually be able to proceed.

Still Supporting

Alberta Premier Alison Redford said in a press conference in Edmonton that it is still “entirely possible” the pipeline will be built and said it was good news that TransCanada planned to apply again.

Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign MinisterJohn Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States.

“We strongly believe that Keystone’s in the best interests of both countries,” he said. “We’ll continue to be an active supporter of the project.”

canada

Oil

The United States has (potentially) upwards of nearly 6 trillion barrels of oil under our soil. More oil than has been produced to date on planet earth and more than is known to currently exist in the Arab Middle East.






We have more oil than imaginable. Unfortunately, it is this point where I find myself against the oil companies. Approximately 8-10 years ago, I heard and read about this game-changing discovery and at that time, oil people talked about oil needing to be at $75 a barrel to make it feasible to extract. We have long since passed $75 and yet we are still not moving ahead on this. I am concerned the oil companies will now inform us oil needs to be $120 a barrel to make it feasible. That would be a lie and we would need to hold a hearing to catch them at the lie … why? Because they are now doing it in Israel and oil is not $120 a barrel.


Two links – one, a pdf file on shale oil in the US. The second a youtube clip, shale oil in Israel.


The outcome for either – they can drink their oil because once we stop buying their oil, they will dry up and become what they once were.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oil

Gas Prices and the True Story of Why it is High

or at the very least - why it is not Americans fault it is so high.


Of the 100% of the oil we use:
Approximately 15-20% of all our oil is produced domestically.
Approximately 35-40% of our oil comes from Canada
Approximately 30-45% comes from Saudi Arabia
Approximately 10-15% comes from Mexico.

Less than 5% comes from everywhere else, combined.  So - why is our gas $4.00 a gallon.

Approximately 70% could come from the US/Canada/Mexico.  So why not increase the amount from Mexico and Canada, compensate for the Saudi connection, increase our own production and cut out everyone else but Saudi Arabia and renegotiate our rates.

Saudi Arabia is not in a position to say no.

If need be, let them cut us off.  We would increase purchases from Mexico and Canada and our own drilling while forcing a cut-back of 10% in use - and then Saudi Arabia can sell its oil elsewhere, see how the Chinese negotiate.

So why aren't we.

Scientists estimate that billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath the oceans and in the mountain ranges of this country.  More oil and natural gas than exist currently and have been pumped and used since man began using oil. That is a lot of oil and natural gas.

More than all the Arab countries have combined, albeit in shale rock - it is and would be usable oil at $75 per barrel cost.  Oh, yes, oil is $100 at the moment.  So ... what is preventing them from doing this work for national security.















oil

Obama Administration Edits Science Reports

Making up facts and changing the evidence.  SOP or a one time act?


White House edits stain its reliance on science



Press Dina Cappiello, Associated Press
Wed Nov 10, 6:17 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The oil spill that damaged the Gulf of Mexico's reefs and wetlands is also threatening to stain the Obama administration's reputation for relying on science to guide policy.

Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and most recently misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.

Meanwhile, the owner of the rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, Transocean Ltd., is renewing its argument that federal investigators are in danger of allowing the blowout preventer, a key piece of evidence, to corrode as it awaits forensic analysis. Testing had not begun as of last week, the company says, some two months after it was raised from the seafloor.

The blowout preventer could be a key piece of evidence in lawsuits filed by victims, survivors and others. Transocean was responsible for maintaining it while it was being used on BP's well. Investigators agreed to flush the control pods with fluid on Sept. 27 to prevent corrosion. But a Transocean lawyer wrote in his Nov. 3 letter that there have been no further preservation steps on the blowout preventer since then.

The latest complaint from scientists comes in a report by the Interior Department's inspector general, which concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the administration's six-month ban on new deep-water drilling. The AP obtained the report early Wednesday.

The inspector general said the editing changes by the White House resulted "in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed." But it hadn't been. Outside scientists were asked only to review new safety measures for offshore drilling.

"There are really only a few people that know what they are talking about" on offshore drilling," said Ford Brett, managing director of Petroskills, a Tulsa, Okla.-based petroleum training organization. "The people who make this policy do not ... so don't misrepresent me and use me for cover," said Brett, one of seven experts who reviewed the report.

In a statement issued Wednesday, the White House insisted the review was properly coordinated and pointed to the inspector general's findings.

"Following a review that included interviews with peer review experts, the Inspector General found no intentional misrepresentation of their views...The decision to implement a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was correctly based on the need for adequate spill response, well containment and safety measures, and we stand behind that decision," White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton said.

Last month, staff for the presidential oil spill commission said that the White House's budget office delayed publication of a scientific report that forecast how much oil could reach the Gulf's shores. Federal scientists initially used a volume of oil that did not account for the administration's various cleanup efforts, but the government ultimately cited smaller amounts of oil.

The same report said that President Barack Obama's energy adviser, Carol Browner, mischaracterized on national TV a government analysis about where the oil went, saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." The report said it could still be there. It also said that Browner and the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco, contributed to the public's perception the report was more exact than it was by emphasizing peer review.

The new inspector general report said Browner's staff implied that scientists had endorsed the drilling moratorium, by raising a reference to peer review in the drilling safety report. At least one outside expert who was involved said he was convinced afterward that it wasn't a deliberate deception, and Interior Department officials told the inspector general they didn't deliberately make changes to cause confusion.

