I won't be diplomatic about Democratic candidate for governor Terry McAuliffe's change of face regarding offshore oil drilling. In an about face that dovetailed both U.S. Senator Tim Kaine and Mark Warner's (Virginia) bill to overturn the federal hold on offshore drilling in coastal waters, McAuliffe expressed support for offshore drilling for oil.
Previously, McAuliffe expressed his support for exploratory drilling for natural gas, not oil. With his Democratic pals pushing to throw more oil and natural gas rigs into America's coastal waters, McAuliffe has adjudged that the political winds are ripe for a political change of face and a stab in the back to environmentally conscious Virginians who so ardently backed his candidacy.
"Terry believes we need to support coal workers, both through increased exports throughout the world, and workforce training to ensure that displaced workers can find new careers," McAuliffe spokesman Josh Schwerin said. "The fact is, we need an all of the above energy policy that focuses on increasing renewable energy like wind and solar while supporting existing Virginia industries."
Support coal workers, WTF?! I have a bitter pill I'd like the coal industry and its employees to swallow: your time is up, so get over it and find jobs elsewhere.
Calling the uncertain future of Central Appalachian coal mining the "elephant in the room," industry consultant Alan Stagg said he expects mining in the high-cost region to cease in the next 10 to 20 years. Speaking at Platts Coal Marketing Days on Sept. 21, Stagg said producers in Central Appalachia need to accept that difficult physical mining conditions, combined with inescapable regulatory restrictions, will soon erase profitability.Blaming treehuggers is way easier than admitting to your investors, consumers & policy-makers that you picked all the low-hanging fruit decades ago & every remaining ton of coal (or barrel of oil) will be increasingly expensive to extract.
"This is the elephant in the room. No one wants to acknowledge that reserve depletion is profound," said Stagg, president and CEO of Stagg Resource Consultants Inc. "Mining conditions are difficult, and the cost to produce is high. That is a physical fact. It's not pleasant. Nobody wants to acknowledge it. That is a fact, and companies that ignore that fact will not do so well." [...]
"Are recent regulatory pressures a straw man in addressing problems facing the coal industry?" he asked. "Even if U.S. coal companies got all of their permits, what would they do with them? You cannot sell that coal at $40, $45 or even $50 per ton."
Meanwhile Reuters reports, "Asian economies, hungry for coal, stand to gain from a U.S. program meant to keep domestic power cheap and abundant." How much is at stake? "One analyst concludes that the federal government missed out on nearly $30 billion in revenue over the last three decades through poor management of the coal lease program." Talk about picking winners & losers! How much better off would we be right now if the government had let the free market decide our power sources & just cut $30 billion in checks directly to help Americans pay their power bills? Eliminating coal subsidies now would be a small step towards making things right - but right now, it sounds like coal companies need all the government welfare they can get.
1. We considered taking the oil and gas industry's money, then using the ad as an opportunity to blast the h*** out of the Keystone Canadian tar sands export pipeline project, as the dirty, destructive (of the environment and probably of jobs as well) boondoggle for the big oil companies that it is.
2. We also considered donating the money to charity - Green Miles suggested this one, for instance.
3. So, under those conditions, I was leaning towards accepting the ad. Why didn't I, then? The clincher for me was very simple, and in my view compelling: the ad contains blatantly false information - that the pipeline supposedly will create 20,000 jobs.
4. Not only is that jobs figure completely untrue, this is information that's been repeatedly exposed as false by neutral organizations, even by TransCanada itself. For instance, a study by Cornell University researchers found that "[t]he project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada's own data supplied to the State Department." So, the 20,000 jobs figure isn't even close to being factual, and the people behind this ad have known that for months now (if not longer). In short, they're lying through their teeth, and they have no shame in doing so.
