Miss a day
Miss a lot

 

      This is your public service 1-stop-shop for Alaskan and Canadian Arctic energy commentary, news, history, projects and people. We update it daily for you. It is the most timely and complete northern energy archive anywhere — used by media, academia, government and industry officials throughout the world. Northern Gas Pipelines may be the oldest Alaska blog; we invite readers to name others existing before 2001.  -dh

 

Global Warming

1-15-16 Canada and Alaska Struggle With Conflicting Forces: Prosperity and Jobs vs. Nothing

15 January 2016 2:54pm

Commentary by Dave Harbour on the eternal struggle between wealth producers and wealth takers.

Canada struggles with the need for oil revenue countered by the political pressure to subjugate everything, and everyone, to the concept of global warming (excuse us....  "climate change").  See the articles below.

Alaska struggles are also between those supporting jobs, good faith and fair dealing with antagonists like a state senator who believes that in a low crude oil price environment gasoline prices should be lower in Alaska than they are.   (See today's robust, Alaska Headlamp editorial for commentary on this and much more....)

We wonder if some of our elected officials fully understand oil marketing economics.  We certainly don't and are, therefore, slow to express opinions about oil and gas marketing economics.

We do know, however, that Alaska refiners compete with Lower 48 refiners who must add the cost of transportation north to Lower 48 prices.  Counter-intuitively, that tends to set the general price ranges in Alaska.  If Alaska refiners were to increase their prices too much above that range, outside refiners would sell even more product in the state than they now do.

(The free market works, if we'll let it; and, when we occasionally find a bad actor, there will be evidence and a trial and punishment.)

We also know that costs to operate in Alaska are higher than most Lower 48 refining areas.  And we must not neglect the reality of a 3/4 empty Trans Alaska Pipeline System.  The shippers transporting via the remaining 1/4 capacity of TAPS also have to pay the cost of the 3/4 spare capacity.  

In recent years, populist legislators have called for audits of gasoline prices, proving that local Alaska fuel prices are not unreasonable.  

It would be nice for a change if public officials would do a little homework, visit refineries, talk with economists and use a little judgment before "calling for an investigation".  

This is typical behavior, however, of some.  That hostility toward anyone connected with the state's largest benefactor-investors does nothing to encourage more investment in oil, or gas, pipelines, or LNG export projects.  

In fact, hostility by elected leaders injects more uncertainty into Alaska as an investment destination.  

Let's think twice before making the statement ring truer and truer, that "Alaska is sometimes its own worst enemy."    -dh


Yeaaaa for the Calgary Herald Editorial Board!  dh

It would be tempting to crack a smile at Environment Minister Shannon Phillips’ speech to a Calgary oil and gas summit if the remarks weren’t so sad.

The NDP minister told the crowd that the government’s controversial climate change plan is essential, but — wait — she hopes it won’t be permanent. People have heard this sort of thing before. One can only imagine the naivete of Canadians who were assured that the imposition of income tax in 1917, to fund the First World War effort, was also only a temporary measure.

Phillips underestimates the intelligence of Albertans if she thinks (more....)

CBC.  Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr of Manitoba acknowledges there's considerable urgency to building new Canadian pipeline capacity to tidewater, even as new roadblocks continue to appear.

A B.C. Supreme Court ruling this week and discouraging signals from B.C.'s provincial government have further undermined the prospects of two proposed oil pipelines to the Pacific coast, just as Carr is taking part in intense briefings on his new portfolio in Justin Trudeau's Liberal government.

Carr's mandate includes expanding Canada's market access for oil and gas — a highly polarizing public policy debate — and his challenge comes amid a global oil glut that is cratering international prices and killing investment in Alberta's oilpatch.

The natural resources minister is also charged with re-tooling the National Energy Board (more....)

Categories:

1-12-16 Weak Energy, Etc. Policies = Lackluster Last State Of The Union Speech

12 January 2016 3:46am

Calgary Herald by Dan Healing.  ... Seven Generations Energy Ltd., considered one of the bright lights of the Calgary oilpatch, announced it would postpone about $200 million of planned capital investment in 2016....


David Holt Commentary, FuelFix.  ...a second major oil company was forced to abandon plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean off the coast of Alaska...for those who live close by..., the news is devastating.

ON EVE OF AMERICA'S "STATE OF THE UNION" SPEECH, WE SEE A WEAKER NATION BECAUSE OF WHITE HOUSE ENERGY POLICIES

After rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline for the U.S., the Obama administration is now encouraging construction of an oil pipeline in Kenya, according to a WSJeditorial.

U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec reportedly told Kenya’s energy minister last week that the administration would help the African country raise $18B to finance its PowerAfrika pipeline project.

Meanwhile, TransCanada (TRP +0.4%) is bringing an international arbitration case against the U.S. for not treating the Canadian company the way it would a U.S. company as it is seeks to recover $15B in costs and damages

Today we have more evidence (Column right, lower story) that White House disapproval of Keystone XL was based, pure and simple, on politics -- not on environmental considerations.   Remember, our first evidence was that the State Department (i.e. the jurisdictional agency since the pipeline would cross the international border) released multiple determinations that the project should be approved.

Such presidential policies cannot produce much of a record to be proud of during tonight's last State of the Union Speech.

Note as well that last year's disapproval of Keystone XL coincided with the administration's continuous delay and the eventual demise of Shell's Arctic Alaska oil and gas exploration program.  

Killing of these high profile energy projects was perfect preface to the President's participation in the United Nations' Paris Climate Change conference in December, 2015.  This negative, domestic energy policy strategy surely delighted the United Nations climate change cabal, whose leader* admitted that the goal of environmental activism is not to improve the environment but to destroy capitalism.  (*Christiana Figueres {Photo} Executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change)  Note: Figueres has now added another goal: depopulating the earth, except for her family, US funded UN coworkers and friends, we assume. -dh

Blocking these and other major fossil energy projects -- which would have been good for American jobs and consumers -- would also have pleased Arab countries intent on diminishing American energy competition.  

These dots may eventually connect to possible efforts of the outgoing president to purchase a Dubai mansion.  Could this possibly happen while bidding to become Secretary General of the United Nations?  

The sooner the United States withdraws funding, support and even participation in the United Nations, the better.  With China, Russia, Arab and liberal coalitions in charge, the interests of America -- including energy interests -- cannot be achieved.  