"There was no intent to mislead the public," said Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who also recommended in the May 27 safety report that a moratorium be placed on deep-water oil and gas exploration. "The decision to impose a temporary moratorium on deep-water drilling was made by the secretary, following consultation with colleagues including the White House."

After one of the reviewers complained, the Interior Department promptly issued an apology during a conference call, in a formal letter and during a personal meeting in June.

All seven experts asked to review the Interior Department's work expressed concern about the change made by the White House, saying that it differed in important ways from the draft they had approved.

"We believe the report does not justify the moratorium as written, and that the moratorium as changed will not contribute measurably to increased safety and will have immediate and long-term economic effects," the scientists wrote earlier this year to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter. "The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."

Those complaints were similar to those of other scientists.

"Their estimates always seemed to be biased to the best case," said Joseph Montoya, a biology professor at Georgia Tech. "A number of scientists have experienced a strong push back."

The inspector general's report said the administration did not violate federal rules because the executive summary did not say the experts approved of the moratorium and because the department publicly clarified what the experts said and had offered a formal apology.

















obama administration

Obama and the Oil Spill

Spill Panel Faults Obama Response Effort




By STEPHEN POWER And TENNILLE TRACY
WALL Street Journal
OCTOBER 6, 2010


.WASHINGTON—The Obama administration's response to the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was affected by "a sense of over optimism" about the disaster that "may have affected the scale and speed with which national resources were brought to bear," the staff of a special commission investigating the disaster found.

In four papers issued Wednesday by the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, commission investigators fault the administration for making inaccurate public statements about a report on the fate of oil spilled by a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico.

The commission papers also are critical of the administration for initially underestimating how much petroleum was flowing into the Gulf. Together, the inaccurate statements created the impression the government "was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid" about the accident.

The papers fault the administration for taking "an overly casual approach" in calculating, during the spill's second week, that between 1,000 and 5,000 barrels of oil were flowing into the Gulf.

That estimate—which the government later revised to between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day—was based on a one-page document prepared by a government scientist within six days of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig, according to one commission staff paper.

The scientist's estimate was based partly on an imprecise estimate of the speed with which the oil was leaking and didn't account for a leak from a kink in the riser above the rig's blowout preventer, according to the spill commission investigators.

"Despite the acknowledged inaccuracies of the [government] scientist's estimate and despite the existence of other and potentially better methodologies for visually assessing flow rate…5,000 bbls/day was to remain the government's official flow-rate estimate for a full month until May 27, 2010," the staff paper says.

The paper adds that it is "possible that inaccurate flow-rate figures may have hindered the subsea efforts to stop and to contain the flow of oil at the wellhead."



A White House spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.



The working paper is one of several released by the commission that examines various aspects of the federal response to the Gulf spill. Another paper released Wednesday suggests the administration was in some ways slow to respond to the accident and then misdirected resources when it realized the American public viewed its response as being inadequate.



While Coast Guard personnel told the commission in interviews that they had enough equipment by the end of May, the president announced around that same time that he would triple the federal manpower responding to the spill. The paper calls this "the arguable overreaction to the public perception of a slow response."



The tripling effort resulted in resources being thrown at the problem in an inefficient way.



For example, the commission paper says, the National Incident Command staffers thought they needed to buy every skimmer they could find, even though they were hearing that responders had enough skimmers.



The commission staff also takes the administration to task for having characterized a federal report on the fate of oil in the Gulf as having been subjected to "peer review" by independent scientists.



In fact, the commission staff paper says, it is unclear whether any independent scientists actually reviewed the paper prior to its release in August.



The paper said that about three-quarters of the oil spilled by the well had broken down or been cleaned up. Those estimates have been challenged as overly rosy by some independent scientists.




















wsj

The Judge v Obama Part 2: The Peaceful and Tolerant Left

The peaceful, tolerant, compassionate left.  We are always hearing how hateful the right is.  Every joke about guns by anyone on the left, contains some reference to the right-wingers.  Jokes about the intolerance of the right, about their refusal to dialogue, to set aside their hate, and open their hearts to love.  Which sounds more like Osama bin Laden to me, but in any case, the left has made a point of linking the right with violence and intolerance.  Not just a point of making this connection, they have made it a crusade to link conservatives to hate, evil, death, violence, rape, war, greed ... yet the left show themselves as caring and compassionate, open-minded, and tolerant, believers in the market-place of ideas and expressing all ideas no matter how hateful.  This is reasonably clear when we watch the left push Islamic values onto mainstream America under the guise of toleration and free-speech.

This open-minded spirit, clearly does not extend to anyone who opposes their values or their beliefs.  Those who oppose the left, deserve to die (according to the left).




Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling .


Thursday, 24 June 2010 12:55
BayouBuzz News


New Orleans--While many Americans undoubtedly agree with the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman to overturn the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep water drilling, not everyone is happy. In fact, the Judge is now receiving death threats in the aftermath of his bold ruling.

Last night, Feldman served as a celebrity judge at a cooking contest at a school gymnasium in Uptown New Orleans. Due to the threats, Feldman was accompanied by a federal marshal security team.

It is a sad indictment of our society today that a judge with such a sterling record of integrity and service to his country would be subject to such threats. Feldman was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1983. Today, he is in the eye of a political hurricane unlike anything he has ever experienced.

