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

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


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. 



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


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


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.


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


12-30-14 Oil Price Results: Alaska Governor Walker and Alberta Premier Prentice Plan Spending Cuts

30 December 2014 9:04am

Our Commentary: "Enlightened Self Interest vs. the Public Interest: Is Global Warming and Ocean Acidification Science Reliable" is being rescheduled. -dh

Bill Walker, Governor, Alaska, Spending Cuts, AGDC, mega projects, Dave Harbour PhotoJuneau Empire EditorialThumbs up to fulfilling promises. On Friday, Gov. Bill Walker (NGP Photo) issued an administrative order to halt work on six of Alaska’s biggest construction projects. During his campaign for governor, Walker promised to cut “unnecessary” studies as a way to reduce the state’s expenses. As most of those six projects are still in the study phase, we shouldn’t be surprised that Walker is considering them for the chopping block. We might believe those projects are still worthwhile, but we should give credit where credit is due — Walker is doing nothing less than fulfilling a campaign promise.  Background.

Petroleum News by Gary Park.  

Premier, Alberta, Jim Prentice, Spending Cuts, Dave Harbour Photo, oil pricesAlberta Premier Jim Prentice (NGP Photo) is applying a form of water torture by delivering the grim news in a steady trickle.

In preparing Albertans for a round of harsh spending cuts and possibly the unthinkable - higher taxes - he has estimated his government faces a revenue shortfall of C$16.2 billion in the next three fiscal years unless there is a dramatic recovery in oil prices.


Meet Alaska 2015 Registration Form 

Meet Alaska 2015 Sponsorship Form 


John Minge, Chairman, BP America 

Dan Graham, Alaska Coal Association 

American Lands Council –Transfer of Public Lands 

Marianne Kah Chief Economist, ConocoPhillips 

Steve Butt, Senior Project Manager, Alaska LNG – Procurement and Contracts 

US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee

And more, here...    




6-9-14 Polar Bears Are Cuddly and 'Political Shenanigans' Abound!

09 June 2014 6:54am

World Energy, by George Backwell.  ...a fraction of natural gas projects ... will become reality as high costs and weakening gas prices....

Alaska Dispatch, by Brigham McCown.  

As political shenanigans continue to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, Alaska voters hold the key to avoiding a similar fate for what could be North America’s largest pipeline project (i.e. Natural gas pipeline).


Matt Cronin, Polar Bear, Global Warming, University of Alaska, Photo by Dave HarbourWashington Examiner by Mark Tapscott.  Another scientist has more bad news for global warming advocates who claim that Americans are killing Arctic Polar Bears....  *** Professor Matthew Cronin (NGP Photo) of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks studied the genetic histories of the three bear species, brown, black and polar (NGP Photo). *** What Cronin found casts significant Polar Bear, Alaska Zoo, Male and Female, Matt Cronin, Photo by Dave Harbour, Climate Chamge, Global Warmingnew doubt about claims that the furry white monsters of the Arctic are soon going to be extinct if America doesn't stop causing global warming by burning fossil fuels. *** Cronin has been studying animal genetics for 25 years and his latest study will be made public in a paper to be published shortly in the online Journal of Heredity, according to UAF's Nancy Tarnai.  (See a related article)

National Ocean Policy Coalition Newsletter

Fuel Fix.  American Energy Partners said Monday it plans to spend $4.25 billion to expand into Texas and West Virginia for the first time and to snap up more land in Ohio.

Aubrey McClendon, Wilcatter, Fuel Fix, Texas, Chesapeake, Permian, Marcellus, Greenwich Group, Photo by Dave Harbour, NARUCThe three announced acquisitions are the latest — and the most expensive — in a series of moves by Aubrey McClendon (NGP Photo), one of the first wildcatters to capitalize on the U.S. shale boom, to rebuild his empire after he relinquished his perch at the top of Chesapeake Energy last year.


From the National Ocean Policy Coalition: The U.S. Arctic Research Commission's daily update (last week) included an announcement by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Ocean Council that former Alaska State Rep. Beth Kerttula has been selected to serve as National Ocean Council Office (NOC Office) Director.  Kerttula replaces Dr. Brad Moran, who has been serving as Acting NOC Office Director since November 2013.  Coverage of the announcement includes articles in the Alaska Daily Dispatch,Anchorage Daily News, and KTOO News.  KTOO reports that Kerttula will serve as NOC Office Director for one year, with an option to remain through the remainder of the Obama Administration.

