Obama pulling back on Nuclear Power while reducing Oil and Coal

[vector7]

Companion Threads and Post:

• Obama Administration Imposes Seven-year Drilling Moratorium
• Obama Coal Crackdown Sends Message to Industry
• The Rising Cost of Everything

As nuclear waste piles up, Obama must step up

April 10, 2011

THE OBAMA administration’s decision last year to cancel the long-planned federal nuclear waste depository in Nevada has never seemed more irresponsible. The dangers of unsafely stored nuclear waste have been vividly illustrated in Japan, where spent nuclear fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant caught fire, releasing radioactive material. The administration should reverse itself before pursuing any expansion of nuclear power.

Right now, most spent nuclear fuel in the United States is stored in wet-storage pools at reactors, in much the same manner as the fuel storage system at Fukushima. Nationally, 71,862 tons of waste have accumulated, packed into pools that were never intended to hold so much. Massachusetts is home to 701 tons of spent nuclear fuel, with much more stored across New England.


The Yucca Mountain depository, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was designed to hold radioactive waste for 10,000 years. The facility would not be a complete solution — the nation’s waste stockpiles have already grown too big for Yucca to hold — but it is a viable plan that the federal government spent more than $10 billion developing. The administration’s decision to cancel the depository was a profile in craven political calculation: candidate Obama promised to cancel Yucca Mountain to curry favor in the 2008 Nevada caucuses, and he followed through on the urging of a key political ally, Democratic Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.

While canceling Yucca, Obama also named a blue-ribbon panel to come up with new strategies for dealing with waste. The panel is expected to consider ways to reuse spent fuel, and may also recommend more dry-casking of waste, a process that moves spent rods from wet pools into safer concrete-and-steel boxes. That would be an improvement, but it is not a substitute for long-term, permanent storage.

The administration’s cancellation of Yucca was especially troubling because Obama has also been a stalwart backer of expanding nuclear energy. The attitude of supporters of nuclear power seems to be to push ahead with new reactors, even while passing responsibility for the waste on to future generations.

Especially in the wake of the Japanese crisis, that’s clearly an irresponsible strategy. Since 1982, the federal government has promised to build a permanent storage facility for spent fuel. It’s time to quit stalling. If the administration wants to build more nuclear power, it first has to produce a long-term strategy for handling the waste.

[vector7]

South Texas nuclear-power plant expansion project put on hold

San Antonio Business Journal

Date: Monday, March 21, 2011, 5:33pm CDT

Nuclear Innovation North America LLC is scaling back its expansion plans for the South Texas Project until the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other stakeholders can effectively assess the impact of the events in Japan.

Nuclear Innovation North America (or NINA) is the company jointly owned by NRG Energy Inc. and Toshiba Corp. that is developing two nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project near Bay City, Texas.

Given the tragedy of the earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, NINA officials will limit work on the South Texas Project expansion to securing a license and a federal loan guarantee for the nuclear project.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. employees in Japan are still working to stabilize the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The outcome of those efforts will likely determine the future of nuclear power development throughout the world.

Executives with NRG Energy, Toshiba and CPS Energy are all watching developments in Japan closely.

“Since STP is very differently situated from the stricken nuclear plant in Japan — 10 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, in a non-seismic area with hardened watertight protection around both its backup generation and its spent fuel storage facilities — it is not obvious to us that any modifications are necessary to regulatory requirements applicable to either our existing or planned nuclear facilities,” says David Crane, president and CEO of NRG Energy.

Meanwhile, CPS Energy officials on Monday released a statement that San Antonio’s municipally owned utility has decided to suspended discussions indefinitely with NRG Energy with respect to buying additional supplies of nuclear power from the South Texas Project.

“As we have indicated for months now, we are currently pursuing an array of other clean affordable supply options. Terminating discussions with NRG allows us to devote more resources in pursuit of the other options,” says CPS Energy President and CEO Doyle Beneby. “When the development of STP 3 and 4 moves forward again, our present ownership interest will remain unchanged.”

CPS Energy is not ruling out future discussions with NRG, however.

CPS Energy owns a 40 percent interest in South Texas Project and a 7.625 percent minority ownership in two units that have yet to be constructed.

[American Patriot]

Obama releases first part of new regulatory agenda, drawing criticism from supporters, critics

Published December 22, 2012

FoxNews.com

Jackson_EPA.jpg

FILE: September 22, 2011: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson testifies at a Capitol Hill hearing in Washington. (REUTERS)

The Obama administration this weekend released the first major part if its second-term regulatory agenda, an initiative costing as much as $350 million targeting fossil-burning boilers and incinerators that critics says hits companies already struggling in a tough economy.