Tom Harris

From reader Tom Harris we have this commentary on tonight's State of the Union Speech: "...But what Obama did not tell Americans, and will undoubtedly not admit tonight, is that the accord is dangerously flawed. It is, in effect, another Kyoto Protocol since, like all United Nations greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction agreements, it provides an opt-out clause for developing nations, the source of most of today’s man-made GHG.   More

Think about it: the U.N. energy producers wish to diminish North American oil and gas production, purely to reduce competition.  The liberal countries vote and work against (i.e. the climate change activist states) coal, oil and natural gas production to reduce supply and increase costs so consumers will use less.  The world's poor countries cast their votes in favor of the climate change agenda so long as the U.S. pays its taxpayer dollars VIA THE UNITED NATIONS to their officials who may or may not responsibly transfer those dollars to the intended alternate energy projects.

There is also another beneficiary of diminished North American oil and gas wealth and economic strength: ISIS.  ISIS has oil money.  The stupid or devious (i.e. take your choice) action of United States leaders is unfreezing billions in cash to terrorism state sponsor Iran.  These facts logically lead to a weaker North American defense capability and a stronger terrorism capability.  

Accordingly, we do not look forward to a very pithy, last State of the Union performance this evening.

Putting the nail in the coffin are current Canadian and U.S. leaders who wholeheartedly endorse the anti fossil fuel, transfer of North American wealth programs.  

With such leadership, can economies be expected to perform better than they now are?

-dh


Original Story Here, with videos.  Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, recently stated in an interview that the Earth is already over burdened with people and that we should look at depopulating the planet.

“There is pressure in the system to go toward that; we can definitely change those, right? We can definitely change those numbers,” Figueres stated.

“Really, we should make every effort to change those numbers because we are already, today, already exceeding the planet’s planetary carrying capacity.” she claimed.

“So yes we should do everything possible. But we cannot fall into the very simplistic opinion of saying just by curtailing population then we’ve solved the problem. It is not either/or, it is an and/also.” Figueres continued.

Figueres also blatantly stated earlier this year that the true purpose of the entire global warming scare is to kill off capitalism. Now, even after this admission, she’s claiming we need to get rid of a large percentage of the world’s population due to climate change. Of course, most of the sheeple in the world will ignore her admission as well as the undeniable evidence that climate change is the greatest science scandal of all time – as illustrated by the fact the someone has been ‘fudging the numbers’ that give credit to this scam.

The other great lie is that we have a problem with the Earth’s population. Actually fertility rates are falling. More below the video.

 

Climate One is a self described public affairs forum which advocates extreme action to combat climate change. It is a branch of The Commonwealth Club of California based in San Francisco, essentially a talking shop visited regularly by heads of government and corporate business.

Figueres is no stranger to controversial statements when it comes to climate change. The UN official previously described the goal of the UNFCC as “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

She has also repeatedly said that a Chinese style communist dictatorship is better suited than the U.S. constitutional system to fight “global warming.”

Figueres told Bloomberg News last year that the Chinese government (which continues to enforce forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization) is “doing it right” when it comes to climate change, even though China is by far the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses.

Figueres noted that a partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing climate related legislation, while the Chinese Communist Party, sets policies by decree. President Obama clearly agrees given that he continues to bypass Congress by issuing executive orders on climate change.

As InfoWars has continually noted, there is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.

Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

In addition, as highlighted by the Economist, global fertility rates are falling.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the Earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.

The real solution would be to help increase the standard of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.

Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.

In addition, Climate legislation continually pushed by the developed world has those nations taking on less of a burden than anticipated demanding more of poorer countries, despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions will further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

Previous legislation, such as the Copenhagen agreement, allowed people in developed countries to emit twice as much carbon per head than those in poorer countries, who have not caused the rise in emissions said to be threatening our existence on the planet. The revelations have led third world leaders to accuse the developed world of “climate colonialism”.

Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.

One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has previously launched initiatives urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.

Categories:

12-7-15 Pearl Harbor Day: A Personal Story

07 December 2015 11:07am

Remembering Pearl Harbor

Commentary by Dave Harbour


EIA's Alaska production revision....


Calgary Herald.  The province faces strong opposition to its climate change (i.e. Alberta) plan — fuelled by distaste for the carbon tax — according to a new poll that also suggests many Albertans doubt the NDP’s claim the plan will lead to pipeline approvals.


News-Miner opinion: The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation board of directors’ vote to push forward with work on the Alaska LNG pipeline project is a good sign, giving hope that the state’s current oil slump may one day be eased by natural gas production. 

"India is here to ensure that rich countries pay back their debt for overdraft that they have drawn on the carbon space," Indian Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar said. (AP by Karl Ritter and Angela Carlton.  We note  that as in other affairs of state, it is always wise to look beyond the rhetoric and "follow the money" to determine true, political motivations.                 -dh)

Our further commentary: President Obama proclaims that "Climate Change" poses an, "immediate risk to national security", thus shifting emphasis away from immediate terrorism threats.  

Meanwhile, Islamic warriors continue to kill Americans and threaten the future of the country and its way of life.  

Our founders and two centuries of our ancestor-defenders like Col. Dave Harbour created and then protected our freedom and prosperity.  

Would our ancestors not grieve that a continuing lack of resolve by this generation to decisively protect freedom can only result in its loss for future generations?        -dh

Categories:

12-1-15

01 December 2015 6:56am

President's Paris Speech Yesterday

President's Paris Press Conference Today

See Opposing PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGE: "Endorsed by 161 science and technology experts well qualified in climate science, the challenge was presented as an open letter submitted to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and reported on by prominent media across the world," explained Harris.

Most significant among the challenges was for proponents of dangerous anthropogenic climate change theory to substantiate claims that:

  • Recent climate change is unusual in comparison with historical records;
  • Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' are dangerously impacting climate;
  • Computer-based models are reliable indicators of future climate.

Harris reports, "Mr. Ban never responded or even acknowledged the scientists' open letter."


Also see: Climate Change Dispute!  The Climate Hustle!

Three Cheers for Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall Who Refuses To Bow To Climate Change PC Doctrine!  (Story, CBC News by Kyle Bakx) ... and, thumbs down for American President Barack Obama who exhibited this understanding of Alaska's issues after a trip this summer: "This summer, I saw the effects of climate change firsthand in our northernmost state, Alaska, where the sea is already swallowing villages and eroding shorelines; where permafrost thaws and the tundra burns; where glaciers are melting at a pace unprecedented in modern times." 


Embarrassing how a 3 minute speech lasted almost 5 times the agreed upon length!


 

 

 

 

 

Categories:

11-19-15 He who owns the gold makes the rules!

