Gas Prices on The Huffington Post

Gubernatorial hopefuls target Colo. energy rules

2009-11-25T11:40:31Z

DENVER — One Republican in the race to become Colorado's next governor is pledging to repeal new oil and gas regulations if elected, and the front-runner for the GOP nomination says he would consider abolishing the rules approved on the Democratic incumbent's watch.

Evergreen businessman Dan Maes told The Daily Sentinel in Grand Junction on Monday that he would quickly try to abolish the rules if elected. A spokesman for former U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, a 12-year Colorado congressman who has been the leading GOP fundraiser, says the candidate would consider revamping the rules after talking to interest groups.

Ken Salazar Fires Back At Oil Companies Over Western Leases

2009-11-24T17:57:19Z

WASHINGTON — Interior Secretary Ken Salazar lashed out at the oil and gas industry Tuesday, accusing some industry trade groups of acting like an arm of the Republican Party in criticizing the Obama administration's record on energy production.

Salazar made the comments as he announced 38 lease sales scheduled next year on public lands, mostly in Western states. Salazar called the lease sales a sign that the administration was moving forward with a comprehensive energy strategy that includes oil, gas and renewable energy, despite what he said were false claims that the Democratic administration was hindering domestic energy development.

Alec Baldwin: The Republican Way: Keeping Everything The Way It Is

2009-11-24T12:10:50Z

Didn't you know, all along, that the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq was about accessing oil?

Not oil as in those production levels at the onset of the Bush era incursion in March, 2003. But newer, stronger, American-style production levels. American oil companies had been forbidden from exploring and developing new oil fields since the nationalization of Iraq's reserves in 1972 and those American oil companies have long contended that Iraqi estimates of their potential reserves are grossly underestimated, by perhaps as much as a couple of hundred billion barrels.

Likewise, didn't you know all along that Republican opposition to current health care reform is about maintaining the unconscionable monopoly that insurance companies have in the American economy. Why? For the same reason Bush went to war in Iraq, spent money we didn't have, pushed the country into financial ruin and did more to threaten our long term national security than any modern president. The GOP needs contributions. I would never contend that the GOP is alone in this practice. When an administration awards contracts to some supporter, they anticipate more support. But no group, in the history of this country, has ever done this to such an extent. Remember, I am always careful to separate the leadership of any party from its rank and file. So when I level such a charge against "Republicans", I am referring to their leadership on Capitol Hill. But, I think it's safe to say now that the war in Iraq was started to provide U.S. oil companies with the opportunity to develop new oil fields there in return for the massive campaign contributions those oil companies will make to the Republicans in 2010 and, especially, 2012 in their effort to unseat President Obama.

The same is true for the health care industry, and insurance companies in particular. They don't want reform. The current system works quite well for them. If an excess of Americans die due to insufficient health care, so what. Republican leaders argue that health care reform will lead to a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that will gobble up billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and provide little accountability. But wait. Isn't the Pentagon a big, fat, incompetent bureaucracy that gobbles up...? Well, you get it.

The Pentagon wastes more money on more crap that you and I don't need and gets it wrong, on a policy level, more often than not since 1960 (I'll give them a pass on Korea, due to all the Cold War anxiety at the time). Republicans never flinch. Spending on the military, and subsequent sales of those weapons systems around the world, help the U.S. economy, in their mind. Those companies, in turn, contribute to the campaigns of men like George W. Bush. This is especially so now that the Pentagon, in the ultimate sign of their stupidity, abdication of their responsibilities and tacit compliance with GOP fundraising goals, have privatized the U.S. military to the tune of one million dollars per soldier in Afghanistan.

Think about that. Recruitment is down. This Pentagon has a shortage of willing and competent soldiers who can run our military machinery. So what do they do? Do they improve recruitment, training and pay for soldiers? No. They privatize as much of these duties as they can (with no bid contracts for staggering sums of money) and create new businesses that, in turn, will contribute to those that helped them

The health care industry wastes untold billions, then passes those costs on to insurance companies who then exploit your fear and pass them on to you. Fear of Al Qaeda. Fear of getting sick without insurance and, therefore, access to effective medical care. Keep everything the way it is, out of fear. Fear that it could get worse. That's the Republican way. These guys have this country coming and going.

Health care reform means less money for insurance companies. Thus less money for the GOP. We should pass this bill for that reason alone.

Han Shan: Oil Giant Chevron Accused of "Extortion" on Capitol Hill

2009-11-23T15:24:47Z

Chevron is piling on the lobbyists and PR firms in an extraordinary effort to evade responsibility for its massive toxic contamination of the Ecuadorian Amazon.