Calgary Herald, by Stephen Ewart.  The military crisis in Ukraine has brought into focus Europe's dependence on Russian natural resources for 30 per cent of its energy requirements just as Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in Europe for the G7 Summit and the D-Day anniversary events Friday in Normandy.

With coercion of Russian oil supplies deemed "unacceptable" by political leaders in Europe this week, it appears crude from Canada's oilsands has become much more acceptable.

Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) tells us that last Thursday, CEA-Florida joined PACE for the Gulf Coast Energy Forum in Mobile, Alabama during which executives from five southern utilities raised concerns about the EPA’s new rules on carbon emissions for existing power plants. As Alabama.com noted, one of the biggest concerns highlighted by the executives was the rule’s effect on the energy mix and the likely dependence on natural gas that will result.

The Daily Caller: EPA Rules To ‘Necessarily Skyrocket’ U.S. Electricity Prices
U.S. electricity rates are set to rise more than 10 percent by 2020 because of onerous federal environmental regulations on coal-fired power plants, according to an analysis by American Action Forum. This means consumers could be forced to pay $150 more each year for electricity due to Obama administration power plant regulations.

E&E News: “The United Mine Workers of America is blasting the Obama administration's new proposal for controlling greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, which will likely contribute to the loss of coal mining jobs. "The UMWA has not and does not dispute the science regarding climate change," Cecil Roberts, the group's international president, said in a statement this afternoon. "Our dispute is with how our government is going about addressing it, and on whom the administration is placing the greatest burden in dealing with this challenge," he added. Roberts said the rule would lead to "long-term and irreversible job losses." The union says it calculated the potential direct coal generation job losses at 75,000 by 2020.”



3-2-14 Is Global Cooling About To Overrun Global Warming? What Would Aristotle Say?

02 March 2014 8:37am

From Forbes

Opinion by

Peter Ferrara

Dear Readers:  We have documented excesses in policy and deficiencies in decision making owing to the 'global warming' faith crowd.  

Still, we must prize facts and science over politics in our search for 'Endless Progress'.  In this spirit, we ask our more knowledgeable friends to help us with a response or rebuttal to this reaction to Ferrara's commentary.    -dh

(Our Comment: The Obama Administration departments -- including DOD -- base many changing policies on a bureaucratic faith in the siren calls of global warming.  

Upon the "environmental protection/global warming" assumptions are based programs causing vast damage to American employment, economic health and national security--while building big government bureaucracies and political dependencies on the Executive branch.  

This explains why the Administration and its allies will fight to the death to impugn the reputation of global warming critics.  After all, if the climate is actually growing cooler or simply cycling through another historic period of 'cooling/warming', how can government justify its damaging policies?  

Ferrara's Forbes column may represent an inconvenient truth to disciples of global warming--but integrity demands that we hear a response to the challenge laid out in the box above.  After all, even if it can be shown that warming is a long term trend, we would still demand -- in the name of science -- proof that mankind (and not the oceans, etc.) were the major contributor of greenhouse gasses.  

Then, if man is proved to be the principle cause, is America wisely adopting policies that are reasonable and do not threaten to bankrupt the country while major carbon producers in the developing world are making little to no effort to contain carbon output?  

Lastly, even if the United States (i.e. with over $17 trillion dollars in short term debt and over $90 trillion in unfunded liabilities)  bankrupts itself in search of the holy climate grail, will the end result of global domination by powerful green house gas emitters produce a more sustainable world?   

We do not advocate one political position over another or one extreme view over another (i.e. except that as our dear readers know, we do not deny that we are dedicated to the intent and protections of the Constitution of the Unites States and its precedent, Declaration of Independence).  And we do not seek compromise for the sake of 'getting along'.  Instead, we search for reason, a place between excess of bureaucracy and deficiency of precaution -- which which Aristotle might still today characterize as the "Golden Mean".  -dh) 

Ferrara's words, continued:  "...future generations of scientists will look back and say this is the moment when we took the political out of the political science of "climate change," and this is how we did it. Real scientists know that these 50 co-authors are real scientists. That is transparent from the tenor of the report itself.