In issuing his ruling, Feldman said that the moratorium was faulty because there was no “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” While there is often debate about the merits of judicial decisions, seldom does the criticism focus on the integrity of the judge. Right after he issued the ruling, Feldman came under attack as a tool of the oil industry. Media outlets reporters noted that the Judge held stock in oil and gas companies and implied that his decision was based on his own personal financial considerations. Such a personal attack is unfair and completely unwarranted, especially for Feldman, a distinguished judge known for his commitment to the law and a jurist who has earned the praise of people throughout the legal community.

Much of the sensational reporting on Feldman’s investments was based on outdated information. The Judge was blasted for owning stock in Transocean, Ltd and Halliburton, two of the major companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Feldman owned those stocks in 2008; however, he sold those shares long before issuing his ruling this week. In fact, this updated information will be released in the next report on his stock holdings.

If Feldman held financial interests in any of companies involved in the lawsuit or the Deepwater Horizon rig, he would not have been allowed the take the case. The 5th District Court uses a sophisticated computer system to check whether judges have a conflict of interest in any legal proceeding. This system automatically determines whether a judge needs to be recused from a particular case. In this lawsuit, Feldman was allowed to take the case because he did not own any stock related to the parties involved.

The attack was not based on facts, but it was a character assassination as a way to mitigate the influence of the scathing decision. If anyone should be questioned, it is the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar who disregarded the advice of his own scientific experts in declaring the deep water drilling moratorium. In the wake of the Judge’s ruling, Salazar said he would issue a “refined” moratorium, ask for a stay of the ruling and appeal the decision. Some legal experts predicted the preliminary injunction would lead the government to compromise on the moratorium. In fact, Salazar decided to be confrontational instead of working with business interests in Louisiana to find common ground.

The lawsuit was filed against the Department of Interior by more than a dozen companies involved in offshore drilling operations, led by Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC. Feldman found that the Obama administration did not base the moratorium on solid facts and made a sweeping decision that was not justified. The Judge noted that just because the BP well was beset with problems and resulted in a massive oil spill, there is no reason to believe other wells would have similar problems. "If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing,” Feldman wrote.

Feldman is right on target with his ruling, which is why a constant stream of people thanked him last night for his decision. The final outcome remains in doubt, but Feldman exposed the faulty reasoning that the Obama administration used in banning deepwater drilling. The suspension of drilling in the 33 wells 500 feet or more below the surface could have a major impact on Louisiana’s economy. According to some estimates, the ban could cost the state of Louisiana 50,000 jobs or more. In a horrible economy, these are good paying jobs that no state can afford to lose.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oil and obama

Obama v. The Judge

On oil drilling at least.




U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman today granted a preliminary injunction, halting the moratorium. He also “immediately prohibited” the U.S. from enforcing the ban. Government lawyers told Feldman the ban was based on findings in a U.S. report following the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig off the Louisiana coast in April.


“The court is unable to divine or fathom a relationship between the findings and the immense scope of the moratorium,” Feldman said in his 22-page decision. “The blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

Separate Order

“The court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but the agency must ‘cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner,’” Feldman said, citing a previous ruling. “It has not done so.”

Feldman in a separate order today “immediately prohibited” the U.S. from enforcing the drilling moratorium, finding the offshore companies would otherwise incur “irreparable harm.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that “continuing to drill at these depths without knowing what happened does not make any sense.”

 
Mr. Gibbs, an amazing question.  And one that would logically follow another question / answer:  how many units are now operating at the same depth or deeper in the same area or surrounding vicinity.  When you answer that question Mr. Gibbs, you will realize you should never have made the statement you did.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Rudy Guiliani - If this was Bush, he would have been impeached by now.













rudy

Obama has problems: The Media is Abandoning him

Excerpt from the Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2010


But watching the president and hearing him was a little creepy; that early portion of the address was robotic, lacked real energy, enthusiasm. And worst of all specifics. He was virtually detail-less.


After almost two months of waiting through continuously contradictory reports, an anxious American public wanted to know, HOW are you going to accomplish all this?

Even Obama's cheerleaders over at MSNBC were complaining. "Where was the How in this speech?" demanded Keith Olbermann. Seriously.

Everyone's assumed that fixing the leak was a given since Day Four, which was still five days before the Democrat got his big plane and presidential entourage down there.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
obama

Obama as an Agitator

Mr. Obama, of course you had no intention of devaluing BP and throwing the retirements of hundreds of thousands of people into doubt.  You are a community organizer - an agitator, and agitators do not consider the consequences, only the immediate satisfaction - to agitate and stoke the fires ... never the outcome or consequence of your actions.  Yet again, you prove why you are unqualified to hold the position you do.




No intent to devalue BP: Obama



By Jeffrey Jones and Keith Weir
June 12, 2010


BURAS, La./ LONDON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama told British Prime Minister David Cameron on Saturday that he had no interest in undermining the value of oil company BP Plc following the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.



But as frustration grew on the 54th day of the leak that continues to gush from a blown-out undersea well, a U.S. Coast Guard official told the London-based energy giant to come up with a better containment plan in 48 hours.



In a 30-minute phone call the two leaders downplayed tensions over the oil spill and reaffirmed close ties. But a U.S. official said Obama will insist that BP pays clean-up costs and meets economic claims from the spill.