But in a recent article for Politico, Kenneth Vogel, who tracks the confluence of money, politics and influence for the influential Washington news outlet, writes that the oil company's increasingly combative approach is backfiring, "drawing fire from environmentalists, media ethicists, state pension funds, New York's attorney general, members of Congress and even Barack Obama when he was a senator."

Facing the possibility of a $27 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court, Chevron is employing an increasingly aggressive kitchen sink strategy, with a major lobbying effort in Washington, and a multifaceted PR campaign in the U.S. and Ecuador that produced a phony news report and promoted a contrived bribery scandal to smear the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

In DC, Chevron has been lobbying Congress and the U.S. Trade Representative to threaten Ecuador's trade preferences under the Andean Trade Preferences Act in order to pressure Ecuador into intervening in the private lawsuit. In a shocking admission, Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson explained, "If we were able to call a timeout and make the lawsuit disappear, then this entire issue disappears."

Among Chevron's cabal of high-powered lobbyists are Mickey Kantor and Carla Hills, former U.S. Trade Representatives who are lobbying their former agency, Wayne Berman, Managing Director of Government Relations for Ogilvy Worldwide and former National Finance Co-Chair of John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, former Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux, former U.S. ambassador to Ecuador Peter Romero, Mac McLarty, President Clinton's former Chief of staff, and Brian Pomper, former staff director for Senator Max Baucus.

Last week, U.S. Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) excoriated Chevron's tactics in testimony before the House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee. She testified that the company is engaging in "a lobbying effort that looks like little more than extortion." Interviewed for the Politico.com article, she accused Chevron of "trying to leverage our trade policy in order to get a lawsuit dismissed that is currently pending before the Ecuadorean court. It is a way of trying to undermine the rule of law, and I just find that completely abhorrent. It's shocking."

Chevron is the largest corporation in Representative Sanchez's home state of California, and she is currently circulating the first of three letters to colleagues about what she describes as Chevron's "very heavy-handed" and "misguided" approach to the case.

But as Politico.com noted, she's hardly the first or most influential government official to speak up on the issue. In February 2006, Barack Obama joined fellow Senator Patrick Leahy in writing a letter to then-U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman.

They write:

"Chevron is reportedly lobbying Members of Congress and your office to use the leverage of the Andean Free Trade Agreement to pressure Ecuador to dismiss the case. A Chevron spokesman expressed the company's "present opposition to the inclusion of Ecuador in the Andean Free Trade Agreement until the government of Ecuador honors its existing contractual obligations and respects and upholds the rule of law with respect to our interests."

The letter goes on to say:

"We are writing to seek your assurances that the U.S. Trade Representative will not allow negotiations Over the Andean Free Trade Agreement to interfere with a case involving Chevron that is under consideration by the Ecuadorian judiciary, particularly one involving environmental, health and human rights issues that have regional, importance. While we are not prejudging the outcome of the case, we do believe the 30,000 indigenous residents of Ecuador deserve their day in court."

According to opensecrets.org, Chevron has spent $77,199,296 on lobbying the federal government from 1999-2009. While this is a staggering amount of money, it appears to be an excellent investment for a company that made about $24 billion in profits last year. According to the California Secretary of State, its California state lobbying expenditures add up to nearly $12 million since 1999, not counting the $35 million it spent to help defeat Proposition 87, a 2006 state ballot initiative that would have increased taxes on California oil producers in order to fund research and development of renewable and clean energy.

Chevron's "Human Energy" ad campaign seeks to portray the oil giant as a friendly, environmentally-conscious neighbor in California, and wherever the company operates. But behind the slogans and smiling faces is a behemoth that is aggressively throwing its considerable weight around in Sacramento and Washington, seeking to undermine the rule of law and deny the indigenous residents of Ecuador "their day in court."

We need to build a people power campaign that will mobilize our representatives -- like the courageous Linda Sanchez -- to push back against the influence of the Big Oil lobby. In solidarity with the rainforest communities of Ecuador, and all communities where Chevron and its allies seek to put profit ahead of people and the planet, we must say "no more."

For more on Chevron's 'Chernobyl in the Amazon' and the Clean Up Ecuador Campaign, visit www.ChevronToxico.com

Michael Brune: An Open Letter to Chevron's New CEO

2009-11-23T00:35:10Z

Mr. John S. Watson
Incoming Chief Executive Officer
Chevron Corporation

Dear Mr. Watson:

Congratulations on your promotion to the helm of Chevron. I am writing on behalf of Rainforest Action Network to make you an offer.

Late last month, on October 24th, tens of thousands of citizens in 181 countries participated in one of the most widespread demonstrations in our planet's history. At over 5,200 events around the world, people joined together to inspire strong leadership on the climate crisis from the world's top political and business leaders. Please see the photos at www.350.org.