"The publication is "double peer reviewed," in that it discusses thousands of peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, and is itself peer reviewed. That is in sharp contrast to President Obama's own EPA, which issued its "endangerment finding" legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board, as required by federal law. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them?

"The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.'s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind's emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result "is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being." The primary, dominant cause of global climate change is natural causes, not human effects, the report concludes."   



7-5-13 The White House Fatāwā On Energy Consumers and Taxpayers

04 July 2013 9:51am

President Obama's Climate Action Plan


Dave Harbour

There is nothing significantly "good" about Obama's simultaneous attack on American taxpayers, energy consumers and the free market.  
His "Climate Action Plan" will lead America away from energy

Report and Commentary: CANADA.  (Draft, subject to edits)

In Canada, the environmental community continues a more than 40 year strategy for opposing development.  It flowered in the 1970s as various environmental activists, church activists and other liberal allies created a 'moratorium' strategy for blocking construction of the original Alaska/Canada natural gas pipeline. 

Today, the issue du jour is 'fracking'.  In spite of decades of safe use of fracking technology and in spite of a multitude of private, state and federal studies documenting the safety of fracking anti-development groups are still encouraging local communities to stop development.

They claim such development will injure the subsistence way of life.

Activists tend to shortchange the benefits of jobs and educational opportunites for local people and the detriment to families caused by a continued dependence on government welfare subsidies.  Liberal supporters of big government in both countries are wedded to the strategy of demonizing oil and gas energy exploration and development to achieve their goals.

Today, we read of  a resolution adopted by the Na-cho Nyak Dun First Ruth Massie - Chief - Na-cho Nyak Dun First Nation - Oil and Gas Congress 9-14 to 18_2009 by Dave HarbourNation, advocating a fracking prohibition.

This CBC report, notes that in her re-election address, Grand Chief Ruth Massie (NGP Photo) said, “I pledge to continue to protect our inherent rights, our land, our water, our environment as our ancestors would have wanted...."

The report goes on to quote Don Roberts leader of a group called Yukoners Concerned about Oil and Gas Development.  “This is a game-changer," he said. "The First Nations are there to protect the land, protect the environment.  ...  The basic issue is water. It takes millions of litres of water to do this process and it poisons the land and it poisons everything around you,” said Roberts.
We do not blame Grand Chief Massie for doing her best to protect her people and their futures.  In fact, we know her and have the deepest respect her lifelong commitment to her people.
However, we are very concerned for both the American and Canadian economies (i.e. including those of Alaska Native, Lower 48 Indian and Canadian Aboriginal groups) when irresponsible and innacurate statements like Roberts' provide the basis for what should be decisions based on experience, history, technology, science, fact and socio-economic impact.  -dh

Meanwhile, in the neighboring NWT, the CBC reports that the Sahtu Land and Water Board "...said it has determined this development will not cause a significant adverse environmental impact and that it will not be a cause of public concern, adding the effects of this development would be insignificant or could be mitigated with known technology."  Board spokesman Paul Dixon complimented ConocoPhillips for doing, "...an excellent job on speaking to the community organizations, other regulators, government and non-government for the development of this project....”  
independence, further disable the economy, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and diminish our national security without providing any meaningful environmental improvement.  The President's initiative is not a 'War on Coal' as some have called it; so much as it is a war on consumer jobs, consumers of energy and the taxpayer consumers who will pay the tab for this disastrous policy.
Created out of thin air, many of Obama's policies -- including this one -- evade Congressional policy and budget oversight by issuance of American-style fatāwā taking the form of Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda.
Last week, amid a growing litany of scandals, seemed the perfect time to 'change the subject'.  The new 'shiny object' to divert citizen attention was the Administration's dedication to using "climate change science" as a basis for increasing government controls over citizen behavior.  The President's Director of the Domestic Policy Council, Cecilia Muñoz, defended the new policy with a satement that began with: "Hi, everybody. This week the President unveiled the national Climate Action Plan which will reduce carbon pollution and protect our country from the impacts of climate change, and lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate.  Carbon pollution contributes to a higher risk of asthma attacks, which disproportionately affects the Latino community according to the Environmental Protection Agency.  Carbon pollution also contributes to more frequent and severe storms, floods, heat waves, and wildfires, driving up food prices and threatening our communities...."  
Combine this 'Climate Change" initiative with roadblocks to leasing/permitting on federal, private, state and Native lands; the uncontrolled, pervasive abuses of the EPA; the White House effort to zone the oceans and rivers leading to them; and, countless other constrictive and cancerous regulatory practices and one finds little reason for confidence or faith in America's now redefined "rule of law" or a truly recovered American economy.