19 November 2015 6:35am

As we warned, Government ownership is a liability for Ak-LNG; "Gas line team reshuffle puts scrutiny on high salaries", APM, by Rachel Waldholz; Also see KTOO

​He who owns the gold makes the rules: see how the Feds can now make "all" the rules!


The Morning Headlamp: 60 days until Regular Session begins; Schedule issues slow AKLNG progress; more urgency for Walker's fiscal plan; $1 billion for Arctic investment (A Bright Spot for Alaska!)


EPA Chief: It’s Not ‘Extreme’ To Ban Coal, Oil, Gas Production On Federal Lands

OTHER

Today's Oil and Gas News Briefs, Courtesy: Larry Persily


AGDC: government gasline equity owner board of directors meets Saturday


CBCTransCanada Withdraws Nebraska Pipeline Application


Commonwealth North: Open meeting tomorrow with Mike Pawlowski, Deputy Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski


Yesterday's results: Alaska Oil & Gas North Slope Lease Sale


Time for Congress to defund sue and settle (And we couldn't agree more! -dh)


Arctic Shipping Lanes Opening?

The Daily Caller, By Michael Bastasch 

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency said it wouldn’t be “extreme” for the government to ban all coal, oil and natural gas production on federal lands, but was quick to add governments had broader things to consider in crafting energy policies.

 
“I don’t think it’s extreme,” Gina McCarthy said in a recent interview with Bill Loveless of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “I think it’s a valid position for agencies and entities that are solely looking at environmental issues.”
 

Lisa Murkowski, EPA, overreach, Senate, Energy, Natural Resources, Dave Harbour PhotoU.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (NGP Photo), today voted to block the Obama administration from imposing costly new climate regulations on America’s economy.

Murkowski voted in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 23 and Senate Joint Resolution 24, which are both bipartisan resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to block the administration’s so-called Clean Power Plan limits on carbon dioxide emissions from new and existing power plants.

“The Obama administration has once again overstepped in attempting to drastically overhaul the way America generates its energy,” Murkowski said.

McCarthy’s remarks were in response to a question from Loveless asking her if it’s an “extreme” position for environmentalists to call for a ban on coal, oil and gas production on federal lands.

 
“So I mean do you think that it’s extreme then for those that might say, ‘Well let’s stop. Let’s keep all the oil and gas that’s in the federal property in that property going forward. Stop it from being produced.
 
Same goes for offshore Alaska. Stop it from being produced because it’s just going to contribute to the problem, the environmental problem,” Loveless asked.  “Do you think that’s an extreme position, not a good one?” Loveless added.
 
“That’s not what — what frankly that’s not even what I do,” McCarthy said after she said it’s not extreme for some agencies to want to ban fossil fuel production. “I have obligations under the law to look at costs and many times and what’s reasonable and what’s appropriate, and we’re going to keep doing that.”
 
“I think the president has broad considerations,” she said, adding that past international agreements on global warming have failed because “we were absolutely trying to do to much too soon.”
 
“The last thing I’m gonna wanna do is to go out and do more without considering how we continue that steady progress moving forward,” McCarthy said.
 
Environmentalists have been urging the Obama administration to stop companies from extracting 
fossil fuels from federal lands in the name of saving the Earth from global warming. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s running for president, has supported a complete ban on fossil fuel production on federal lands.
 
Environmentalist pleas for a ban on fossil fuel production come as United Nations delegates are 
preparing to meet in Paris to hash out a successor to the Kyoto Protocol — an agreement to cut global carbon dioxide emissions. Eco­activists argue banning fossil fuel production would set an example for the rest of the world to follow.
 
“We call on you to make our nation the first to commit to keeping all of its remaining, unleased public fossil fuels in the ground, thereby challenging other nations to do the same,” a coalition of environmentalists wrote in a September letter to the White House. “Such leadership is necessary to ensure a livable climate and planet for both present and future generations.”
 
But McCarthy was careful to stress President Barack Obama had to take broader considerations on energy issues than environmentalists, like “how do we keep the lights on, how do we keep it affordable, how we keep it consistent with job growth in the U.S. in a growing economy.”
 
McCarthy questioned the political expediency of moving too quickly to ban fossil fuels from being taken out of federal lands.
 
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/17/epa­chief­its­not­extreme­to­ban­coal­oil­gas­production­on­federal­lands/?print=1 1/2
 
11/18/2015 EPA Chief: It’s Not Extreme To Ban Coal, Oil, Gas Production | The Daily Caller
 
“While just from an environmental lens, you may have a vision of what we should do when,” she said. “We have to look at the law, we have to look at science.”
 
Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter
 
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

 

 

 

 
_______________________________________
 
 

Oil and gas news briefs for Nov. 19, 2015

Osaka Gas interested in selling, trading its U.S. LNG
 
(Platts; Nov. 18) - Japan's Osaka Gas is keen to resell and trade its offtake volume from the Freeport LNG plant under construction in Texas to boost profits and flexibility in its LNG procurement, the president of the gas utility said Nov. 18. "We want to resell as much of this volume as possible," Osaka Gas president Takehiro Honjo said. "This LNG is Henry Hub-linked and we could consider not only just bringing it back to Japan but also other options such as swapping cargoes with those in Southeast Asia, Europe."
 
Osaka Gas has a liquefaction tolling agreement with Freeport LNG, which is expected to start-up in 2018. The contract allows Osaka Gas to take 2.2 million metric tons per year of U.S.-sourced gas with no destination restrictions. Honjo said low oil prices would reduce the competitiveness of U.S. LNG but the utility needs to see how energy prices pan out in 2018. If prices to liquefy and deliver U.S. gas are too high, Osaka could choose not to liquefy some of its volume, though it still would be required to pay Freeport a fee for the reserved capacity at the liquefaction plant.
 
Though Osaka Gas wants to increase its equity in LNG projects, Honjo said he does not currently see any attractive LNG investment opportunities.
 
 
 
China looking to sell unneeded LNG, adding to global oversupply
 
(Bloomberg; Nov. 18) - U.S. liquefied natural gas producers face an unlikely challenge as they prepare to enter global markets: China’s sale of supply it won’t need. The Asian nation will accept only 77 percent of its contracted cargoes in 2015 as its slowest economic growth since 1990 cuts demand, according to industry consultant IHS Inc. The rest of the supply will be put up for sale amid a worldwide glut that Goldman Sachs says is likely to force U.S. export projects under construction to operate at half capacity.
 