Earlier in October, members of Rainforest Action Network's staff and Board of Directors returned from an investigation in northern Ecuador. We toured many of Texaco's former drilling sites and waste pits, and met with medical professionals and family members who have paid an enormous price for decades of oil-related contamination by your company.

These two issues -- climate change and the environmental and human rights impacts of Chevron's operations -- are likely to define your tenure as Chief Executive Officer. How will you respond?

It might be tempting to maintain your current posture. After all, your company is a highly successful global enterprise in a very profitable industry. But you must realize that Chevron is falling behind other businesses and many political leaders who are taking a leadership position on climate change. Furthermore, your company is drawing increasing criticism -- unnecessarily -- for failing to rectify the human rights and environmental disaster that was left behind in Ecuador.

Let me acknowledge the obvious. I'm not an oil-industry executive. As the leader of an environmental and human rights organization, I focus much more on how to clean up dirty industries than how to keep a company such as yours healthy in a competitive business environment. But I do know that Chevron is not the first company faced with the need to balance strong profits and principled leadership. My organization has worked with dozens of other successful businesses who align their core business strategies with strong social and environmental values. Please don't ignore this opportunity.

Taking the following steps will only strengthen your company's future. First, Chevron will benefit financially when it adopts more aggressive strategies to provide clean energy to a carbon-constrained world. At the same time, your company will restore its reputation and avoid future damage to its brand when it accepts its moral obligation to clean up its toxic legacy in Ecuador. Finally, Chevron would be positioned as a genuine global leader when it develops a global environment and human rights policy that prevents similar controversies in the future.

Here's our offer: come with us to Ecuador. Chevron's new leader should witness first-hand the extent to which your company's former sites remain contaminated. It would seem prudent as the new CEO to determine for yourself whether Chevron's legal team is providing accurate information, but on a more personal level, showing genuine concern for the suffering of thousands of families throughout the region would give life to the Chevron slogan of "human energy".

We do not make these requests lightly. We know that it is indeed possible to do well by doing good. We are proud of our track record of working with corporate leaders to produce innovative solutions to complex problems. We would much prefer working with your company to address the challenges laid before you, rather than pressuring Chevron's shareholders, customers, and employees to compel you to take action.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues. I sincerely hope you will join us for a visit to the region, and I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Sincerely,

Michael Brune
Executive Director
Rainforest Action Network

Bob Dinneen: Reminding Al Gore: 5 'Encouraging Truths' About Ethanol

2009-11-20T19:39:41Z

Having an appreciation for Al Gore's commitment to science and advocacy of responsible policies on energy, the environment, and the economy, I was disappointed by his treatment of ethanol and other biofuels in his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.

During the late 1970s, Gore was an early supporter of grain-based ethanol and other efforts to promote biofuels. Now, as he writes in his new book, Our Choice, he has changed his mind.

Because of his devotion to science and the facts, I have sent him a detailed letter, filled with what I hope he'll consider encouraging, not inconvenient, truths:

Encouraging Truth #1: Ethanol has come of age.

Ethanol has come a long way since when Gore first championed it. With 10.5 billion gallons set to be produced and sold this year, ethanol is a major factor in America's motor fuel supply. Today's ethanol industry is helping support nearly 500,000 jobs, providing more than $20 billion in new household incomes. Last year alone, the use of ethanol reduced emissions by the equivalent of removing 2.1 million gallons from American highways.

Encouraging Truth #2: American agriculture and the US ethanol industry are improving their productivity without jeopardizing the environment.

The average corn yield this season is 163 bushels per acre - up from 101 bushels in 1978. Higher yields have been achieved through better technology and farming practices, not through increased use of fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs. In fact, there has been a 27% decrease in irrigation water use per bushel, a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per bushel, a 37% decrease in the land required per bushel, a 37% decrease in energy required per bushel; and 69% reduction in soil loss per bushel.

Meanwhile, improvements in corn ethanol production efficiency are following a similar path, including a 27% decrease in consumptive water use, a 22% reduction in fossil energy use, and a 7% increase in the amount of ethanol produced per bushel of grain in just the past five years.

Encouraging Truth #3: 'Food vs. fuels' is a false choice.

Gore writes "...further diversion of cropland from food to fuel will put upward pressure on food prices at a time when many impoverished regions of the world are facing growing concerns about food security." But the increased use of grain for ethanol in the United States has not reduced the amount of grain available for livestock feed, food processing, or exports. Furthermore, cropland is not being "diverted" from food and feed production.

Instead, increased productivity per unit of land has ensured that adequate supplies of grain are available for all uses, including biofuels. The US achieved a new record for corn exports in 2007, amid a significant biofuels boom. Corn exports have topped 2 billion bushels in four of the last five years, the first time in history that such volumes have occurred in a five-year span.