Millions of gallons of oil have poured into the Gulf since an April 20 offshore rig blast killed 11 workers. The oil leak is now estimated at 40,000 barrels (1.68 million gallons/6.36 million liters) a day and has been only partly contained.



The impact along the Gulf coast continues to grow, as the oil damages beaches and wildlife habitats, kills birds, sea turtles and dolphins, and slams the region's lucrative tourism and fishing industries.



BP, a staple holding of UK pension funds, has lost tens of billions of dollars from its market value and is under pressure from some U.S. lawmakers to suspend its dividend until the Gulf crisis is resolved and damages are paid out to individuals and businesses in the region.



BP's board, which has met weekly since the crisis started, could take up the issue of the dividend on Monday. But a source said a decision may not be made until after BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg has met with Obama at the White House on Wednesday.



Cameron, who took office last month, is under political pressure in Britain to do more to protect a company that accounts for 12 percent of all dividends paid by British companies.



BP expects the total bill for the clean-up to be $3 billion to $6 billion -- though many stock analysts predict the cost will be much higher.



He and Obama reaffirmed their confidence in the strength of the two countries' ties.



"President Obama said to the Prime Minister that his unequivocal view was that BP was a multinational global company and that frustrations about the oil spill had nothing to do with national identity," Cameron's office said.



Before meeting with Svanberg, Obama -- facing criticism for not responding aggressively enough -- returns to the Gulf Coast on Monday for the fourth time since the crisis erupted. Obama plans to survey the response effect, visit with Gulf residents and meet officials during a two-day visit.



48-HOUR ULTIMATUM



On Saturday, Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson told BP its plans to contain the spill do not go far enough or contain enough back-up measures.



"BP must identify in the next 48 hours additional leak-containment capacity that could be operationalized and expedited," Watson said in a letter to BP dated June 11.



Watson said BP's current plan did not go far enough to have backup resources in place in the event of equipment failure or other problems. "Every effort must be expended to speed up the process," he said.



U.S. officials have said that the collection of oil and gas leaking into the Gulf of Mexico seems to have leveled off for now at about 15,400 barrels a day -- less than half the estimated daily leak.



States along the Gulf coast are increasingly demanding financial compensation from BP as the spill spreads along their shorelines, slamming tourism and fishing industries, The Wall Street Journal reported.



State officials say they are feeling the effects, both environmentally and financially, and that they need much more than what BP is offering to recover lost wages and taxes.



Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum sent a letter to BP requesting that the company deposit $2.5 billion into an escrow account to cover potential losses, the Journal reported.



The oil spill will dominate Sunday's television news talk shows in the United States.



Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander, is schedule to appear on CBS's "Face the Nation" and CNN's "State of the Union." Gulf Coast governors will discuss the spill, including Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Alabama's Bob Riley, both Republicans, and independent Charlie Crist of Florida.



Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, in a pre-taped interview on Bloomberg TV's "Political Capital," said Obama should not be blamed for the gusher.



"I would give him fairly low marks in terms of responding to the consequences of the spill, but stopping the leak, nobody could do any better," Graham said. "We're trying everything under the sun to stop the leak, and it's not his fault that we can't find a way to cap it."



HIGH DRAMA



U.S. lawmakers remain busy attempting to craft a response to the oil spill, which could renew interest in renewable fuel energy policies.



High drama is likely on Thursday when Tony Hayward, BP's embattled chief executive, makes his first appearance before Congress at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing.



Another hearing on Tuesday will feature top officials from oil companies Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil Co as well as BP America president Lamar McKay.



Some 24,000 people are in the field supporting functions from oil cleanup operations to seafood safety.



About one-third of Gulf of Mexico federal waters remains closed to fishing, and oil has spread to Florida's Pensacola and Perdido passes, two gateways to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.



At Perdido Bay between Florida and Alabama, orange booms were stained with brown oil as workers tied absorbent 'pom poms' to them to keep oil seeping further into the waterways.



"We want to make sure areas where there may be nesting, we want to have extra booms in those areas," said Alexis Brooks, incident information officer at Gulf Islands National Seashore.

















oil

Iranian Economy

I say, fine, let them eat cake, and choke.  The poor unfortunate jihadists in Iran have lost hundreds of millions of dollars due to their beligerant and petulant anti-American attitudes.  I hope the people of Iran have paid attention.  Beyond my deep enjoyment at knowing how much Iran has lost, is knowing that with the sale of the euro, it becomes less likely the Euro will remain useful in 1-2 years.  Consider the Euro was the second most widely distributed currency just two years ago.  In the last six months, seriosu questions have arisen aas to whether the EU can even stay afloat let alone a unified currency.  Result - the selling of the Euro into $ and gold.  With every sale, and I don't mean the €30 that sits in my desk drawer, rather, the billions that sit in the Arab drawer or the Persian drawer - anticipating the imminent (2 years ago) collapse of the US dollar.  And how did that work out for you.   Like dominoes ... Iran followed by every Persian Gulf state ... and even RUSSIA who called for a world currency to battle down the US dollar, is selling 4% of its Euro stockpile (and I anticipate more as the Euro continues to decline).  Glad the sale of dollars to Euro worked out so well for you.  : )


Quite likely the Euro will be the 3rd most circulated currency in the next few months, and it may simply ... taper off further, which brings us back to Iran.  Glad to know your petulant stance has managed one thing - you to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.  I am sure you can make that up - BUYING oil from countries who can refine it.  Maybe use some of that NUCLEAR energy you so defiantly claimed was a right, to compensate for the fewer barrels of oil you can purchase now that you have HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS less.