The Environmental Protection Agency regulations released late Friday attempt to improve Americans’ health by reducing soot from the industrial boilers and incinerators.

The agency estimates the cost of implementing the new standards will cost $53 million to $350 million.

Republicans have opposed the environmental regulations as detrimental to business during tough economic times and failed to slow down the new rules in Congress.

In addition, industry groups said the regulations on industrial air pollution are still overly burdensome.

Jay Timmons, president and chief executive officer of the National Association of Manufacturers, said the rules were "far from being realistic" and accused the EPA of pushing "another costly and crippling regulation at a time when our economy is on the brink."

The EPA said the court-order changes offer more flexibility and lower costs than earlier proposals to comply with the new standards.

The agency also said it cut the cost of compliance by about $1.5 billion.

Obama administration officials said most of the 1.5 million boilers nationwide are not covered by the regulation since they are too small or emit too little pollution to warrant controls.

The changes will require pollution controls at about 2,300 of the largest and most polluting boilers nationwide, including those found at refineries and chemical plants. Those boilers will have three years to comply and could be granted a fourth year if they need to install pollution controls.

Another 197,000 smaller boilers would be able to meet the rule through routine tune-ups.

Environmental groups said the rules were not as stringent as they had hoped but would help Americans breathe cleaner air.

"These standards are a mixed bag," said John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Program.

The EPA estimated the scale-back standards will still provide significant health benefits – including the prevention of as many as 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart attacks and 52,000 asthma attacks.

“These standards are fulfilling the promise of the Clean Air Act,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “We will save lives and reduce the burden of illness in our communities, and families across the country will benefit from the simple fact of being able to breathe cleaner air.”

Industrial boilers burn coal and other fuels to generate steam and hot water for heat and electricity. After coal-fired power plants, boilers are the nation's second-largest source of mercury emissions, a potent neurotoxin. But boilers are among a handful of pollution sources that still have no standards for toxic emissions.

Fine particle pollution can penetrate deep into the lungs and has been linked to a wide range of serious health effects, including premature death, heart attacks, and strokes.

A federal court ruling required EPA to update the standard based on best available science.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2GCimdv8i

[American Patriot]

DC Power Plant Continues to Burn Coal, Environmentalists Fume

---

Print Article Send a Tip


by Kerry Picket 28 Jan 2013 post a comment
Washington, DC local residents and environmentalists gathered at a meeting room in a Methodist Church on Capitol Hill last Thursday to discuss their dissatisfaction with the Capitol Hill cogeneration plant.

The plant, which was completely coal fired for almost one hundred years, exclusively heats the capitol. However, since 2007, according to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), the plant began to move from burning primarily coal to burning mostly natural gas--but not entirely. Coal is still burned at the plant, but the rate of its reduction is not fast enough for local environmentalists and lawmakers.


In March of 2009, anti-coal protesters blocked the gates of the nearly century old Capitol Power Plant for nearly four hours. No one was arrested. By May of that year, then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D – CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D – NV) announced that the plant would switch over to natural gas as its sole energy source. The promise was made in large part as an effort from Democrats to limit carbon emissions in the nation’s capitol.


However, despite the Democratic leaders agreeing in 2009 that the AOC could still use coal in three particular circumstances, green advocates claim the the AOC is not doing enough to completely eradicate coal from the capitol plant.


In an e-mail statement to Breitbart News, the AOC wrote:

In 2009, the Architect of the Capitol worked with Leader Pelosi and Senator Reid to address the request that the Capitol Power Plant move away from using coal. With Congress’s support, the Architect of the Capitol has made significant investments and improvements at the Plant over the past several years. However, the Architect must maintain the capability to potentially use some coal to ensure that it can provide uninterrupted service to Congress, and outlined 3 instances when coal would need to be used:

• If there is an emergency and natural gas supplies are interrupted;
• Abnormally cold conditions place higher than normal demands on the Plant;
• Equipment outages or maintenance on the gas boilers require use of backup fuel.

The Leaders agreed to these terms, and since 2009, the Capitol Power Plant has worked within these terms, and has relied on natural gas as its primary fuel source. In addition, the AOC continues to provide information to the Leaders about annual fuel use at the Plant.


In Fiscal Year 2012, the Plant relied on natural gas for 92% of its energy needs. By comparison, in 2005, the Plant relied on natural gas 42% of the time.
The AOC has identified the construction of a cogeneration plant as the most environmentally and economically beneficial way to meet its goal to use natural gas 100% of the time, and Congress has been supportive of this project.


