US Money Grants to Libyan Rebels Will Control EU Boycott of Syrian Oil

EIN News says, "EU Readies Ban on Syrian Oil Imports European Union members are expected to approve an oil embargo against Syria by the end of the week, diplomats said, serving a financial blow to the Assad regime, which continues to crack down on its citizens despite sweeping criticism. (france24.com)".

Notice that this is not yet a ban.

Thanks to US support of more than $1 billion, the EU may have access to Libyan oil if the rebels cooperate. With Libyan oil, they can cooperate with the US in trying to change the face of the Middle East.

The ban will only come into effect if it can be assured that the rebels will supply oil to Europe. That will take a US money grant to Libyan rebels, and the Obama administration has already promised this.

No More Government Regulations on Natural Gas Pipelines

EIN News says, "Regulators Weigh More Rules for Natural Gas Pipelines U.S. regulators sought public input on Wednesday about the need for increased oversight of the country's natural gas pipelines, as part of a push to strengthen safety after several deadly accidents. (reuters.com)".

Seeking public opinion on the matter of natural gas pipeline accidents is a ridiculous program. In the first place, the public doesn't know anything about pipeline safety. In the second place, US regulators will not be considering public opinion, and should in fact not be considering the matter at all.

Pipeline owners are well aware of their liability for accident. They full well know that they will get their pants sued off on accidents and make every effort to avoid same. They do not need government help, which we can normally interpret as interference.

We Just Spent $1 Billion in Libya to Supply Europe with Cheaper Gasoline

EIN News says, "Firms Are Eager to Tap Into Libya's Oil Wealth The fighting is not over in Tripoli, but the scramble to secure access to Libya's oil wealth has begun. Before the rebellion broke out in February, Libya exported 1.3 million barrels of oil a day. While that is less than 2 percent of world supplies, only a few other countries can supply equivalent grades of the sweet crude oil that many refineries around the world depend on. The resumption of Libyan production would help drive down oil prices in Europe, and indirectly, gasoline prices on the US East Coast. (boston.com)".

Is this what it's all about? According to an Administration spokesman, we sent money to the rebels and will continue to do so because of "humanitarian" reasons. I suppose the economics of oil can be considered humanitarian, but it's a long stretch. The related aspect is that the US will not see any any advantage in Libyan oil. Ever since the Marshall plan, we have had a program of destroying and then spending more money to rebuild without ever gaining any access to the spoils of war. The spoils of the present Libyan case will be collected by the Europeans, not us, in spite of the fact that EIN News makes a guess that it will indirectly help gasoline prices on the East Coast.

We don't need Libyan oil. We have plenty of it right here. We just can't get to it because Obama won't let us. Fortunately worldwide drilling companies are doing a masterful job and through their activities the price of crude oil has significantly dropped and will continue to do so as more production comes on stream. This is what will reduce the price of gasoline. Gasoline prices have not yet started to fall significantly, because old higher-priced inventories of crude oil still need to be worked off. Logically, refineries and gasoline retailers sell their wares at prices based upon their sunk cost of raw materials, not what they expect raw material costs to be. If they did, they would've been out of business a long time ago and we would be pedaling bicycles.

Is New York State Harassing Energy Companies in Order to Inhibit US Energy Production?

EIN News says,"New York Subpoenas Energy Firms    New York State's attorney general has sent subpoenas to three large energy companies as part of a broad investigation into whether they have accurately described to investors the prospects for their natural gas wells, according to several sources familiar with the inquiry. (nytimes.com)"

   

Let's hope that this is not another government harassment attempt to inhibit production of energy in the US.

We Need Exxon Activating Oil Leases in the Gulf of Mexico Now

Open e-mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

EIN News says. "Exxon Sues U.S. Interior Department Over Canceled Gulf of Mexico Leases    Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, sued the U.S. Department of the Interior, asking a judge to set aside the agency's decision canceling offshore leases that could yield "billions of barrels of oil." (bloomberg.com)"

   

Excellent! Let's hope Exxon wins. We need cheap oil to get this economy moving again. However, one problem would be the slowness of the court action. We need Exxon activating these leases now.

   

Randy, "Any way you can speed up this action?"

Reduce Killings by Increasing Production of Oil and Gas

EIN News says, "Cost Hike on Shell Iraq Deal    Iraq's gas deal with supermajor Shell, to capture and exploit associated gas from its giant southern oilfields, is expected to produce 2 billion cubic feet per day and cost $17.2 billion, according to an official agreement summary. (upstreamonline.com)".