Maybe build another nuclear bomb.  That will help a lot.



IRAN WILL SELL OFF PART OF ITS EURO SUPPLY


With all the talk a year ago over pricing oil in Euros, this headline sure has me laughing: Iran Selling 45 Billion Euros of Reserves for Dollars


Iran’s central bank began the first phase of the 45 billion-euro ($55 billion) sale of some of its reserves for dollars, the state-run Jaam-e-Jam newspaper reported, citing people it didn’t identify.

The bank is selling 15 billion euros in the first of three stages, which will be completed by Sept. 22, the newspaper reported on its website on May 31.

Iran will “substantially” decrease its oil sales in euros, the paper said. It informed Japan and other crude-oil customers of the change, Jaam-e-Jam said. The Persian Gulf country’s euro reserves are 55 percent of the total, and would be reduced to 20 to 25 percent after the sale is complete and after oil sales in euros have been reduced, the paper said.

Iran’s shift out of euros has been prompted by the single currency’s decline, said Jaam-e-Jam, which is owned by the state broadcaster. Other central banks, including those of the Persian Gulf states, also are selling their euro reserves, it said.









Iran

To Tax or simply to raise the federal tax for cleanups - by whatever name it is the same.

A brilliant way to raise billions.  Tax the oil companies and then force the oil companies to clean it up.

Almost as if it was all planned - a way to raise taxes and further the compromise the economic system.  It is amazing.  Control of the financial sector when it happens to present a blunder of extraordinary proportions.  It is amazing how this administration seems to be there to clean up these messes by imposing new regulations and control, and increasing our taxes - taxes that impact the poor more than anyone else.



Oil tax increase would help pay to clean up spills




May 24 04:20 PM US/Eastern
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - Responding to the massive BP oil spill, Congress is getting ready to quadruple—to 32 cents a barrel—a tax on oil used to help finance cleanups. The increase would raise nearly $11 billion over the next decade.

The tax is levied on oil produced in the U.S. or imported from foreign countries. The revenue goes to a fund managed by the Coast Guard to help pay to clean up spills in waterways, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

The tax increase is part of a larger bill that has grown into a nearly $200 billion grab bag of unfinished business that lawmakers hope to complete before Memorial Day. The key provisions are a one-year extension of about 50 popular tax breaks that expired at the end of last year, and expanded unemployment benefits, including subsidies for health insurance, through the end of the year.

The House could vote on the bill as early as Tuesday. Senate leaders hope to complete work on it before Congress goes on a weeklong break next week.

Lawmakers want to increase the current 8-cent-a-barrel tax on oil to make sure there is enough money available to respond to oil spills. At least 6 million gallons of crude have spewed into the Gulf of Mexico since a drilling rig exploded April 20 off the Louisiana coast.

President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have said they expect BP to foot the bill for the cleanup.

"Taxpayers will not pick up the tab," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday.

BP executives told Congress last week they would pay "all legitimate claims" for damages. But the government needs upfront money to respond to spills, as well as money to pay for cleanups when the responsible party is unable to pay, or is unknown. Money spent from the fund can later be recovered from the company responsible for the spill.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund has about $1.5 billion available. Under current law, only $1 billion can be spent from the fund on a single incident. The bill would increase the spending limit to $5 billion.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the tax increase was hastily put together, without adequate study, to help pay for an unrelated bill. The tax increase was unveiled Thursday, without any congressional hearings to study its impact.

Even with the tax increases, the bill is projected to add $134 billion to the federal budget deficit.

"I have seen no analysis on how this would impact energy security, how this would impact domestic production, how this would impact the overall economics in the country," said Christopher Guith, vice president of the chamber's energy institute. "There hasn't been any sort of deliberation on this."

The American Petroleum Institute has not taken a position on the tax increase, though a spokeswoman said Congress should study the ramifications before acting.

"We understand we need to have an insurance policy in order to cover people in the event of a spill," said the spokeswoman, Cathy Landry. "At the same time we need to have a vital oil and gas industry."

The bill does not address a federal law that caps liability at $75 million for economic damages beyond direct cleanup costs. Democratic Senators tried to pass a bill last week that would have increased the cap to $10 billion, but they were blocked by Republicans.

The oil industry says such a high cap would make it difficult, if not impossible, to insure oil rigs.

BP said Monday its costs for responding to the spill had grown to about $760 million.





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oil

While the Oil Flows, the Minister will Play

From Day One ... that was what we heart.  The military was present, the resources were available ... except we learned they were not present on DAY ONE nor on DAY TWO nor even on DAY THREE.  One can only imagine what we are to expect in a wider state or national emergency if they cannot even man age an oil spill, as one Democrat from Mississippi said, it's like chocolate milk.  They can't handle chocolate milk.

40,000 barrels a day.  That is a lot of oil, not as much as the Valdez, but given the amount each day, it will come to that amount quite quickly.

Obama wasn't on duty that day, nor were any officials ...