After more than 100 years in operation, significant investment is needed to replace aging infrastructure and to install new, energy-efficient equipment in the Plant, and implementing cogeneration will allow the Plant to discontinue the use of its 60-year-old, less energy efficient coal boilers.

Washington DC Councilman Tommy Wells sent a letter to Stephen Ours, Chief of the Permitting Branch of DC Air and Quality Division, to oppose "any permits that would allow the Capitol Power Plant to continue, and potentially expand pollution emissions." Wells references the Pelosi and Reid push to rid the plant of coal four years ago saying, "In 2009, positive steps were taken to reduce coal use at the plant. However, it appears many of those advances were undermined and coal use is as prominent as ever."


The DC Chapter’s Sierra Club stated late last week that “recently, the Defense Logistics Agency solicited bids for 20,000 tons of coal for delivery to the Plant in 2013. This comes to more than 220,000 pounds of coal burned per day during heating season.”


The Sierra Club and Washington DC Councilman Tommy Wells claim the emissions from the portion of the plant will cause “significant health hazards to children in the area,” Wells said in his opposition letter to Ours.


Advocates for coal energy disagree, saying that governmental entities like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "exaggerate" coal energy's "health risks," and that the EPA "relies on dubious co-benefits to make the utility MACT rule look reasonable." The MACT standard is, according to the EPA, "a level of control that was introduced by Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments."


In a letter, the AOC responded to complaints from environmentalists:

While the AOC has reduced coal use at the CPP over the past several years, it cannot cease using coal until the new cogeneration plant is constructed. As a result, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) secures a certain quantity of coal for the AOC should any of the three circumstances listed above occur.

[vector7]

Remember when Obama promised to bankrupt coal? That’s tomorrow.

By: Ben Howe September 19th, 2013 at 01:28 PM |

For those with short memories:



That was way back in 2008 when President Obama was merely a candidate. Five years later, his dreams of bankrupting coal are getting taken up a notch.

Tomorrow, Dear Leader is set to unveil a regulation that forms the centerpiece of his “anti-climate change” policy announced awhile back to much green fawning.

This new regulation will reportedly ban all future coal-fired power plant construction.

Yes, you read that right.

Obama is set to ban all future coal-fired power plant construction tomorrow by regulatory fiat.

Now, of course, the regulation will not actually say “no one may ever again construct a power plant that burns coal to produce electricity anywhere in the United States of America.” Instead, it will just say you can’t build anything in future that emits more than a certain amount of greenhouse gas and then set a really low number that is commercially untenable as the relevant highest amount that can be emitted in order for a plant to be legally constructed.

From the Wall Street Journal:

But a person who has seen a recent version of the revised rule said it would propose an emissions limit of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour for coal plants and 1,000 pounds per megawatt hour for large gas-fired plants. Last year’s version was only slightly different, setting a 1,000-pound limit for both types of plants.
[…]
The person and others briefed on the rule said such stringent limits would ban new coal plants, which generally release about twice as much carbon dioxide as the proposed limits. Even the newest, most advanced coal-fired power plants in the world would fall far short of that revised standard, they said.
The only way coal plants could comply is to capture carbon-dioxide emissions and stick them underground—a costly process that hasn’t been demonstrated at commercial scale before.
“This shows the administration discounts and does not appreciate the value of coal and how it can serve the country. You’re impairing the backbone of the power grid,” said Hal Quinn, chief executive of the National Mining Association, an industry trade group.
[…]
Utilities and manufacturers also worry the new rules could lead to an electricity supply crunch or rising prices for consumers. “For the first time ever, EPA is becoming a regulator of energy. The rule they’re putting out there is going to force choices as to which energy you use, and that’s a very disturbing concept for manufacturers, for businesses, for anybody that has to comply with these laws,” said Ross Eisenberg, the vice president for energy policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, a trade group.

The Obama administration says this is all fine because there is one– yes, one– coal-fired power plant in America that could arguably meet this standard. Experts say that power plant is an isolated instance and that its construction couldn’t be replicated. But never mind that.

Obviously, this move should come as a surprise to absolutely no one, given Obama’s promise back in 2008 to bankrupt anyone who wanted to produce electricity from coal.

However, a bunch of Democrats from coal states are up in arms. I guess they just never thought that the leader of their party was serious about instituting a plan that would basically put vast numbers of their constituents out of work, or raise electricity prices by as much as 80%.