   

Controlling the revenues from oil & gas is one of the major reasons Iraqis kill each other.

   

If your compassion is to reduce the killing, you must make oil and gas cheaper. Here are some analogies: Many people die in the drug wars, because drugs are expensive. Few people die from food controversies, because food is cheap.

   

You can make oil and gas cheap by petitioning your government to remove inhibitions from oil and gas drilling companies, which will allow greater production and automatically reduce prices. In addition to saving lives, you will have the benefit of lower gasoline prices and reduced home heating costs.

Nothing Dangerous Known yet about Fracking

EIN News says, "Natural Gas Fracking Needs to Be Monitored, Panel Says Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," in shale formations should be monitored closely for its environmental effects, a federally appointed panel recommended Thursday. (latimes.com)".

Nothing strange or dangerous here.

Every time you have something new or a change, you are stupid if you don't give it special attention to see what unintended consequences it may have had. We buy a new car, and we pay special attention to how it sounds, whether the brakes are working properly, etc.. We also do that with cars we have been driving for a while.

Pres. Reagan said, "Trust but verify". He was basically referring to international agreements, but it applies equally to products and processes. Check out the operation, but don't condemn it on the basis of suspicion and fear.

Will the US Continue a Failing Policy on Energy?

EIN News says, "Shell Gambles U.S. Rules on Arctic Drilling Long winter nights and ice that clogs Arctic seas from November through June haunt Royal Dutch Shell Plc's ambitions to explore for oil off Alaska. Shell, Europe's largest oil company, says it must decide by October whether to assume that U.S. regulators will issue all 35 permits it would need to explore under the Beaufort and Chukchi seas next year during the four mildest months, from July to October. (bloomberg.com)".

The question is simple. Will Pres. Obama and his underlings at the Department of Interior and Department of Energy continue to inhibit production of oil in the United States, in favor of a failing program on wind and solar energy? Those leaders have nothing to lose. The American public will be the great losers, if the Administration continues its ridiculous policy.

Will the US Continue a Failing Policy on Energy

EIN News says, "Shell Gambles U.S. Rules on Arctic Drilling    Long winter nights and ice that clogs Arctic seas from November through June haunt Royal Dutch Shell Plc's ambitions to explore for oil off Alaska. Shell, Europe's largest oil company, says it must decide by October whether to assume that U.S. regulators will issue all 35 permits it would need to explore under the Beaufort and Chukchi seas next year during the four mildest months, from July to October. (bloomberg.com)".
   

The question is simple. Will Pres. Obama and his underlings at the Department of Interior and Department of Energy continue to inhibit production of oil in the United States, in favor of a failing program on wind and solar energy? Those leaders have nothing to lose. The American public will be the great losers, if the Administration continues its ridiculous policy.

Eliminate All US Government Energy Subsidies

EIN News says, "Energy Subsidy Battle Reignites As Debt Deal Preserves Tax Breaks As U.S. Democrats' battle to cut oil-industry tax breaks as part of a debt deal ends in defeat today, environmentalists are charging GOP lawmakers with skewing a closely watched energy-subsidy study in order to inflate federal renewable supports relative to those for fossil fuels. (nytimes.com)".

Tracking the article to its source, it appears that government is subsidizing $18 billion per year to various energy sources. The Democrats/Communists/Socialists want it discontinued.

Every now and then even a Communist makes a good point.

My understanding is that many years ago energy sources were considered essential to the development of a high standard of living. It also appeared that energy supply was limited. This resulted in the idea that subsidies would be necessary to keep the energy companies going and not give up because of the ultimate exhaustion of supplies.

That situation is completely changed. The energy companies involved in petroleum, coal, and natural gas have developed techniques, which have resulted in availability of large quantities of these materials. The only inhibition for making these products more available to the public appears to be government restriction.

Consistent with previous experience that market forces are the best technique for development, the US government should get out of the business of subsidization. It is not necessary. Government should also get out of the restriction business and let these companies do their jobs. Let's also not forget that there should be no government subsidization for wind energy, solar, tides or anything else that might be considered "sustainable". Existing energy companies have demonstrated their capability to supply the public, and they will move to so-called "sustainable", if and when that requirement develops.