The U.S. and China are seeking to sell cargoes just as new LNG output equivalent to more than a third of global demand is set to flood the market over the next three years. While producers face more competition, the supply surge is a bonanza for the world’s biggest buyers, including Japan, that are benefiting from the lowest prices since at least 2010. “Chinese buyers have started trying to divert cargoes away from their home market,” James Taverner, an IHS analyst in Tokyo, said by e-mail.
 
The North American shale boom triggered producers to prepare for LNG exports five years ago, when benchmark U.S. natural gas was as much as double today’s price. Elsewhere, companies sank billions of dollars into new supply from Australia to Africa, counting on Asian demand. LNG producers will increase annual supply by about 90 million tons over the next three years, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., equivalent to about 38 percent of demand in 2014. Meanwhile, China will cut natural gas prices for business and industrial users as it seeks to boost demand for the fuel.
 
 
 
China cuts benchmark natural gas price to spur more demand
 
(Wall Street Journal; Nov. 18) - China’s government Nov. 18 moved to shore up ailing demand for natural gas across its economy with deep price cuts aimed at spurring more use by domestic industry. The cuts, reported by the National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planner, cut benchmark city-gate prices by $3.10 per 1,000 cubic feet for industry and commercial users. The move had been expected for several months and equals a 28 percent cut in average city-gate prices nationwide.
 
The cuts are important, not least because they signal Beijing is serious about weaning its reliance on coal as part of cleaning up China’s air and economy. But at the same time, the lower price could slow domestic shale exploration and production in western China, analysts said. City-gates prices refer to the prices that local distributors pay for gas and have a significant impact on the prices that end-users such as factories pay as well as overall domestic demand. The price cut doesn’t apply to residential consumers.
 
The commission also said it was deepening energy-sector reforms by allowing greater price negotiation between buyers and sellers. With the move, China will allow suppliers to charge up to 20 percent more than the benchmark, based on supply and demand. It set no downward limit for price fluctuations. The price cuts, which will take effect Nov. 20, aim to restore demand growth for gas in China after it soured this year. “China is the most important gas growth market globally, and the LNG industry will breathe a sigh of relief on this announcement,” said Neil Beveridge, a gas analyst at Bernstein Research.
 
 
 
China proposes $7 billion investment in U.S. methanol plants
 
(Energy Wire; Nov. 17) - China is seeking to tap the flood of cheap natural gas coming from the interior of North America by converting it to methanol at three huge refineries proposed in Washington and Oregon. The plants, collectively called Northwest Innovation Works, have received little attention despite their head-snapping impact: The refineries could increase demand for natural gas in the Pacific Northwest by 40 percent. They would more than triple the size of the fast-growing U.S. methanol industry.
 
At an estimated $7 billion cost, the refineries would be one of the largest investments ever by China in new U.S. manufacturing. The largest plant, in Tacoma, could use more water than all the residential customers of the public utility district combined. The plan is being viewed warily by Pacific Northwest environmental groups that have been effective at slowing a long list of proposals to deliver North American coal, oil and gas to markets in Asia. Two of the three refineries would sit on the banks of the Columbia River.
 
The end goal is methanol, a crucial building block of plastic and many other materials of modern life. China would be the sole recipient of the production, which would lower greenhouse gas emissions in China while raising them to a lesser degree on American shores. China is the world's largest producer and consumer of methanol, and it manufactures almost all of it from coal, which creates a great deal of carbon emissions. The three plants would about triple total U.S. methanol production.
 
 
 
British government wants to close all coal-fired power plants by 2025
 
(New York Times; Nov. 18) - The British government Nov. 18 called for closing all coal-fired power plants in the country by 2025. The move, announced in advance of the U.N. conference on climate change in Paris on Nov. 30, appeared aimed at showing Britain as a leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. “It cannot be satisfactory for an advanced economy like the U.K. to be relying on polluting, carbon-intensive 50-year-old coal-fired power stations,” said Amber Rudd, minister for energy and climate change.
 
The government will publish its detailed proposals in the spring, she said. Rudd wants more gas-fired stations to be built, since relying on "polluting" coal is "perverse.” Coal use in Britain is in decline as utilities close aging plants, but more than 20 percent of the country’s electricity was still being generated from the fuel in the second quarter of this year. By comparison, just over 30 percent of British electricity came from natural gas, 25.3 percent from renewables and 21.5 percent from nuclear plants.
 
Analysts say most British coal plants are likely to be shut by the mid-2020s anyway, but they add that forcing the closing of all coal plants within a decade could be too hasty. Speaking Nov. 18 to a group of civil engineers, Rudd said Britain should be using gas instead of coal to generate electricity because gas burns cleaner than coal. With the decline in North Sea production, she added, Britain may need to get 75 percent of its gas from other countries by 2030, compared with the roughly half that it now imports.
 
 
 
First Sabine Pass LNG to Europe could go to Lithuania
 
(Reuters; Nov. 17) -  The first export of U.S. liquefied natural gas to Europe will head for Lithuania, two industry sources say, a gesture to the Baltic states that are heavily reliant on Russia for supply, and the first shot in a price war over market share in Moscow's backyard. The February delivery of U.S. LNG will challenge Russia's land-locked pipelines. The Cheniere Energy LNG export plant at Sabine Pass, La., is expected to start shipments early next year.
 
In addition to Sabine Pass, four other LNG export terminals are under construction on the U.S. East and Gulf coasts. Talks are ongoing on the inaugural U.S. shipment, though Lithuania's state-run Lietuvos Energija wants a discount to Russian piped deliveries, one source said. Most of the output at Sabine Pass is under long-term contract, though the customers are free to deliver the LNG wherever they want. U.K.-based BG Group is an anchor customer for the Cheniere plant.
 
One question is whether Gazprom will defend market share by upping output and lowering prices or by restraining production, as it did during the last gas market glut in 2008-2009, and waiting for prices to recover, said Stephen O'Rourke, director of gas research at consultancy Wood Mackenzie. Lithuania opened its floating LNG import terminal in 2014.
 
 
 
Partners OK additional drilling to feed Australia LNG plant
 
(Sydney Morning Herald; Nov. 16) - BG Group and its Asian partners in the $20.4 (U.S.) billion Queensland Curtis LNG venture in Australia have given the go-ahead for $1.7 billion of additional spending for up to 400 new wells to maintain gas supply. Drilling will occur over the next two years. The large investment underscores the ongoing spending commitment required by the coal-seam gas LNG projects in Queensland, which need to keep drilling new wells every year to maintain gas supplies for their export plants.
 