It also should surprise no one, especially the geniuses who crafted this regulation, that unless Obama has a last-minute reversal tonight, there’s going to be plenty of litigation and legislative action to try to block this. Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY) and other House Republicans are “prepping a bill that would limit new EPA carbon dioxide controls on power plants.”

But wait, there’s more! Again, from the Journal:

The rule is also a crucial stepping-stone for the Obama administration’s next big environmental project, emissions standards for the fleet of existing power plants. Mr. Obama has told the EPA to produce those standards by June 2014.

Great… so maybe all our existing coal-fired power plants will be next. Who’s ready for some skyrocketing electricity bills?

[vector7]

Oregon Outlaws Coal

April 14, 2016 By chris

Ann Purvis,



Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) signed into law a controversial bill on March 11 that will ban the use of coal to generate electricity, beginning in 2030, making Oregon the first state in nation to outlaw using coal to produce electricity.

The law also mandates 50 percent of Oregon’s electricity come from renewables by 2040.

Opponents of the sweeping legislation, from policy experts to the state’s own Public Utility Commission, say the new law will raise rates for Oregon customers without reducing carbon emissions.

One-third of Oregon’s electricity comes from coal, primarily from out-of-state coal plants, which will continue to operate, although they will no longer sell their power to Oregon utilities.

Ratepayers Can Expect Higher Costs

PacifiCorp, which backed the new law, issued a report estimating price increases for ratepayers will be less than 1 percent through 2030.

John Charles, president of the Cascade Policy Institute, says the “heavy lifting” starts between 2030 and 2040, years not addressed in the utility’s cost projections.

Charles says e-mails obtained through a public records request indicated Brown’s office kept the state’s Public Utility Commission (PUC), the regulatory body charged with protecting ratepayers, out of negotiations over the proposal. In one e-mail, a commissioner called the bill “a shell game that will result in no actual emissions reductions and higher rates for Oregon customers.” ThePUC’s attempts to discuss its concerns with Brown’s office were stonewalled.

“[PUC was] not part of the secret negotiations,” said Charles. “They did not testify in the House hearings, [but] in their rather meek testimony before the Senate hearings, the chairman of the commission did say this will have no environmental benefit, but it will cost ratepayers money.”

The Renewable Mandate

Requiring half of Oregon’s power to come from renewable sources by 2040 is an ambitious goal. The state currently mandates 15 percent of its energy come from approved renewable sources, yet only 6.2 percent of it currently does.

“If you define ‘hydropower’ as renewable, we’d already be meeting the 50 percent standard,” Charles said.

The bill includes provisions allowing PUC to suspend compliance with the law if reliability is threatened or consumer costs become too high. It also provides for the purchase of renewable energy credits (RECs)—tradeable credits representing the value of renewable energy—which can be used to meet the mandate.

Charles says RECs are “escape hatches” and are evidence the law is “designed to fail.”
“So, by design they know this will increase costs, will decrease reliability of the grid, and will have goals for utilities so unrealistic that they have to meet 20 percent of the requirement with counterfeit electricity,” said Charles, who testified before the Oregon Senate’sBusiness and Transportation Committee (BTC) on the billin February.

“As I told [BTC], if you’re already designing a system with three escape hatches, you know it’s already going in the wrong direction,” said Charles.

“This is like a public pension crisis,” said Charles. “Legislators have their victory party now, and they pin their merit badge on their chest, saying, ‘Look at us, we’re great,’ and the costs are all back loaded. [When] it all explodes in 15 years and it’s a disaster, where will the legislators be?”

[Ryan Ruck]

LOL! Switching to renewable unicorn farts I suppose...

[vector7]

The Left and Dismantler in Chief will not stop until we are living under their utopian dictatorship.

Are You Ready for $5 Gas?

April 17, 2016

By Jeffrey Folks

In a version of "hit 'em while they're down,' the Obama administration has unleashed a slew of new regulations targeting U.S. oil and gas production. These include costly methane emission rules on all new and existing wells, reversals of promised offshore acreage leasing, a de facto freeze of leasing on federal lands, and burdensome EPA restrictions of fracking. Then there is Obama's recent budget proposal of a $10-per-barrel surtax on top of the high taxes and royalties already paid by oil companies. Just as low oil prices are driving hundreds of oil companies out of business, Obama is piling on in an apparent effort to drive even more into bankruptcy.