None of this obscures the moral and practical urgency of world hunger. But, as Gore well knows, the problems are access to food and food security. Producing ethanol is not the cause of these crises, and curtailing the production of biofuels is not the cure. There cannot be food security without energy security

Encouraging Truth #4: Ethanol doesn't increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Gore also writes: "largely because modern agriculture is so petroleum intensive, net greenhouse gas emissions from corn-based ethanol turn out to be almost equal to the emissions from gasoline." But corn ethanol production is not a "petroleum intensive" process. In a 2006 analysis, a group of researchers at U.C. Berkeley found that producing one unit of ethanol energy requires 20 times less petroleum than producing one unit of gasoline energy.

Encouraging Truth #5: Today's ethanol builds the foundation for the next generation of biofuels.

While Gore writes, "The production of ethanol in first generation biorefineries has been a disappointment," he goes on to admit: "However, it has... led to the emergence of an infrastructure that will prove highly valuable when second generation technologies are available to produce ethanol from nonfood crops." This includes shipping ethanol via pipelines, which occurs today all across Brazil and in the state of Florida.

That is one reason why corn-based ethanol is not a mistake. Rather, it is providing a strong economic and environmentally sustainable foundation upon which the next generation of biofuels, including improvements in existing technologies, will be built. Therefore, utilizing what is available today, the US should expand the demand, distribution and transportation of ethanol so that we can build a strong foundation for the next generation of biofuels.

Mr. Vice President, an objective review of the facts as they exist today lead to one inevitable conclusion: biofuels must be part of "our choice."

Raymond J. Learsy: The Key Question No One Asked About Goldman's Role In The AIG Bailout

2009-11-20T09:37:48Z

A key and fundamental question was not broached during the fierce interrogation of Treasury Secretary Geithner during Thursday's hearings before Congress's Joint Economic Committee. The contentious subject at hand was the Fed and Treasury's role on the issue of the American International Group's multi-billion dollar bailout. The key question neither asked
nor answered was:

What was the nature of the myriad discussions at the height of the crisis in September 2008 between Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs Chairman Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Chairman Lloyd Blankfein?

It is hard to imagine that the issue of AIG was not broached, and information exchanged. Most tellingly, Geithners's testimony yesterday reiterated the fact that the Fed and Treasury viewed the prospect of AIG's failure as posing a highly significant risk to the economy, and after Lehman, AIG's failure was not going to be permitted to happen. That morsel of information, had it been made available to Goldman Sachs in September of 2008, would have been worth tens of billions of dollars to them.

Goldman Sachs was AIG's largest counterparty and its holdings, directly or indirectly, through Credit Default Obligations and Credit Default Swaps, made up one third of the $62 billion counterparty trades on AIG's books. Given Goldman's know-how and connections it would seem probable that they also played a leading role as enabler in what Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke described to a Congressional Committee in March of this year as the following:
"AIG exploited a huge gap in the regulatory system; there was no oversight of the financial products division. This was a hedge fund basically attached to a large and stable insurance company, made huge numbers of irresponsible bets, took huge losses."

During the subsequent rescue of AIG, a game of high stakes poker evolved, perhaps with a touch of outright extortion. The New York Fed, which Geithner headed at the time, was charged with negotiating with AIG's trading partners to try to modify their counterparty contracts with AIG to levels more closely approaching their real time value, at the time hugely less than their face amounts. Discussions had taken place at one stage between the trading partners and AIG toward writing down the AIG obligations to some 40 cents on the dollar without success, as Goldman et al refused to budge.

And here the crunch, and key to the question: Did Goldman and the other banks know for certain that the bankruptcy of AIG was no longer a risk for them? That the Fed and Treasury were now irrevocably committed to saving AIG? With that foreknowledge all along that Goldman and the other banks were empowered to take, risk free, the inflexible position that "it would be improper and perhaps even criminal to force AIG's partners to bear losses outside of bankruptcy court." Thus Goldman, et al would have been playing poker with a clear view of the Fed's hand.

It raises the serious question of what Goldman knew and when did it know it and whether Goldman played the AIG derivatives card with "inside information" about the Fed's intentions. And, if so, what might be the legal ramifications?

As pointed out here, knowing Mr. Paulson conveyed a penchant for being showered with gold dust. Pimco pocketed $1.7 billion (Pimco's single largest payday was the proud boast) in taking positions in underwater Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paper that were then surprisingly redeemed at full value piggybacking on the taxpayers $100 billion plus bailout of those institutions.

And when the big guys were in trouble because of the public's perception of greed and funny games, there was Hank Paulson telling us while flying on his way to Saudi Arabia, with oil on its way to $147 a barrel, that it was all about "supply and demand," thereby making us all feel better paying $4.00+/gallon at the pump and watching our economy go down the pipeline.