BG started shipments from the facility in January — the first ever gas exports from Queensland — and has so far delivered 62 cargoes to Asia. As partners in Queensland Curtis LNG, China National Offshore Oil Corp. and Tokyo Gas will fund part of the additional drilling, but the British company will shoulder most of the investment in line with its 73.75 percent stake in the acreage. The work also includes 450 miles of water and gas gathering lines, a compression station as well as other power and water lines.
 
 
 
Chevron reports Gorgon LNG in final stages for commissioning
 
(Business Finance News; Nov. 16) - One of the largest liquefied natural gas projects in the world, and Australia’s largest ever resource project, the Chevron-led Gorgon project is on its way to make its first LNG shipment in early 2016. In the latest update on its website, Chevron reported the project in its final stages to prepare for commissioning, which would allow start-up of the plant’s first liquefaction train.
 
An LNG cool-down cargo is expected to arrive in mid-December, necessary to help in cooling down the massive storage tanks in preparation for the start of LNG production at the plant. Gorgon, at an estimated $54 (U.S.) billion, and another Chevron-led project in Australia, Wheatstone, and an LNG export project in Angola are expected to help improve cash flow at the oil-and-gas major after years of multibillion-dollar construction spending on the projects.
 
The $10 billion Angola plant has been closed since last year for major rebuilding after production problems. Wheatstone, at $29 billion, is scheduled for start-up before year-end 2016. Wheatstone, Angola and Gorgon have all incurred delays and cost overruns.
 
 
 
First Nation considering small LNG plant near Vancouver
 
(Globe and Mail; Nov. 16) - The Tsawwassen First Nation is considering building a small liquefied natural gas production plant and export terminal south of Vancouver, working in a joint-venture with FortisBC that is expanding its own 1971 liquefaction plant in Delta, also just south of Vancouver. The First Nation proposal calls for producing 3 million to 5 million metric tons of LNG per year, filling several tankers per month. The project would rely on an existing pipeline to deliver gas. No project cost was provided.
 
Members of the First Nation are set to vote on the proposal Dec. 16. The First Nation has selected industrial property on its land for the LNG site. The FortisBC $400 million expansion is separate from the proposed Tsawwassen project. Expansion work started at the FortisBC Tilbury plant last year, with the additional production to start up by the end of 2016. The Tsawwassen First Nation is among 20 or so LNG plants proposed for up and down the coast, looking to profit from shale gas plays in northeastern B.C.
 
 
 
B.C. official asks LNG opponents to wait for federal review
 
(Globe and Mail; Canada; Nov. 15) - B.C. Deputy Premier Rich Coleman said plans for a liquefied natural gas terminal near Prince Rupert will be judged on a science-based environmental assessment, urging the project’s critics to wait for details from a federal review. Coleman said critics should allow the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to finish its job and study new submissions — notably scrutinizing more details and revisions expected from the company about its plans for building the LNG terminal.
 
A group led by a Lax Kw’alaams First Nation tribal leader complains that the Pacific NorthWest LNG project will damage juvenile salmon habitat. Donnie Wesley, a hereditary chief of the Gitwilgyoots tribe, argues that no amount of mitigation measures would protect the ecologically sensitive Flora Bank, located next to Lelu Island in the Skeena River estuary.
 
“They always say it should be based on science, but they’re prepared to prejudge it,” Coleman said of the project’s opponents. Malaysia’s state-owned Petronas heads the venture, one of 20 projects in British Columbia vying to export gas overseas, mostly targeting Asia. Pacific NorthWest LNG is trying to address opponents’ concerns in its project plans. Canada’s environmental agency started its review into Pacific NorthWest LNG in April 2013. It could issue its decision in February.
 
 
 
New report says LNG project in B.C. would not harm salmon habitat
 
(Globe and Mail; Canada; Nov. 18) - Flora Bank is a resilient area that would emerge unscathed in the event that liquefied natural gas is produced on Lelu Island, B.C., a report commissioned by Pacific NorthWest LNG concludes. Visible at low tide, Flora Bank contains eelgrass that nurtures juvenile salmon in the Skeena River estuary near Prince Rupert. Pacific NorthWest LNG, led by Malaysia’s state-owned Petronas, wants to build an export terminal on Lelu Island, located next to Flora Bank.
 
“The technical work completed to date indicates that the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on fish and fish habitat,” according to the consortium’s 36-page summary of its findings. The findings contrast sharply with research carried out by the aboriginal-backed Skeena Fisheries Commission, which is sounding the alarm about significant risks to Flora Bank.
 
Pacific NorthWest LNG conducted new studies after the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency requested more details from the consortium. Pacific NorthWest LNG said it will also have a program to monitor fish habitat and will continue to discuss its plans with groups ranging from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to First Nations. The federal environmental agency is expected to produce a draft report before rendering a final decision on the Petronas-led project by the spring of 2016.
 
 
 
Pakistan looks to convert power plants, boost LNG imports
 
(Pakistan Today; Nov. 15) - The Pakistan government is considering converting its inoperative electricity generation plants running on diesel or furnace oil in Sindh and Punjab to liquefied natural gas to boost power generation capacity, said Syed Mohammad Ali, CEO of Engro Vopak Terminal and Elengy Terminal Pakistan. Most of the big electricity plants running on diesel and furnace oil are not producing electricity at full capacity because of domestic natural gas shortages or expensive alternative fuels.
 
“The initial plan of the government is to run the inoperative electricity plants at their full capacity through imported LNG,” Ali said, adding that the plants could make electricity at half the cost of other fuels. On any given day, diesel is more expensive than LNG, he said. LNG prices are down sharply from their peak less than two years ago as new supplies are coming online in an oversupplied market. Pakistan has started importing LNG just in the past year, after domestic gas production failed to keep up with demand.
 
The country produces about 4 billion cubic feet of gas per day but could use an additional 2 bcf a day, Ali said. “LNG remains a cheaper option (than diesel or fuel oil),” he said. “LNG … is more efficient in power generation, leading to lower operational, management and transportation costs.” According to some estimates, the CEO said, Pakistan could save $1 billion to $1.5 billion per year by importing 1 bcf a day of LNG to replace oil fuels.
 
 
 
TransCanada plans expansion to handle Alberta, B.C. gas production
 
(Calgary Herald; Nov. 16) - More relief for Western Canada gas producers enduring pipeline bottlenecks is on the way with Calgary-based TransCanada announcing Nov. 16 a $570 million proposal to add capacity for 2.7 billion cubic feet per day of firm contracts on its Nova Gas Transmission system by 2018. Dozens of oil and gas companies operating in western Alberta and northeastern B.C. have reported interrupted production over the summer as natural gas gushing from horizontal, multi-fractured wells overwhelm pipeline capacity.
 