Restrictions on drilling don't hurt consumers so much when the world is awash in oil, as it has been since 2014. The problem is that prices don't remain low for long. Low prices result in reduced investment, which results in less production. And less production results in higher prices. As every economist knows, commodities are cyclical businesses. A wise national energy policy would anticipate volatility by promoting lower production costs in both good times and bad, thereby reducing future price shocks. Obama's energy policy has pursued the opposite path.

Oil prices appear to be at an inflection point, and the administration hasn't a clue as to how to respond. With cuts in non-OPEC production of 730,000 barrels per day in 2016, according to an OPEC report issued Wednesday, global surplus production is expected to end within two months. After that, stockpiles may begin to decline, unless global demand continues to lag, as it has of late. On the demand side, the OPEC report simply states that "there is great uncertainty." Obama's response to this uncertainty – as to the clear evidence of declining production outside OPEC – is politics as usual. When production is high, he attacks fossil fuels. When production is low, he continues to attack them.

The most significant data in the OPEC report point to an increasing pace of decline in non-OPEC production. A 15% decline from recent highs, in and of itself, might not be that worrisome. But a 15% decline that becomes 20% and then 25% by the end of the year, as is possible, would most likely affect global oil prices and perhaps threaten the global economy. With so many regions already facing uncertainly, a global recession could easily unsettle world politics. It is in our interest to stabilize energy prices, but the administration seems intent on driving them up.
No one can predict the future of the oil market, of course. Exogenous factors, including the potential collapse of a proposed OPEC production freeze or a global economic slowdown, not to mention the outbreak of war or regime change, could influence prices one way or the other. With hundreds of producers, an uncertain global economy, and political instability, predicting oil prices is a risky bet. The re-entry of Iran as a major producer is another factor in the mix.

Nonetheless, it is possible to extrapolate from known facts and to make conservative predictions. Non-OPEC production is falling. If an agreement can be ironed out at the forthcoming Doha meeting of OPEC producers or at a subsequent meeting, OPEC production might be frozen at current levels. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has lowered its forecast for U.S. production for 2017 to 8 million barrels per day – down from 9.4 million bpd for 2015. Despite having the world's largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela has seen its production continue to decline since 2005. The International Energy Agency recently downgraded projections for Brazil's production in 2016. Mexico, another major producer, has seen its production "steadily decreased since 2005," according to the IEA.

The idea that U.S. production cuts, resulting partly from government policy, have no effect on global prices is mistaken. Given the effect of maturing fields and declines resulting from mismanagement in Latin America and elsewhere, there may not be enough slack to make up for falling U.S. production.

Obama's assault on the U.S. oil industry has also contributed to job losses and losses to U.S. GDP. Just as his all-out war on coal has cost 31,000 good-paying jobs and $30 billion in market losses, at the end of 2015, job losses in oil and gas were estimated to be "250,000 and counting." Not all of these could have been prevented by government policy, but many of them could. If Obama had taken the opposite tack – backing "all of the above," as he promised to do – the oil and gas industry would have held up better, and Americans would be spared future price increases to some degree. Lowering regulation and opening up leasing on federal lands would have lowered the cost of production for U.S. companies. As it is, Obama has allowed Middle East producers to undercut U.S. producers and gain market share, resulting in fewer jobs for American workers and more U.S. dependence on foreign producers.

Looking ahead, oil price forecasts for 2020 range from $68.50 (IMF) to $74.10 (World Bank). With WTI crude now going for just above $40 a barrel, those forecasts suggest a 75% increase above current prices and a 150% increase over recent lows. No one is suggesting that U.S. energy policy can control global oil prices, but it can lower U.S. production costs, make U.S. producers more competitive, and increase global supplies, thereby moderating price spikes.

Obama understands none of this because he sees the world through eco-colored glasses. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton would be at all different. She too supports the total ban on fracking in New York State and elsewhere.

Killing the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. has been the unspoken agenda of the Obama administration for the past seven years. It is also the agenda of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, whose executive director (Michael Brune) recently said that the club's goal is "to phase out coal as quickly as possible" and also to "use as little natural gas as we can in doing so." As for oil, environmentalists seem even more opposed to its use than natural gas, despite the fact that both are the only efficient and dependable sources of fuel available at affordable prices.

Another voice in the anti-carbon crusade is U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (whose term, thankfully, expires in December). In an interview with Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, the secretary general was quoted as saying that climate change "should not be a subject of political debate" in the U.S. He followed up by saying that if the U.S. Congress refuses to pass legislation supporting the Paris climate accord of 2016, President Obama "may not have to do all this legally[.] … He also has executive power." Is Ban Ki-moon saying that the American people have no right to debate climate change and that the president should circumvent Congress to force his views on the people? That is what I hear him saying, and what many in the environmental movement appear to support.