Trip Van Noppen: Back to the Bush Leagues on Arctic Drilling?

2009-11-19T16:15:13Z

An ocean continues to wait for change

In the Arctic waters surrounding Alaska, George W. Bush is still president, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has the chance to inaugurate a new regime.

Shell Oil recently got the green light from the Department of Interior to drill next summer just off the shores of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in waters that are an important migratory route for endangered bowhead whales. With numerous decisions on offshore drilling in the Arctic still pending, the looming question is, will Secretary Salazar chart his own course -- using science as a guide -- or will he continue to make decisions as though Bush were still in charge?

Last summer, Salazar told the magazine American Cowboy, "The science is fundamental to decisions we make. Ignoring the science will imperil important priorities to the United States and our world. Unfortunately, the last administration often ignored the science to get to what it wanted to get to. We will not do that."

On the Arctic, science has spoken, and I hope Secretary Salazar meant what he said.

Marine scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), the ocean watchdog that is part of the Department of Commerce, recently submitted comments on a plan the Department of Interior is considering -- created by the Bush administration -- that would open an unprecedented amount of the Arctic to disruptive offshore oil and gas drilling.

NOAA expressed concern that the drilling plan understates the risks and challenges of an oil spill in Arctic waters, which could have tremendous impact on marine life and economically critical fisheries. Harsh ocean conditions, volatile weather patterns and the prevalence of ice combine to make removal of oil spilled in Arctic waters an exceedingly difficult -- if not impossible -- task. NOAA scientists also cited how little is understood about the impact of loud seismic testing (used to find oil and gas reserves) and drilling noise on marine wildlife.

To ensure protection of valuable fisheries and other marine life against spills and harmful noise, NOAA recommended that the North Aleutian Basin -- which contains the unmatched fisheries of Bristol Bay -- as well as sections of the Chukchi Sea -- part of the "Polar Bear Seas" and home to endangered bowhead whales -- be left out of drilling plans unless research demonstrates industrial activity can be conducted without doing harm.

Voices from NOAA aren't the only ones calling for a more cautious approach to offshore drilling in Alaska. In mid-September, 400 Ph.D.-level scientists signed a letter to President Obama calling for a "time out from offshore industrial activity [in the U.S. Arctic Ocean] to allow for a precautionary, science-based approach that better assesses the consequences of development in a rapidly changing ecosystem."

Add to that a letter to Secretary Salazar from 70 members of Congress that calls for a deferral of offshore leasing and drilling in the Arctic until research determines "if...where, when, and how" it can occur, and it becomes clear that the sensible choice for Salazar is to give scientists the time they need to further study the Arctic and all of its resources.

Global warming is affecting the Arctic more rapidly than any other place on earth, and the region's rich marine resources and native communities face a perilous future as a result. This reality makes it that much more critical to adopt a time-out on drilling in Arctic waters until scientific research demonstrates the fragile, complex ecosystem there can withstand it.

Secretary Salazar must choose either to fulfill his stated commitment to science or cater to the profits of the oil and gas industry, imperiling the Arctic's wildlife and people and reminding us all of the poor environmental stewardship of the Bush years.

Ken Salazar Blamed By Oil And Gas Companies For Scant Interest In New Drilling Projects

2009-11-19T13:49:32Z

SALT LAKE CITY — Drillers say it's getting so hard to obtain an oil-and-gas lease in the Rocky Mountains under the new administration of President Barack Obama that many aren't bothering to show up for auctions.

The criticism came after the government held an auction of public lands in Utah that was remarkable for how few parcels were offered or sold. Only five drilling leases sold Tuesday.

George Pataki: Putting Natural Gas to Work for America

2009-11-18T18:32:04Z

Every day it's becoming clear to more and more Americans that our continued over reliance on foreign oil is not just an environmental disaster but an economic disaster for this country as well. People appreciate that while we will have great sources of renewable fuel down the road, we need something now. And what is available now and has been proven to be in great abundance in the United States is natural gas.

We are fortunate by virtue of geology, science, and technology to have the ability now to access natural gas from shale deposits that in the past were economically off limits. I think it's a tremendous opportunity. But we have to be smart enough to take advantage of that opportunity, by allowing the shale to be developed in a way that enables us to access the natural gas. Then we have to put in place policies that encourage Americans to use natural gas not just in power plants but to replace foreign oil as a transportation fuel for fleets and big trucks.

More than 30 states have proven natural gas reserves. One of the largest and most exciting recent discoveries is in the Marcellus Shale, which is primarily in Pennsylvania, New York, and the Northeast. The Marcellus creates a tremendous opportunity for economic growth in this region, plus it provides a dependable domestic source of clean natural gas for all Americans.