While Oil Slick Spread, Interior Department Chief of Staff Rafted with Wife on "Work-Focused" Trip in Grand Canyon


May 05, 2010 5:47 PM
ABC News



Though his agency was charged with coordinating the federal response to the major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Department of the Interior chief of staff Tom Strickland was in the Grand Canyon with his wife last week participating in activities that included white-water rafting, ABC News has learned.

Other leaders of the Interior Department were focused on the Gulf, joined by other agencies and literally thousands of other employees. But Strickland’s participation in a trip that administration officials insisted was “work-focused” raised eyebrows among other Obama administration officials and even within even his own department, sources told ABC News.

Strickland, who also serves as Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, was in the Grand Canyon with his wife Beth for a total of three days, including one day of rafting. Beth Strickland paid her own way, Obama administration officials said.

The Stricklands departed for the Grand Canyon three days after the leaks in the Deepwater Horizon pipeline were discovered. Ultimately, after the government realized that the spill was worse than had been previously thought, officials decided that Strickland was needed in the Gulf so Strickland was taken out of the Grand Canyon by a National Park Service helicopter.

One government official, asking for anonymity because of the political sensitivities involved, told ABC News that some Interior Department employees thought it was “irresponsible” for Strickland to have gone on the trip, given the crisis in the Gulf, which was fully apparent at the time he departed for the Grand Canyon.

When asked about Strickland’s trip, Interior Department press secretary Kendra Barkoff told ABC News that “the federal government has been all over this issue from day one in a unified coordinated response.”

Barkoff said that Secretary Salazar deputized Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes “to be the point person on this issue and from the morning after the explosion from the time he got to New Orleans he has been working on this non-stop with the help of other people in the Interior Department as well as other agencies involved.”

An administration source says that Strickland’s trip to the Grand Canyon was work-focused. He was with the director of the National Park Service, Jonathan Jarvis, and Grand Canyon National Park Superintendant Steve Martin, the source said, and they discussed matters such as river flows, beach erosion, humpback chub, tamarisk control, overflights, safety, motor boats, and wilderness management.

Strickland is Salazar’s chief of staff as well as the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, having been confirmed to the latter position on April 30, 2009.

When asked during his Senate confirmation hearings as to which job would take priority, Strickland was very clear to the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resource Committee: “My first priority will be the responsibilities of this assistant secretary position, and we are staffing the personal operation of the Secretary with that in mind,” he said.

Strickland’s deputy chief of staff, Renee Stone, “is going to take most of the responsibilities of the chief of staff day-to-day,” he testified.

The White House has aggressively pushed back on any notions that the federal government did not immediately respond to the crisis, providing today a detailed timeline indicating the day by day response in terms of the total numbers of response vessels, feet of boom deployed, oily water recovered, and overall personnel responding, among other measures.

That timeline, however, might raise even more questions as to why the Assistant Secretary in charge of fish and wildlife -- not to mention the Interior Department chief of staff -- didn’t reconsider the timeliness of his trip to the Grand Canyon with his wife, however work-focused.

The explosion at Deepwater Horizon was on April 20, and Hayes and Barkoff arrived in the Gulf the next day.

On Saturday April 24, the first oil leaks were discovered.

On Tuesday, April 27, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that his department along with the Department of Homeland Security would launch an investigation into the Deepwater Horizon Incident. Salazar pledged “every resource we can to support the massive response effort underway at the Deepwater Horizon.”

Strickland and his wife arrived in the Grand Canyon that night.

The day before his travel, the US Fish and Wildlife Service began working with the Coast Guard to identify high-priority national wildlife refuges to be shielded with boom. More than one thousand overall personnel had been deployed to the region.

By Thursday, April 29, the fact that Strickland was not one of those personnel became sufficient issue that he tried to leave the Grand Canyon. The night before, the federal government updated its assessment that 1,000 barrels of oil a day were leaking into the Gulf, judging the spillage to be five times that. A National Park Service helicopter was flown in to remove him from the Grand Canyon so he could travel to the Gulf of Mexico to help with the federal response to the oil slick.

As Strickland made his way to New Orleans that Thursday, April 29, President Obama first addressed the oil slick in public, saying his "administration will continue to use every single available resource at our disposal, including potentially the Department of Defense, to address the incident."

A former U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, Strickland ran unsuccessfully for the US Senate in 1996 and 2002.

On January 22, 2009, Salazar said that at the department he and Strickland – as a former US Attorney and a former Attorney General, respectively – “will hold people accountable. We will expect to be held accountable.”

Well, you will be held accountable.  That much will be for sure.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oil

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Gas Fields.

Look who needs to start conserving.  Kind of funny.  We have had to conserve due to THEIR actions.  Now they will have to conserve DUE TO THEIR actions.  OR they could build a lot more refineries and mine for more gas.  That might actually be the cheaper option.  I wonder what an Islamist would say ... hmmm ... we are not using their gas, nor are we forcing them to be so ... extravagant.  Perhaps the Islamist would behead the whole lot and be done with the need for conserving.  This does not however address the need for nuclear quite the way Iran's possession of nuclear weapons does.




Comment: Cheap energy addiction must end




By Jim Krane
Last updated: April 7 2010 16:36
The Financial Times


The Gulf Arab countries have never had much fresh water or democracy, but the inhabitants have always had energy to burn when it comes to cooling large homes and sparkling office towers.

During the six-year economic boom that ended in 2008, it was domestic energy that powered the sprawl of Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, Doha, and Dubai.