“There’s a lot of capacity in Alberta but, in many cases, it’s in the wrong place. Horizontal drilling has changed where we drill,” said Jim Evaskevich, chief executive of junior Yangarra Resources, which uses TransCanada to take gas to market from its land base in west-central Alberta. “We lost a lot of production this year, although currently we don’t have much cut back.”
 
TransCanada said its 2018 expansion program represents the minimum system addition required to cover contracts, and additional expansions may be planned if identified in an assessment this year. It said it intends to make application to the National Energy Board in the second half of 2016 to build the 2018 projects. The expansion would be in addition to $7.5 billion of projects already announced on the Nova system as TransCanada works to handle growing gas production in the region.
 
 
 
TransCanada expands its pipeline work in Mexico
 
(Bloomberg; Nov. 17) - Days after the U.S. spurned TransCanada’s proposal to expand its Keystone oil pipeline network across North America, Mexico opened its arms. TransCanada won the rights last week for its sixth gas pipeline in Mexico, one of the company’s key targets for growth. The Nov. 10 decision came four days after the U.S. denied TransCanada’s bid to build its Keystone XL oil sands project across the border.
 
Mexico’s need for foreign investment to help the nation improve its infrastructure is a welcome opportunity for TransCanada after losing its seven-year battle to complete Keystone XL. The Canadian company, which owns pipelines and power plants, plans to invest more than $3 billion in Mexico by 2017, said Robert Jones, president of Mexico operations. Mexico is planning to hold as many as five gas pipeline auctions before the end of January, and TransCanada will “look at them all,” Jones said.
 
With the latest contract, TransCanada now holds rights to develop and operate more than 1,200 miles of pipelines in Mexico. TransCanada’s expansion in Mexico coincides with the country’s overhaul of its energy industry that ended the state-run monopolies, opening the door to private investment. Mexico plans to expand its pipeline network 75 percent by 2018 and is seeking as much as $10 billion in investment for 24 new projects in the short term, helping to move plentiful U.S. shale gas south of the border.
 
 
 
Flint Hills applies for small-scale LNG exports; targets Caribbean
 
(Energy Wire; Nov. 18) - Flint Hills Resources has applied to export liquefied natural gas via an expedited pathway that relies on an existing small-scale LNG plant and standard-sized shipping containers and barges to reach Caribbean and other small markets. In a recent filing with the Department of Energy, Flint Hills, a Wichita, Kansas-based Koch Industries subsidiary, requested permission to export up to 120,000 gallons of LNG per day — about 3.6 billion cubic feet of natural gas per year.
 
The project is tiny by LNG export industry standards, with some Gulf Coast plants looking to export 2 bcf a day. But the Flint Hills project enjoys a benefit the big ones do not: It is exempt from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, potentially saving months or years and millions of dollars. Most liquefaction plants undergo a lengthy environmental review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or Maritime Administration before construction and operation of a terminal.
 
The FERC process, which covers land-based terminals that serve LNG tanker ships, generally takes at least two to three years and tens of millions of dollars to complete. The MARAD process for offshore plants is designed to produce a decision within one year. But Flint Hills proposes to load up containers at an existing, company-affiliated liquefaction plant in Texas for shipment by barge or containership to buyers. That would be exempt from the stringent environmental review, the company said, because no operations would change at its LNG facility — only the delivery method and destination.
 
 
 
North Dakota oil production down 5 percent from year ago
 
(Energy Wire; Nov. 16) - Oil production in North Dakota's Bakken Shale formation has begun to coast downward, nearly a year after prices started to crash, and it could keep falling, the state's top energy regulator said Nov. 13. The state pumped 1.16 million barrels a day in September, down about 2 percent from August and about 5 percent below the all-time high set in December 2014.
 
The number of producing wells fell month over month for the first time since 2003, and the number of wells that have been drilled but not completed, or hydraulically fractured, has topped 1,000, state Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms said on a conference call with reporters. Companies are "producing only as much oil as they need to make the stockholders and the bankers happy," Helms said.
 
Drilling is economical in only three of North Dakota's western counties at current prices, and production could drop below 1.1 million barrels a day, Helms said. The average North Dakota price was $31.17 per barrel in September, reflecting the national decline and the higher cost of transporting Bakken oil to refining centers on the coasts. It could take a year for production to recover once prices improve, Helms said.


 

CWN Energy Action Coalition:

Join us for a special meeting of our Energy Action Coalition this Friday, November 20th, noon – 1pm at the HDR building at 2525 C Street (formerly the CIRI building). Mike Pawlowski, Deputy Chief of Staff to U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, will brief us on some of the latest legislation in Washington, D.C.  His discussion will include the Energy Policy Modernization Act, a bi-partisan bill recently introduced by Senator Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee.  Mike will also discuss legislation related to Outer Continental Shelf energy exploration. 


 

Categories:

10-23-15 Crony Capitalism

23 October 2015 6:09am

New global climate deal could hit Alaska drilling

Millions of eyes, billions of dollars focused on Paris!

Note the dedication and focus represented by this video statement, then see the Crony Capitalism background, current status and conclusion commentary we have prepared for you.

See major UN Climate Change Organizer: 

Christiana Figueres


Is Global Warming A Hoax:

IPCC Credibility

Deconstructing GW: Richard Lindzen, Ph.D.

Dr. Benny Peiser Testimony

Dr. Christopher Essex: GW Science​

Nobel Laureate

NASA Scientist

Climate Science History

97% Consensus = Science?

Greenpeace Founder re: Fraud

Scientists Cheat on Data

Debate

Climate Always Changes

U.S. Senate Testimony

Michael Crichton

​Scientific Bias

IPCC Computer Models

World Health Organization Faux Fear

Author Researches GW

Weather Channel Founder


Fun: What causes climate change: capitalism / democracy, but China is doing it right?!

Crony Capitalism

by

Dave Harbour

cro·ny. ˈkrōnē/close friend or companion.
"he went gambling with his cronies".  Synonyms: friend, companion, bosom friend, intimate, confidant, accomplice, comrade
Capitalism.  an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Oxymoron.  a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

Socialism.  a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  ...a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.


Background: Crony Capitalism is an Oxymoron

We at NGP are among the strongest of oil and gas and mining industry supporters.

Why?

Because without those industries, the United States would likely be just another third world country.  (i.e. Whereas we primarily address Canada sometimes, today we focus on America, though the principles herein apply to both nations.) ​

And why did oil and gas and mining help propel America to its lofty social and economic heights?  Well, some of us begin with the 1) Declaration of Independence, 2) Constitution, and 3) intent of founders acknowledging that their experiment in freedom was wholly based on the grace of their omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator.