I want to address one other topic of crucial importance: the transfer of wealth out of this country. When we have to import not just billions but hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign oil every year, it hurts us from an economic standpoint, it hurts us in looking to the job opportunities for our children and the next generation, and it also makes us geopolitically vulnerable when enemies of the United States threaten to use oil as a political weapon.

No one recognizes the national security threat foreign oil poses to this country better than Boone Pickens. That's why the American Security Council Foundation honored him with a Lifetime Achievement Award in Public Service last week. I chair Project Independence, the foundation's program to free our nation from its dependence on dangerous sources of foreign oil, and you don't have to look any further than Hugo Chavez to see why energy security is so important.

Chavez is a person who despises the United States and everything we stand for, and he wouldn't hesitate if he thought he could use Venezuelan oil to hurt our country. So it is certainly not just economically and environmentally intelligent, but it is the patriotic and right thing to do from the national security standpoint to develop policies that will enable us to achieve greater energy independence.

We're all concerned about our jobs in today's economy, but we also have to be intelligent about our environment going forward. If we can replace dirty fuels with clean fuels like natural gas, we win on numerous fronts. Natural gas is a domestic source. It helps our economy. And it is a very clean burning fuel. When we replace dirtier fuels with it, we will have cleaner air and less health problems.

So to me it's quite clear that, as Boone has been advocating, we use natural gas as an interim transition fuel for heavy vehicles instead of using diesel that pollutes and comes from foreign sources. Natural gas makes tremendous sense.

Secret Oil Rigs In Los Angeles Uncovered (VIDEO)

2009-11-18T11:51:32Z

Did you know that LA sits on top of the third largest oil field in the country? Did you know oil rigs are scattered covertly throughout the city, placed near schools, malls and even a farmer's market? HuffPost Green did not know about this until we watched this awesome short from Palladium Boots about the secret, underground network of the LA oilfields and rigs hidden in plain sight as fake office buildings and flower-painted sculptures.

You have to see to this to believe it.

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

Raymond J. Learsy: The CFTC and Department of Energy Snore Away While the Oil Patch Makes Hay

2009-11-18T07:19:41Z

Late last week the Energy Information Service-advised oil stocks surged by 1.762 million barrels, far more than expected, while the U.S. refinery processing rate sank to 79.7% -- the lowest level in more than two decades. Yet on Monday the price of oil jumped by $2.50 a barrel.

What is going on? We don't really know, but it is clear that the price of oil as currently constituted no longer has anything to do with the market dynamics of supply and demand.

Of course there are the usual saws: dollar flight, seeking safety in physical assets, speculation, peak oil theorists, political concerns, contango spreads, rebounding economic activity, China, India and on and on, being put forward by the talking heads and those searching to rationalize the inexplicable, or more tellingly, those allied to or within the industry seeking to deflect, where possible, any serious examination of oil prices and their genesis (please see "Thank You, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson For Educating Us On Oil Prices"). None of these "explanations" individually or in combination justify the enormous distortion in price for a market that is filled to the brim with product both on land and at sea with VLCC tankers at anchor waiting weeks and months on end to discharge their cargo.

This, in spite of the broadcasted declarations by entities such as the CFTC earlier this year, that a series of restrictions on energy trading would be set forth (please see "Wall Street Stampedes to The Aid Of the Oil Speculators") and as far I can tell, we are still waiting. All this in tandem with the CFTC's determination that the major cause of oil price distortion was because of speculation. The CFTC was responding not only to an outraged public, but it also chose to broadcast its views concurrent to the pronouncements by the heads of state of Great Britain and France who jointly called for "transparency and supervision of the oil futures market in order to reduce damaging speculation."

CFTC hearings were held late in July and extraordinarily cogent testimony on the issue was presented by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which was given little attention by the press and successfully buried by those whose interests weren't served.

Our friends at OPEC, however, with less fanfare, simply assured us that pricing in the $40, $50 even $60 a barrel range were not in the oil-consuming world's interest. That we would be better served by higher prices. That "taking our interests to heart," Saudi Arabia and most especially King Abdullah felt that prices in the $75/$80bbl range would be more appropriate (please see "The Nightmare Scenario: Thank You Saudi Arabia For Looking After our Future"). And here we are some months later with prices at these levels even though the world is as awash with oil as it ever has been.