5. One last point. In rejecting this ad, Blue Virginia is going way beyond the supposed "standards" of most media outlets, which would almost certainly take (in fact, they do so all the time!) the oil money and run the ad, even though it's demonstrably, unequivocally false. That's not what legitimate media organizations are supposed to be doing, but they're desperate for money and/or greedy, plus they apparently have few if any scruples or ethics, so they do so. Well, sorry, but that is NOT what we got into progressive political blogging for, to be like the dying (for good reason), corrupt, corporate-owned-and-occupied, conservative media. Sure, we could use the $150 (although it's not going to change our lives in any way, that's for sure), but in the end, it simply doesn't fit with our view of ethics, morality, and being a progressive. Take that and shove it up your pipeline, oil industry! Ha.
5a. On a related note, I'd point out that we have far higher standards at Blue Virginia than they do at the Kaplan Post, for instance, for commenting. Check out any article's comments at the Kaplan Post, and you'll see what I mean - ad hominem attacks, bigotry, viciousness, totally nuts. Looking at those comments, I'd say that on average, 25% or more would be deleted here at Blue Virginia, the commenters banned. At the Kaplan Post, desperate as it is for "eyeballs" (and, again, $$$$), they basically let anything go. They also, I'd note, frequently (usually?) fail to give proper credit/attribution to other media sites, certainly to Virginia blogs (both conservative and progressive, they're just really unethical about this stuff). Finally, we don't present the false "both sides" nonsense the Post uses to pretend to be "objective." The fact is, they are NOT objective, they're just sloppy, lazy, and cowardly. But go ahead guys, keep telling yourselves you're real journalists with "standards," if it makes you feel any better about yourselves.
Democratic Leaders Blast Allen's Reckless, Hypocritical Pipeline Rhetoric
Richmond, VA - Virginia Democrats spoke out today against former-Senator George Allen's reckless and hypocritical rhetoric on the possibility of building more oil and natural gas pipelines in Virginia without giving them the proper environmental and public safety review.
As reported by radio station WINA, Allen said during an interview yesterday that "Virginia would not study the route of an oil or natural gas pipeline inside its borders:"
"If there were an issue, gosh we'd put a natural gas pipeline, or should we put an oil pipeline through Virginia, it wouldn't be worrying about gosh, lets have a study, let's determine the danger of this." He continued, "if Virginia were trying to hold up a gas pipeline, or oil pipeline, it simply wouldn't happen because we have them."
House of Delegates Democratic Leader David Toscano (Charlottesville) condemned Allen's dangerous suggestion that new pipelines would not require study because "we have them:"
"Building a pipeline through Virginia without conducting a single study or review is not in the best interests of our citizens. While a decision to build may ultimately make sense, the failure to conduct a comprehensive review sets a dangerous precedent.
"George Allen's suggestion that we can build an oil pipeline through Virginians' backyards without a thorough review of the consequences demonstrates, once again, that he puts the oil industry's interests before public safety and the good of the Commonwealth."
Virginia Senator Adam Ebbin (Arlington), a member of the Argiculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee continued:
Anyway, here are reactions by Virginian politicians and environmental groups, starting with Rep. Jim Moran, with whom I agree 100% on this. I'll add more as I see them, or as you let me know about them in the comments section. Thanks.
Moran Statement on Denial of the Keystone XL Pipeline Application
Washington, DC - Congressman Jim Moran, Ranking Member on the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, released the following statement on the Obama Administration's decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline:
"I applaud President Obama's decision to deny the application for the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline. Our collective national interests, whether economic, environmental, or national security, would be better served by reducing our addiction to fossil fuels. Instead, we should be investing in safer, cleaner energy sources of the future like wind and solar power. A robust investment in clean energy promotes thousands of higher-tech, higher paying jobs. Building a pipeline to tap one of the dirtiest sources of fuel and the few temporary jobs it might create are not in our nation's best long term interests."
South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, a member of House Democratic leadership, told POLITICO he rejects a host of the top Republican offsets, illustrating the tricky path Democrats must travel when negotiating with the GOP.Will the GOP be demanding the CEO of Exxon Mobil be drug tested before Big Oil gets the billions of dollars in subsidies that the GOP supports? What about for nuclear power industry executives and the billions in subsidies House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has asked for? How about here in Virginia, where tens of millions of dollars in subsidies for mining & burning coal are handed out each year - will Gov. Bob McDonnell & Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli be forcing Dominion Virginia Power CEO Tom Farrell to fill a Dixie cup to prove he's clean?