Now that the president and his environmental allies have partially succeeded in hampering oil production, the effects of that policy can be seen. Oil prices are rising, and gasoline prices are rising with them. Most Americans aren't happy about that, and, hopefully, they will make their displeasure known in the 2016 election. The choice between Hillary Clinton and a conservative opponent would give voters a chance to make their wishes known.

As for Hillary Clinton, her intentions are painfully obvious. She has spoken of seizing the profits of oil companies and investing them in green energy schemes like Solyndra and SunEdison. Without profits, energy companies would have nothing to invest in new production. As existing wells became depleted, production would fall, ultimately to zero
That, of course, is precisely what the environmental left wants. But it is not the future that most Americans would hope for.

It is not too late to reverse policy, though the chance of this administration doing so is zero. A new administration, with a conservative in the White House, could unravel the punishing regulations imposed on the oil and gas (and coal) industries and thereby assure a long-term supply of cheap and efficient energy. That supply would help to assure long-term economic growth and prosperity – and increased income equality – for all Americans.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...for_5_gas.html

[vector7]

The Left and Dismantler in Chief will not stop until we are enslaved under their Utopian Dictatorship.



Climate Change: Obama Administration Halts New Coal-Mining Leases On Public Land

An estimated 40 percent of the coal produced in the U.S. comes from federal lands

In a move that is likely to further impact*coal miners*in the country, the U.S. government announced*Friday that it would temporarily halt issuing permits for new coal mines on public land. The moratorium, which came just days after U.S. President Barack Obama said he would push for a change in the way coal and oil resources in the country are managed, will stay in place until officials examine whether fees charged to mining companies provide a fair return to taxpayers and reflect coal’s impact on the environment.

“Given serious concerns raised about the federal coal program, we’re taking the prudent step to hit pause on approving significant new leases so that decisions about those leases can benefit from the recommendations that come out of the review,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said, in a*statementreleased Friday. “We haven’t undertaken a comprehensive review of the program in more than 30 years, and we have an obligation to current and future generations to ensure the federal coal program delivers a fair return to American taxpayers and takes into account its impacts on climate change.”

However, the moratorium does not apply to existing coal production activities, the mining of metallurgical coal — which is used to make steel — and emergency leasing, the statement clarified.

“Companies can continue production activities on the large reserves of recoverable coal they have under lease, and we’ll make accommodations in the event of emergency circumstances to ensure this pause will have no material impact on the nation’s ability to meet its power generation needs,” Jewell said.

An estimated 40 percent of the coal produced in the U.S. comes from federal lands, mostly in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. Burning of coal and other fossil fuels for electricity production accounts for 31 percent of domestic*greenhouse gas emissions,*making it the single-largest factor contributing to anthropogenic climate change.

Over the past two years, Obama has made tackling climate change a key priority. Under his administration’s*Clean Power Plan, announced in August,*the government pledged a reduction in domestic emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and a 32 percent reduction in carbon emissions from power plants using fossil fuels by 2030, despite*opposition*from the coal and mining .

“With today’s announcement President Obama exerted groundbreaking leadership in the global movement to keep fossil fuels in the ground,” Erich Pica, president of the environmental group Friends of the Earth, said, in astatement*welcoming the moratorium. “This is a historic decision that greatly improves the world’s chances of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/climate-chang...c-land-2268259


Wow! Obama drives down coal company stocks, and Soros buys them on the cheap

By Thomas Lifson
I have always believed that global warming is a gigantic scam, driven by greed and lust for power. Now comes the shocking news, via Steve Milloy writing on Breitbart, that following President Obama’s use of CO2 emissions as a weapon to drive major coal companies near bankruptcy, the ultimate politically connected speculator George Soros is buying up stock in major coal producers on the cheap.

I predicted in this column last week that the left wasn’t going to kill off the coal industry so much as it was going to steal it. That prediction is already becoming true courtesy of billionaire George Soros.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s “war on coal” and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.
Under the hypothesis that not even socialists would leave trillions of dollars worth of a perfectly safe and clean energy source in the ground for the sake of the imaginary “climate crisis,” I posited that once the existing coal industry ownership was wiped out by President Obama’s regulatory onslaught, a new politically correct ownership would rehabilitate the fuel by contributing to Democrats.
Enter George Soros, a hardball investor and philanthropist to myriad left-wing causes, including the activist and “clean energy” rent-seeking movements that have helped take down the coal industry. In 2009, for example, Soros announced he would spend $1 billion in “clean energy” technology and create a San Francisco-based advocacy organization called the Climate Policy Initiative.
Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as “stranded assets” that were losing value as they were no longer needed.