But the promise of cheap energy has gone wrong. Consumption has risen 7 per cent a year, reaching levels that even the vast reserves of the Gulf cannot match.

Five of the six states – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain – are unable to meet their own fast-rising demand for natural gas feedstock for electricity generation.

Only Qatar, owner of the world’s largest single gas field, has sufficient gas to generate electricity for the foreseeable future.

For the first time since their towns were electrified in the 1950s and 60s, the Gulf states – with 23 per cent of the world’s proven gas reserves – are confronting the need for energy conservation. This agenda was articulated by the Dubai School of Government in February, when it recommended conservation schemes for Gulf governments.

First among these is a price rise, especially on electricity, which, when it is not given away, sells for as little as a 10th of the price that it does in Britain and the US.

For instance, electricity prices range from zero in Qatar (for nationals; expatriates pay 2 US cents per kilowatt-hour) to initial rates of 1.5 US cents per KwH in Saudi Arabia; 2.5 cents in Oman; and, in Dubai, 2 cents for nationals and 5.5 cents for expatriates.

Prices like these are the reason that per-capita consumption of electricity in Kuwait and Qatar has surpassed that in the US.

Natural gas, too, is sold to utilities at a fraction of Henry Hub price, the US benchmark. This underpricing exacerbates consumption and kills incentives for upstream production.

If prices reflected global norms, consumption would ease and domestic energy efficiency increase. Higher revenues would encourage investment in gas production, which could alleviate future shortages.

Even better, renewable power would become more competitive, increasing the potential for powering the grid with a mixture of energies – and slowing the growth of the Gulf’s world-beating carbon footprint. The Gulf countries hold 0.6 per cent of the world’s population but produce 2.4 per cent of global emissions, according to the World Resources Institute.

But raising prices is tricky. Cheap energy is considered a right of citizenship in all six countries. Rulers rely on these giveaways to ensure political support. The Dubai School of Government recommends raising tariffs on nationals and expatriates alike, while mitigating the political costs by compensating citizens with an alternate subsidy.

Another way to cut energy use is through government-backed retrofits of inefficient buildings. In Dubai, Dilip Rahulan, who heads Pacific Controls, a specialist instruments business, believes energy use in the city’s buildings can be cut by a collective 20 per cent by fitting insulation, efficient windows, shading, reflective roofing and automated controls that adjust lighting and thermostats.

Environmental building standards would also help, but so would “green” loans that incentivise energy-efficient building plans. And “green zoning” could call for denser housing in low-rise buildings that maximise shade and breezes, while reducing lifts, cars and air-conditioners. The beautiful old caravanserais and merchants’ homes in Jeddah are examples of sustainable Gulf housing that have been left to crumble.

Other options could see rulers simply mandating energy conservation across their bureaucracies. and businesses regulated by government. Even simpler would be a ban on inefficient air conditioners, dishwashers and washing machines.

The notion of energy conservation – still largely an alien idea – will have to be brought into popular discourse and taught in schools.

There is one even greater resource that the Gulf could use: sunshine for solar-generated electricity.




The writer is the author of City of Gold: Dubai and the Dream of Capitalism

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
arab oil

How The Arabs got the Bomb, and we learned to love it.

Put this one up there with - hard to believe, aliens and bigfoot.




Saudi Arabia announces nuclear centre




By Abeer Allam in Riyadh
April 18 2010 14:37
The Financial Times

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil supplier, is set to establish a civilian nuclear and renewable energy centre to help meet increasing demand for power as the country pushes forward with economic expansion plans.

The official Saudi press agency said on Saturday that the new centre, the King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy, would be based in Riyadh and would be led by Hashim Abdullah Yamani, a former commerce and trade minister.

Although all discussions have focused upon civilian uses of the technology, analysts note that Saudis and the other Arab Gulf states do not want to lag further behind Iran and Israel in developing nuclear technologies.

The move positions the kingdom, the largest Arab economy, alongside Kuwait, Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, as Arab states seeking to develop nuclear energy for civilian use. On Friday, France and Kuwait signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, and Paris is negotiating a similar agreement with Saudi Arabia. In December, the UAE announced a deal with Korea Energy Company to develop four reactors.

Although the kingdom possesses roughly a quarter of the world’s petroleum reserves, increasing domestic and global demand has prompted plans to spend $80bn in power-generation and transmission capacity over the next eight years to keep pace with industrial and desalination needs.

But the country’s officials are alarmed by increasing oil and gas consumption. Saudi Arabia burns 1.25m barrels of oil a day to meet domestic and industrial demand, according to the ministry of water and electricity.

Saudi Arabia “is witnessing sustained growth in demand for power and desalinated water due to high population growth and subsidised prices of water and power,” the news agency said on Saturday in announcing the new programme.

The government subsidises energy for domestic, industrial and agricultural use. Although the market price of oil averaged almost $70 a barrel last year and reached a record $147 in 2008, the government sells oil for domestic use at only $5 a barrel, says the ministry of water and electricity.

Aramco, the state oil company, has estimated that the kingdom spends about SR30bn ($8bn) on fuel subsidies a year.













Arabia

Obama Hates SUVs (I only mildly dislike them)

From The Times
April 3, 2010




Barack Obama aims to drive gas guzzlers off the road with greener laws

The Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, popularised the Hummer but now the President is trying to call a halt to the American love affair with giant SUVs

Giles Whittell, Washington 93 Comments

Recommend? (18) For decades they have thundered along America’s highways and choked up parking lots, a symbol of extravagance unchallenged by politicians, emissions standards or common sense.