Sure, one recognizes the amazing array of natural resources within America's borders, but, again, those borders evolved over time and under the protection and guidance of our founding fathers, their faithful descendants, our founding documents, and reliance on the rule of law.

Humankind is imperfect.  America is and always has been imperfect.  But part of the country's ability to develop based on her bountiful resources was the rule of law embodied in our country's creation: due process, protected freedoms, prohibitions against oppression.

With the passage of time, America has drifted away from its founding principles.  The rule of law has been manipulated to benefit those in power, away from founding values, particularly in the current administration: "Change to believe in".  

As a result, we are disappointed though not surprised to see many institutions of freedom gravitating toward socialistic alliances with government.  We described some of those alliances earlier this week that have developed within the public utility and oil industry sectors.

Institutions are bred to survive and their constituents need them to survive to preserve incomes and lifestyles and life itself.  So our modern institutions understandably fear a "sovereign" that presumes -- without opposition -- to define the Bill of Rights; make law by edict; declare and incarcerate enemies of the state secretly; access personal communication without valid warrant; misuse the IRS, EPA and other tools of government; redefine marriage, life, education and national security.

Being fearful for their survival, companies go to creative and great lengths to endear themselves to their regulators--even some of our esteemed energy companies.

Oil and gas companies are wealth-producing institutions subject to onerous government treatment and, thus, are natural targets of those amassing government power.  (For the time being, we shall not refer further to mining companies.  While they have much in common with oil and gas entities, the oil & gas industry is the foundation of America's economic pyramid, producing the bulk of low cost energy enabling all other industries and services and pursuits -- including mining -- to exist productively.)

We have documented in these pages for years the efforts by government to exert tighter and tighter controls over the oil and gas industry.  While the ultimate goal of socialists might be nationalism / expropriation of oil and gas companies (i.e. as in Argentina {Repsol}), a good step in that direction occurs when government learns how to control companies through regulations and bleed them of their wealth through taxation: i.e. "Crony Capitalism", or more accurately, "Socialism".

Turning now to the definitions above, we see that, properly defined, "crony capitalism" is an oxymoron.

Crony capitalism is an illogical term since it suggests "free enterprise controlled by friends/conspirators, etc."

When a free enterprise becomes controlled or influenced by others, it loses freedom by degree of -- in proportion to -- that control or influence.  When government becomes the crony "friend" of free enterprise, free enterprise dies as its freedom expires.  So a country or world filled with what we think of as "crony capitalism" is really a place wherein socialist governments have excised the freedom of others to control their means of production, distribution and exchange.

In the example of crony capitalist organizations like Solyndra and its relationship to our national leadership, success of the enterprise is not really the goal.  The goal is for the company to contribute to certain political campaigns, work with elected officials to create legislation earmarking subsidies or grants for a certain sector or business, supporting the reelection of those officials and the prosperity of the "business"... and so the circle of life sustains itself.  Until the enterprise goes bust, of course, and frustrates but does not deter all of those involved from transplanting the model into other vehicles. 

Since socialism is defined as a transition into communism any realist would have to conclude that: "'Crony capitalism' is a convenient though incorrect way of describing socialist control over an economy leading to communist dictatorship." 

We urge our readers to not ignore today's warnings.  

Last spring when environmental activists were protesting the temporary moorage of Shell vessels at the Port of Seattle, our research led us to a frightening reality: The master manipulators of 'climate change' in the United Nations and in our own federal government are led by Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change.  She confirmed that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

Ms. Figueres also appears to be the major organizer of the upcoming Paris conference -- perhaps the major achievement of her lifetime if she can use it to have the UN exercise control over sovereign countries like the U.S. and Canada.​  (Other must-see videos: 1 critical, 2 Australia, 3, 4 Renewable vs. Fossil, 5 Anti-democracy, anti-capitalism videos, etc.)

*     *     *

Current Challenge: Crony Capitalism, or, Killing Capitalism in Paris

I have a dream.  What if we could run into the the United Nations building and yell, "Climate Change"!  We could convince countries with money to give it to others without money to compensate the latter for the carbon the former are putting in the air so that the latter can install alternate energy or pay for fossil fuel.  In this way citizens of wealthy countries love their representatives for dealing with climate change; alternative energy companies make billions and contribute to political campaigns; certain 'cooperative' oil companies are accepted when their "initiative" leads to grants for all manner of environmental studies and loans/subsidies given to developing countries -- processed via the World Bank.  The United Nations creates the mandatory, worldwide rules and the wealthy countries, via 'dues', pay the U.N. to enforce the international agreements.  So, everyone's happy, right?  You're not?  Just because you have to pay for someone else's solar system in another country?  Too bad; pay up or go to jail.  (Dear readers: if this seems implausible or exaggerated, please send clarification after witnessing the results of the upcoming COP21.  -dh)

The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) Begins In Paris, On November 30, 2015.  

The COP21 goal threatens free enterprise and sovereignty of world nations by a number of "Initiatives" that could result in acceptance by nation representatives of "International Climate Laws".  The end result: a binding and universal agreement / treaty on climate, from all the nations of the world.

These "initiatives" include an Oil & Gas Climate Initiative described earlier this week.  Its joint declaration states that, "As the international community heads towards COP21, we, the member companies of the Oil and Gas Climate initiative (OGCI), who together provide nearly 10% of the world’s energy, express our collective support for an effective global climate change agreement."  Remember the above stated COP21 goal: "...a binding and universal agreement on climate, from all nations of the world."  Note that in a majority vote, the U.S. and Canada can be easily outvoted, though with current liberal leadership the chance that they would oppose international consensus may be fairly remote.   Readers can join me in pondering this question: "What if it is in an oil company's interest to support a particular U.N. climate initiative benefiting its shareholders at the expense of its host country taxpayers? 

Liberal European countries like France are 'all in', and have insured that local companies will pay the lion's share of costs for COP21 (See 'Financing').

A dauntingly huge contingent of other worldwide companies have been seduced into lending their money and logos to COP21 goal of creating a binding and universal agreement / treaty on climate, from all the nations of the world.

In fact, the only/lonely constituencies I do not see represented in the mountains of COP21  information and web pages are the lowly "taxpayer" and "rate payer" constituencies.  But we NGP readers are comforted, aren't we, in knowing that environmental activists are more than happy to classify themselves as "consumer advocates", representing all of us.