For now, Soros’s investments are small scale (by his standards), but the reports end with June, so there is no knowing what subsequent investments have been made. These companies own huge reserves of coal that would be worth far more if the jihad against coal ended. If, for instance, the EPA backs away from its latest rules on CO2 emissions.
Hat tip: Bryan Demko

I have always believed that global warming is a gigantic scam, driven by greed and lust for power. Now comes the shocking news, via Steve Milloy writing on Breitbart, that following President Obama’s use of CO2 emissions as a weapon to drive major coal companies near bankruptcy, the ultimate politically connected speculator George Soros is buying up stock in major coal producers on the cheap.

I predicted in this column last week that the left wasn’t going to kill off the coal industry so much as it was going to steal it. That prediction is already becoming true courtesy of billionaire George Soros.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act filings indicate that Soros has purchased an initial 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and 553,200 shares of Arch Coal, the two largest publicly traded U.S. coal companies. As pointed out last week, both companies have been driven perilously close to bankruptcy by the combination of President Obama’s “war on coal” and inexpensive natural gas brought on by the hydrofracturing revolution.
Under the hypothesis that not even socialists would leave trillions of dollars worth of a perfectly safe and clean energy source in the ground for the sake of the imaginary “climate crisis,” I posited that once the existing coal industry ownership was wiped out by President Obama’s regulatory onslaught, a new politically correct ownership would rehabilitate the fuel by contributing to Democrats.
Enter George Soros, a hardball investor and philanthropist to myriad left-wing causes, including the activist and “clean energy” rent-seeking movements that have helped take down the coal industry. In 2009, for example, Soros announced he would spend $1 billion in “clean energy” technology and create a San Francisco-based advocacy organization called the Climate Policy Initiative.
Less than a year ago the Soros’ Climate Policy Initiative issued a major report concluding that the world could save $1.8 trillion over the next two decades by transitioning away from coal. The report referred to coal reserves as “stranded assets” that were losing value as they were no longer needed.

For now, Soros’s investments are small scale (by his standards), but the reports end with June, so there is no knowing what subsequent investments have been made. These companies own huge reserves of coal that would be worth far more if the jihad against coal ended. If, for instance, the EPA backs away from its latest rules on CO2 emissions.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz46BVuMUtL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


Are You Ready for $5 Gas?

April 17, 2016

By Jeffrey Folks

In a version of "hit 'em while they're down,' the Obama administration has unleashed a slew of new regulations targeting U.S. oil and gas production. These include costly methane emission rules on all new and existing wells, reversals of promised offshore acreage leasing, a de facto freeze of leasing on federal lands, and burdensome EPA restrictions of fracking. Then there is Obama's recent budget proposal of a $10-per-barrel surtax on top of the high taxes and royalties already paid by oil companies. Just as low oil prices are driving hundreds of oil companies out of business, Obama is piling on in an apparent effort to drive even more into bankruptcy.

Restrictions on drilling don't hurt consumers so much when the world is awash in oil, as it has been since 2014. The problem is that prices don't remain low for long. Low prices result in reduced investment, which results in less production. And less production results in higher prices. As every economist knows, commodities are cyclical businesses. A wise national energy policy would anticipate volatility by promoting lower production costs in both good times and bad, thereby reducing future price shocks. Obama's energy policy has pursued the opposite path.

Oil prices appear to be at an inflection point, and the administration hasn't a clue as to how to respond. With cuts in non-OPEC production of 730,000 barrels per day in 2016, according to an OPEC report issued Wednesday, global surplus production is expected to end within two months. After that, stockpiles may begin to decline, unless global demand continues to lag, as it has of late. On the demand side, the OPEC report simply states that "there is great uncertainty." Obama's response to this uncertainty – as to the clear evidence of declining production outside OPEC – is politics as usual. When production is high, he attacks fossil fuels. When production is low, he continues to attack them.

The most significant data in the OPEC report point to an increasing pace of decline in non-OPEC production. A 15% decline from recent highs, in and of itself, might not be that worrisome. But a 15% decline that becomes 20% and then 25% by the end of the year, as is possible, would most likely affect global oil prices and perhaps threaten the global economy. With so many regions already facing uncertainly, a global recession could easily unsettle world politics. It is in our interest to stabilize energy prices, but the administration seems intent on driving them up.
No one can predict the future of the oil market, of course. Exogenous factors, including the potential collapse of a proposed OPEC production freeze or a global economic slowdown, not to mention the outbreak of war or regime change, could influence prices one way or the other. With hundreds of producers, an uncertain global economy, and political instability, predicting oil prices is a risky bet. The re-entry of Iran as a major producer is another factor in the mix.