They are the four-wheel-drive behemoths known to the US Government as “light trucks” and to consumers as SUVs (sport utility vehicles) — but their easy ride as the world’s most conspicuous mobile polluters ended this week.



In a coup that achieves something President Clinton promised but never delivered, President Obama has forced the big three US carmakers, and their unions, to accept tough mileage rules for cars and SUVs. The rules will cut emissions from vehicles by more than a third over the next four years.



Whether the new rules end America’s love affair with huge cars remains to be seen. But they are being introduced at a time when SUV sales are at a fraction of their peak level five years ago. Their demise coincides with the country’s first mass-produced “plug-in” electric car, which finally rolled off a Michigan production line this week.



Related Links

Obama scoring from every shot

Oil and Troubled Waters

US 'cash for clunkers' plan burns through $1bn

From 2016, new cars and SUVs will have to deliver an average of 35.5 miles per gallon (42.6 miles per British gallon), comparable for the first time with European and Japanese requirements.



SUV mileage under the new regime is expected to average 28.8mpg (34.5mpg in Britain), or nearly three times that of the Hummer H1 that Arnold Schwarzenegger once drove into Times Square in New York to begin the vehicle’s transition from armoured personnel carrier into celebrity runabout.



The new rules end a notorious loophole in US law by which SUVs were exempt from emissions standards that applied to cars. This made them so much more profitable that at the peak of the sport utility boom, a single Ford plant was generating up to $15 million (£9.8 million) a day in pre-tax profits.



The rules were welcomed yesterday by the industry and environmentalists. The US Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which had little choice but to accept the standards after the $25 billion bailout of Chrysler and General Motors, said they gave the industry “a clear road map” instead of a patchwork of differing state rules.



The Natural Resources Defense Council said they were “good for consumers, companies, the country and the planet”. Ray LaHood, Mr Obama’s Transportation Secretary, called them “historic”, claiming they would save consumers $3,000 per new vehicle and cut emissions by 1 billion tons.



The Big Three producers will have to spend about $52 billion to upgrade engines, power trains and air-conditioning systems to meet the requirements. The average cost of a new car or SUV is expected to rise by $1,000 as a result, meaning that the future of American motoring depends on consumers’ willingness to pay a modest premium for old-fashioned cars — or a larger one for something very different.



General Motors’ new management has famously “bet the company” on the Chevy Volt, an electric super-mini with a small petrol engine designed only to recharge its batteries on long journeys. Its 40-mile range on batteries alone means that commuters living less than 20 miles from work would almost never have to fill their tank. GM has high hopes, despite its price tag of $40,000 before federal tax rebates.



Its main competitor at the New York International Auto Show is the allbattery Nissan Leaf, which will cost $32,000 with a range of 100 miles and no petrol-powered back-up.



US motorists have shown repeatedly that their affection for big cars rebounds as petrol prices fall, but the new regulations reflect a long-term trend. On average, Ford sold 412,000 Explorer SUVs each year from 1995 to 2003. By 2008 sales had slumped to 78,000. GM has sold the Hummer brand to a Chinese rival and SUV sales fell overall by 52 per cent last year alone.



The new standards are based on a 2007 Supreme Court Ruling that reclassified carbon dioxide as a pollutant. They will be enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency, whether Congress approves or not.



Top trumps



Lamborghini Murcielago LP640 The gas-guzzler tax on this is $6,400, (£4,200), bringing the total price to $362,400 for a car that can reach 60mph in three seconds. A 6.5-litre, V-12 engine pumps out 632hp, enough to reach 211 miles an hour at 13mpg (estimated US gallons)



Cadillac SRX If you want an unnecessarily big antisocial 4x4, you can do no better than this, according to Jeremy Clarkson. Accepted by car enthusiasts as the ugly duckling of the SUVs, the motor makes up for what it lacks in looks with 17mpg



Hummer H2 David Beckham’s favourite car, perhaps for its macho 6-litre V8 engine. Fifteen hundred Americans bought the 7mpg monster last year



Cadillac Escalade SUV The ultimate accessory for any rapper, it has a 6.2-litre engine that attracted 16,000 Americans to invest in a 12mpg motor last year



Chevrolet Corvette A slick sports car that can cruise at 185mph — at great environmental cost. There are about 750,000 of these, which promise 16mpg, registered in the US.












Obama

Nigeria

Can things get worse?  Given the amount of oil in that country, one should wonder.

The current president is a Muslim, but he seems to be out of the picture - hospitalized with some ailment that may make his return impossible.  That means the Vice President would take office.

Simple enough, we understand this process.  Except, the VP is a Christian named ... ready ... Goodluck Jonathan.  So Mr. Jonathan would be the president, and as a Christian, this could throw Nigeria into chaos.  Why?  Because the people of peace feel oppressed anytime a Christian comes along and this time in Nigeria is not much different.  And when they get going - they tend to get very upset, which translates to chaos.

So far - nothing is happening.  The VP hasn't stepped up, and the Prez is still unavailable.

With all that oil ... ???  AND the fact extremists have been recruiting from Nigeria ... can we take that chance.  Nigeria falling to an extremist Islamic wave of terror.









Nigeria