What is going on? It is the CFTC's job to find out and not simply be placated with the oil patch shibboleths referred to above. It just makes no sense. Are OPEC and Saudi Arabia using their enormous cash holdings to game the futures markets on which the price of oil is based? As mentioned in an earlier post, why did Saudi Arabia suddenly and only recently drop the widely used West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil contract as the benchmark for pricing its oil, substituting a new London-based "Argus" index? Explanations offered talk about disparity in pricing, and were quickly applauded by the IEA in its new mantle as Oil Industry apologist (please see "The International Energy Agency Shills for OPEC, the Oil Speculators and the Peak Oil Pranksters"). But could it be that with the potential of a more vigilant CFTC, the WTI contract, primarily traded on the NYMerc, becomes more difficult to "influence"?

And perhaps the Department of Energy could climb down from its professorial aerie of alternative energy issues for a few moments and get its hands dirty in dealing with the everyday concerns of American consumers and their economy.

So far the CFTC has talked the talk while the oil patch players from the major producers on down have walked the walk, stepping on all of us. Who is looking after our interests while our government agencies do a little high-step grandstanding to the cheers of the Wall Street Crowd?

John Prendergast: To Obama in China: Don't Shy Away From Sudan, Congo

2009-11-16T16:17:25Z

President Obama has a huge opportunity to advance two of the most important peace and human rights causes on the continent of Africa during his meetings with Chinese officials this week, and particularly in the follow-up to this potentially historic visit.

In both Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the two deadliest wars in the world, China has invested or struck trade deals worth billions of dollars and thus has a vested interest in peace and security in both of those troubled countries. President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao may not see eye to eye on human rights promotion, but at the end of the day their policy objectives are similar in that they both seek peace.

In Sudan, the Chinese stand to lose out mightily if the Comprehensive Peace Agreement collapses and full scale war erupts. As the largest investor by far in Sudan's oil sector, China has a very practical reason to work together with the U.S. and other world leaders to press for full implementation of the CPA -- before it unravels to the point of no return. Southern leaders have already started to warn that they will unilaterally declare independence if the referendum slated for just 14 months from now is threatened. And southern officials admit privately that if war does break out they will target oil installations.

As a key investor in Congo's mining sector and with millions dollars worth of infrastructure projects, Chinese investments are directly impacted by prolonged war and deeply rooted corruption. China would see a far greater long-term return on its investments with greater stability in Congo.

The urgency to implement the new U.S. policy in Sudan and forge a comprehensive solution to the crisis in Congo cannot be overstated. The effectiveness of U.S. efforts rests significantly with the ability to work multilaterally with key interlocutors like China.

President Obama should make it clear that the United States sees cooperation to resolve issues affecting the conflicts in Sudan and Congo as an important element of U.S.-Sino relations. By pushing the Chinese government to play a constructive role in resolving the Sudan and Congo conflicts, President Obama would kick U.S.-China engagement up a notch and empower his full-time point people on these issues -- Scott Gration in Sudan and Howard Wolpe in the Great Lakes region -- to use the president's personal commitment as leverage.

Developing a shared agenda of peace between our two countries will certainly be much harder work than just business as usual, but the payoff in the form of a coordinated peace policy in Sudan and Congo would be extraordinary. This is entirely consistent with the president's message that the U.S. and China don't have to be rivals, and that cooperation can yield significant benefits. The bottom line is that President Obama needs to publicly engage in the challenges threatening Sudan and Congo, and not doing so with key player China would be an opportunity missed.

Let President Obama know that you expect him to raise the alarm about the deadly conflicts in Sudan and Congo during his trip to China. Get in touch with the White House and your members of Congress at enoughproject.org/SudanNow.

For an overview of the conflicts in eastern Congo and in Sudan, check out this recent video clip of an interview on The Young Turks.

John Prendergast is Co-Founder of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.

BLM Oil And Gas Auction Is Third Smallest Since 1970

2009-11-13T14:55:48Z

DENVER — Federal officials have sold oil and gas leases on a total of about 6,000 acres in Colorado for $112,969.

The highest per-acre price in the auction Thursday by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was $215 for an 81-acre parcel in Rio Blanco County sold to Exxon Mobil Corp.

Raymond J. Learsy: Thank You, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, For Educating Us On Oil Prices

2009-11-13T11:08:49Z

The oil patch mumbo jumbo continues unabated. Today, Rex Tillerson, the CEO of the nation's largest oil company, Exxon, took a minute or two to instruct us about the reasons for the current price of oil. This is the same personage who, a while back informed us, his customers, that "ethanol is moonshine."

This time around, according to Tillerson, "Inventory levels are at historic high levels--especially in the U.S." he then provides us with his particular self-serving oil patch rationalization for high oil prices.

You see, it is not the machination of OPEC of which Exxon and its peers are the primary beneficiaries, nor the speculation of oil traders and bank holding companies, nor the possibility that the producers, with their enormous cash reserves, might be gaming the price of oil on the exchanges. No, in the spirit of that great American philosopher Alfred E. Neuman, Mr. Tillerson has come up with a causation that is outside the perceived responsibility of the oil industry. Who, him worry? You see, it mostly rests with the currency effect of a weak dollar.