Nonetheless, it is possible to extrapolate from known facts and to make conservative predictions. Non-OPEC production is falling. If an agreement can be ironed out at the forthcoming Doha meeting of OPEC producers or at a subsequent meeting, OPEC production might be frozen at current levels. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has lowered its forecast for U.S. production for 2017 to 8 million barrels per day – down from 9.4 million bpd for 2015. Despite having the world's largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela has seen its production continue to decline since 2005. The International Energy Agency recently downgraded projections for Brazil's production in 2016. Mexico, another major producer, has seen its production "steadily decreased since 2005," according to the IEA.

The idea that U.S. production cuts, resulting partly from government policy, have no effect on global prices is mistaken. Given the effect of maturing fields and declines resulting from mismanagement in Latin America and elsewhere, there may not be enough slack to make up for falling U.S. production.

Obama's assault on the U.S. oil industry has also contributed to job losses and losses to U.S. GDP. Just as his all-out war on coal has cost 31,000 good-paying jobs and $30 billion in market losses, at the end of 2015, job losses in oil and gas were estimated to be "250,000 and counting." Not all of these could have been prevented by government policy, but many of them could. If Obama had taken the opposite tack – backing "all of the above," as he promised to do – the oil and gas industry would have held up better, and Americans would be spared future price increases to some degree. Lowering regulation and opening up leasing on federal lands would have lowered the cost of production for U.S. companies. As it is, Obama has allowed Middle East producers to undercut U.S. producers and gain market share, resulting in fewer jobs for American workers and more U.S. dependence on foreign producers.

Looking ahead, oil price forecasts for 2020 range from $68.50 (IMF) to $74.10 (World Bank). With WTI crude now going for just above $40 a barrel, those forecasts suggest a 75% increase above current prices and a 150% increase over recent lows. No one is suggesting that U.S. energy policy can control global oil prices, but it can lower U.S. production costs, make U.S. producers more competitive, and increase global supplies, thereby moderating price spikes.

Obama understands none of this because he sees the world through eco-colored glasses. There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton would be at all different. She too supports the total ban on fracking in New York State and elsewhere.

Killing the fossil fuel industry in the U.S. has been the unspoken agenda of the Obama administration for the past seven years. It is also the agenda of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, whose executive director (Michael Brune) recently said that the club's goal is "to phase out coal as quickly as possible" and also to "use as little natural gas as we can in doing so." As for oil, environmentalists seem even more opposed to its use than natural gas, despite the fact that both are the only efficient and dependable sources of fuel available at affordable prices.

Another voice in the anti-carbon crusade is U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (whose term, thankfully, expires in December). In an interview with Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, the secretary general was quoted as saying that climate change "should not be a subject of political debate" in the U.S. He followed up by saying that if the U.S. Congress refuses to pass legislation supporting the Paris climate accord of 2016, President Obama "may not have to do all this legally[.] … He also has executive power." Is Ban Ki-moon saying that the American people have no right to debate climate change and that the president should circumvent Congress to force his views on the people? That is what I hear him saying, and what many in the environmental movement appear to support.

Now that the president and his environmental allies have partially succeeded in hampering oil production, the effects of that policy can be seen. Oil prices are rising, and gasoline prices are rising with them. Most Americans aren't happy about that, and, hopefully, they will make their displeasure known in the 2016 election. The choice between Hillary Clinton and a conservative opponent would give voters a chance to make their wishes known.

As for Hillary Clinton, her intentions are painfully obvious. She has spoken of seizing the profits of oil companies and investing them in green energy schemes like Solyndra and SunEdison. Without profits, energy companies would have nothing to invest in new production. As existing wells became depleted, production would fall, ultimately to zero
That, of course, is precisely what the environmental left wants. But it is not the future that most Americans would hope for.

It is not too late to reverse policy, though the chance of this administration doing so is zero. A new administration, with a conservative in the White House, could unravel the punishing regulations imposed on the oil and gas (and coal) industries and thereby assure a long-term supply of cheap and efficient energy. That supply would help to assure long-term economic growth and prosperity – and increased income equality – for all Americans.

http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...for_5_gas.html