Shale Gas, Gasland, and Truthiness. Forbes, Column. It would be easy to dismiss Josh Fox as being on a par with Ancient Alien theory proponents, whose logic systems he most clearly resembles, but astonishingly, he continues to be embraced by many activists, including celebrities such as Alec Baldwin and Yoko Ono. Criticisms are often met with ad hominem attacks and cries of conspiracy, which now seems to include most environmental regulators, who can’t validate his claims.

WH advisor: Shale gives U.S. “stronger hand” in pursuing security goals. Wall Street Journal. The increasing U.S. energy supply "helps reduce our vulnerability to global supply disruptions and price shocks" and thus "affords us a stronger hand in pursuing and implementing our international security goals," Tom Donilon, the White House national-security adviser until recently, said in April. Exhibit A: Washington's success last year in pushing through tough new economic sanctions against Iran to blunt its nuclear ambitions.

Sorry Josh. You Actually Show Hydraulic Fracturing Is Safe. Real Clear Energy, Thomas Pyle. Unlike Fox, when I write that there are no confirmed cases of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing, I can provide support for the claim. For example, President Obama’s leading environmental regulator, former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, testified under oath to a House committee that she was “not aware of any proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water.” Jackson also told reporters “in no case have we made a definitive determination that the [fracturing] process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” Lisa Jackson, the darling of the environmental community, certainly has no incentive to repeat the so-called “big lie” before Congress or to the media.
Shale oil will shake the world. The Times, Column (sub req’d). Exciting as Britain's latest shale gas estimate is — 47 years' supply or more — it pales beside what is happening in the United States. There shale gas is old hat; the shale oil revolution is proving a world changer, promising not just lower oil prices worldwide, but geopolitical ripples as America weans itself off oil imports and perhaps loses interest in the Middle East.
Marcellus Brings Major Growth to Pennsylvania. CNBC. Many people know the City of Williamsport, located in Lycoming County, as the site of the Little League World Series, but gas production helped make it the seventh fastest-growing community on a percentage basis in the U.S. And while that growth appears to be leveling off, the region looks set to ride out the boom for as long as the gas remains economic to produce.
Landowners threaten suit over DRBC moratorium. E&E News (sub req’d). "The Commission's inaction has brought natural gas exploration in the basin to a complete halt to the detriment of the local economy and the citizens who in good faith leased their land for gas exploration and development," Bob Rutledge, executive director of the landowners group, wrote in the letter to Carol Collier, executive director of the commission.
Josh Fox Very Secretive About His Sauce Recipe. New York Magazine, Q&A. Gasland, Part II, the the follow-up to his Oscar-nominated film Gasland, premieres on HBO on Monday, July 8, at 9 p.m..
EPA's abandoned Wyoming HF study one retreat of many. ProPublica. The EPA says that the string of decisions is not related, and the Pavillion matter will be resolved more quickly by state officials. The agency has maintained publicly that it remains committed to an ongoing national study of hydraulic fracturing, which it says will draw the definitive line on fracking's risks to water.
'Gasland Part II': TV review. New York Daily News, Review. Josh Fox sounds personally soft-spoken, which probably makes it more effective when his film “Gasland Part II” turns into a cinematic primal scream.
Can we afford to ignore shale gas? Peterborough Telegraph, Column. There is, however an answer – lying hundreds of feet beneath Lancashire and parts of Yorkshire - after a survey found enough shale gas to power Britain for half a century. Some experts think this is just the start. Even if just 10% is extracted, that will be worth billions of pounds in today’s money and could potentially solve our energy problems for future generations.
Repsol Delays First Shale - Gas Project in Spain After HF Ban. Bloomberg. Repsol SA (REP), Spain’s largest oil producer, delayed starting to explore for shale gas in the north, where a local government has outlawed drilling projects that use water-intensive hydraulic fracturing.
Producers eye Canada's new Duvernay shale play ; investment set. Platts. Producers in Alberta's liquids-rich shale play at Duvernay are likely to invest some C$1 billion ($955 million) in drilling activities over the remaining six
Syndicate content