The U.S. Administration -- like many European governments -- supports increased government control using environmental and other political tools.  We can envision the Administration publishing Executive Orders approving support of various international agreements; the term "treaty" will not be used because the Constitution requires a super majority vote of the U.S. Senate to approve treaties.

The U.S. has already developed a certain carbon emission goal effort with China, of which readers are probably unaware, and informed the United Nations THIS WEEK of an emission reduction goal that carries with it costs to utility and other consumers, of which readers are also probably not aware.... 

*     *     * 

Conclusion and Action Steps

We've now defined certain terms, interpreted them, applied them to the upcoming COP21 and suggested potential vulnerabilities to the sovereignty of the United States.

Readers will ask, "So what are we supposed to do about it?"

Our answer is "practical but realistic".  First, as to "realistic", you have to know that the United Nations -- a huge organizational amoeba designed to eat, roam and grow -- is the ultimate "community organizer" behind this effort.  The network the UN has organized around the climate change concept may shock readers for it is extraordinarily powerful, consisting of many governments, NGOs and government influenced corporations, among others (Reference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 89, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and many more).

But there will be wars in Paris.  Big electric utilities are lobbying hard; they say that, "...any Paris Agreement should embrace four core principles that will help drive the deployment of clean technologies: a commitment to deliver "secure, stable, clear, consistent and long-term policies"; a systemic approach to decarbonizing electricity systems (i.e. no natural gas, oil or coal); the promotion of public-private partnerships (i.e. government support); and urgent progress on clean tech R&D  (i.e. government support).

Some of the less enlightened oil companies put great emphasis on bashing coal, even 'clean coal' technology, selfishly focused not on consumer interests but on shareholder desires to sell more natural gas for power generation.

Some of the web pages noted above support less use of natural gas along with international agreements to enforce that goal.

As to the "practical" aspect of our advice to readers: Here are the action steps we recommend to our readers (i.e. many of whom we do realize are to one degree or another dependent on some of the oil companies joining in the Climate Change Paris parade): 

  • Follow the Paris proceedings on the Internet.  You will be amazed at the resources being focused on convincing you that, 1) there is a "global warming" problem, and 2) that it is man-caused, and 3) that taxation or other sacrifice by Americans can make a material difference.
  • There will be no reference to other scientific evidence that the globe is not warming but, rather, continuously involved in millennial climate change cycles beginning long before man appeared.
  • After doing your homework write thoughtful, responsible letters to the editor.  Comment on blogs.  Engage in meaningful communication with community groups.  (Don't simply become a reactionary, generally opposing/supporting something without the facts and logic to support your position.)
  • If you determine certain companies are working against the interest of you and your fellow citizens, tell them that you are on to them and oppose their actions for the thoughtful reasons and logic you have assembled.
  • Via your organizations obtain resolutions.  Encourage passage of legislative resolutions and/or proclamations from Governors and Mayors.
  • Make sure your U.S. Senators understand your reaction to having the Administration's climate change devotees supporting "international climate change agreements" without properly submitting them to the Senate for approval as treaties.

If in monitoring the Paris conference you develop other ideas for how to effectively voice a responsible position, feel free to write us.

It's a brave new world, folks.  Socialization of private enterprise is now developing into a fine art--not only in the world of environmental activism.  If you choose to ignore it, you will live with the result of a transformed society that you may or may not find either comfortable or consistent with Constitutional law and values.

Don't be surprised when your favorite company or next door neighbor becomes involuntarily pressed into or "encouraged" into supporting certain favored, government programs.

Just become knowledgeable.

For in being prepared, you will best know how to react.


The Fifth Assessment Report was finalized in 2014. As had been the case in the past, the outline of the AR5 was developed through a scoping process which involved climate change experts from all relevant disciplines and users of IPCC reports; in particular representatives from governments. Governments and organizations involved in the Fourth Report were asked to submit comments and observations in writing with the submissions analyzed by the panel.[1] The report was delivered in stages, starting with Working Group I's report on the physical science basis, based on 9,200 peer-reviewed studies.[2][3] The summaries for policy makers were released on 27 September 2013 for the first report,[4] on 31 March 2014 for the second report entitled "Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability",[5] and on 14 April 2014 for the third report entitled "Mitigation of Climate Change".[6] The Synthesis Report was released on 2 November 2014.[7] It is anticipated that the Fifth Assessment Report will pave the way for a global, legally binding treaty on reducing carbon emissions at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris during late 2015.

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, the House passed H.R. 1937, the National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015 with bipartisan support by a vote of 254-177. Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) released the following statement:

China is winning and we are losing. Rather than harness our abundant mineral resources for the betterment of our national security, economic stability, and basic necessities, we have a senseless permitting process that promotes mineral dependence.  H.R. 1937 combats the lengthy permitting processes that hold up mining projects on average 7-10 years, exacerbated by the frivolous, unwarranted lawsuits from national special interest groups. The bill ensures a robust domestic mineral economy that is essential to our national security and economic well-being.”

The National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2015, introduced by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV), sets a coherent national policy to create a domestic supply chain of minerals that are of critical importance to United States economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness.

“Our nation is rich in strategic and critical minerals. Permitting delays stand in the way of high-paying jobs and revenue for local, often rural, communities,”stated Amodei. “This legislation does nothing to circumvent environmental regulations or public input. It would simply streamline the permitting process to leverage our nation's vast mineral resources, while paying due respect to economic, national security and environmental concerns. This legislation has received bipartisan support in passing the House four times the past three Congresses. I look forward to the Senate joining the fray this Congress and helping the House solve this important issue for the country."


 

Dave Harbour, publisher of Northern Gas Pipelines, is a former Chairman of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and a Commissioner Emeritus of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).  He served as NARUC's official representative to the Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC).  The former Army officer is past Chairman of the Alaska Council on Economic Education, former Chairman of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, and past President of the American Bald Eagle Foundation and the Alaska Press Club.  He is Chairman Emeritus of the Alaska Oil & Gas Congress.

Harbour has served as a public/government/external affairs manager for three gas pipeline companies and an oil company and has owned several small companies in Alaska.  

He has addressed or chaired dozens of oil and gas conferences throughout the United States and Canada and hundreds of his editorials and articles have appeared in newspapers, magazines and electronic media throughout North America.

Harbour holds a Master of Science Degree in Journalism-Communications and is an accredited member of the Public Relations Society of America (APR).


Opinions or viewpoints expressed in this webpage or in our email alerts are solely those of the publisher and are not intended to reflect the opinion(s) of any affiliated company, person, employer or other organization that may, in fact, oppose the views stated herein.  -dh

Categories:
Syndicate content