"I have a real problem with what I consider a penalty to the federal employees; I got a real problem with the mandated drug testing for unemployment insurance," he said Monday, citing an extended federal pay freeze and a favorite conservative change to jobless benefits. "We don't demand drug testing for people getting farm subsidies."
Of course not. Republicans only want to bully the least powerful & most vulnerable among us in the 99%. The 1% can keep collecting their huge taxpayer subsidies, no questions asked.
Wait, you mean President Obama isn't killing U.S. oil production? In fact, according to US Energy Information Administration statistics, U.S. oil production actually fell by about 1 million barrels per day while George W. Bush was in office, and now has risen by nearly 1 million barrels per day since Barack Obama's been in the White House? Fascinating, huh? Oh, and U.S. oil company profits are through the roof, with the supposedly anti-oil president in the White House. Hmmmm.
Now, check out the "flip" for the story on natural gas. Hint: it's not what you'll hear from Faux, Rush, etc.
UPDATE: Also note that EIA forecasts U.S. domestic crude oil production to increase again in 2012, by about 230,000 barrels per day. D*** Obama!!! LOL
"What, you expect me to lose 100 pounds today?" your coworker scoffs between greasy bites. "It's going to take years to lose all that - I can't possibly stop eating right now."
Now as President Obama considers whether to green light a
ranch dressing tar sands pipeline, some are warning against putting America on an oil crash diet:
A recent, blockbuster article in Bloomberg detailed how the dirty energy baron Koch brothers - who, the article points out, "blazed a path to riches -- in part, by making illicit payments to win contracts, trading with a terrorist state, fixing prices, neglecting safety and ignoring environmental regulations" - flouted U.S. law by "[selling] millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism." The connection between oil, corruption, and terrorism detailed in the Bloomberg article sounds like something out of the film Syriana. But in this case, it's not fiction, it's absolutely real: the connection between oil, corruption and Middle East-based terrorism cannot be clearer.
Barely over a week after the Bloomberg story broke, the oil-corruption-terrorism nexus was made even more glaringly obvious with breaking news of an Iran-backed terror plot against the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir.
In the Iranian plot outlined on Tuesday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in Washington, officials in the elite Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are accused of scheming to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States by hiring assassins from a Mexican drug cartel for $1.5 million. The main suspects were identified as Mansour J. Arbabsiar, a naturalized American citizen of Iranian descent from Corpus Christi, Tex., who has been taken into custody, and Gholam Shakuri, described by the Justice Department as a member of the Quds Force, who is at large and believed to be in Iran.
Oil and Gas Development: The Onshore and Offshore Challenge
8:45am Keynote: Honorable Mark Warner, U.S. Senate, Virginia
8:55am Remarks: Mr. Terry McCallister, Chairman and CEO, Washington Gas
9:00am Remarks: Mr. Mike Ward, Executive Director, Virginia Petroleum Council
9:05am Discussion: Beginning with Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama (more on climate science "skeptic" Bentley here)
Nuclear Energy: Renaissance or Requiem
9:30am Keynote: Honorable Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senate, South Carolina
9:40am Remarks: Mr. Stephen Kuczynski, Chairman, President & CEO, Southern
Nuclear Operating Company
9:50am Discussion Beginning with Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi
EPA Regulations and Impact on Energy and the Economy
10:15am Keynote: Honorable Joe Manchin III, U.S. Senate, West Virginia
10:25am Remarks: Mr. Kevin Crutchfield, CEO, Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.
10:35am Discussion Beginning with Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia
A few comments. First, where are the advocates for clean energy? Where are the voices for energy development that's safe for the environment? Where are the non-corporate voices? Where are the regular Virginians who would be harmed by oil spills, global warming, mountaintop removal coal mining, etc?