According to Tillerson some $20/25 per barrel is due to the erosion of the dollar. Really? Since February of this year the price of oil has increased some 250% from $33/bbl to reaching $80/bbl Just a few days ago. This while the value of the dollar has eroded some 15% only. A relationship between the price of oil and the erosion of the dollar on a percentage basis should bring the price of oil to approximately $38/bbl. Certainly not the near $80 we are transferring to Exxon and their comrades in arms.

Far be it for the industry to play it straight, to simply state that price as currently constituted has nothing to do with market dynamics of supply and demand. Something far more sinister is afoot and it is long past due that our oversight agencies such as the CFTC take a very serious look at how our commodity exchanges are contributing to these distortions.

But then again, within the confines of the oil industry Grimm's Fairy Tale narrative, Mr. Tillerson's imaginative turns of phrase are always welcome.

Jackson Williams: Bush Oil Buddies Divvy Up Iraqi Oil, Now Joined By "Liberal Scion" Peter Galbraith

2009-11-13T10:48:15Z

The ongoing saga of the Iraqi oil patch pie adds a new chapter, courtesy of the Thursday New York Times, and its above-the-fold front pager, "American Adviser to Kurds Stands to Reap Oil Profits."

In today's installment, we learn that Peter Galbraith, former ambassador, foreign policy expert to Joe Biden and John Kerry, and son of the famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, is in line to reap $100 million dollars -- maybe more -- from contracts between a Norwegian oil company and the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq. As an advisor to DNO, Galbraith and a partner received a 10% stake in a large Kurdish oil field back in 2004.

What's more, Galbraith has long championed the idea of partitioning Iraq, presumably into three regions that roughly encompass the country's three stakeholder groups (Shiite, Sunni and Kurd).

Why does this matter?

For one thing, the American-created central government in Baghdad has long insisted that it has sole constitutional authority over all of Iraq's oil. For another, giving the central government time to devise an equitable oil agreement between the stakeholders was the main goal President Bush touted when he announced "the surge" in January 2007.

Later that same year, in September, Hunt Oil of Dallas announced an oil production-sharing agreement with the grand poobahs of the Kurdistan region. At the time, Bush briefly feigned concern:

"I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm - if it undermines that, I'm concerned."

Nine months later, in June 2008, Ray Hunt himself crowed about it at a dinner in his honor. D Magazine's online blog "Front Burner," in a piece titled "Oilman Hunt Sees A 'Soft Partition' For Iraq," quoted the longtime Bush crony parroting the Galbraith line:

"I think that, in the end, you'll end up with a soft partition of Iraq, a very decentralized government, with authority granted to three provinces. The Kurds I think will end up being an example...American democracy is not one-size-fits-all, but, as an example of what freedom can do, it's remarkable that this can happen."

Freedom's just another word for "I'm gettin' mine, boys!" Galbraith apparently figured that out years earlier.

Remarkably, the latest story in the Times states that "Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith's thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith's oil dealings in Iraq, aides to both politicians say." Come again?

Vice President Biden may not favor partition now (he's not in charge of foreign policy), yet he certainly advocated it for years. In fact, he co-wrote a 2006 op-ed promoting it -- in the Times, no less! -- and often hyped it as one of his great ideas on cable chat shows. Partition may or may not be a great idea. Still, how does the germane fact of Joe's historic support not make it into the paper's story today?

Alan Greenspan noted in his 2007 memoir The Age of Turbulence, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Since I've previously blogged about this at Huffington Post, I'll just say it again:

Desert Storm in 1990 was also about oil, but Bush the Elder tacitly signaled that the motivation was to protect Kuwait's oil fields, which is why much of the world (including Arab neighbors) approved of the limited military action. "No-fly" zones over Iraq, continued by Bill Clinton for eight years, ultimately turned Baghdad's Bully into the mother of all empty suits.

Ah, but the son also rises.

Immediately after 9/11, Bush the Lesser held a megaphone at Ground Zero, promising that "the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon." That should have meant al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden, but it morphed, at least publicly, into Saddam's mythical mushroom clouds and WMDs. Then it became freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny, and finally it arrived at the fantastical notion of remaking the Middle East, at all cost and with our blood.

Remaking it for whom, exactly? Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon-Mobil, our Chevron shining bright?

Damien Hoffman: World Renowned Investor Jim Rogers: Gold Will Go to $2,000 an Ounce

2009-11-10T21:55:19Z

Jim Rogers is one of the most respected investors in the world. I had a chance to chat with him the other morning to get more details about some of his recent comments in the media ...

Damien Hoffman: Jim, you were in the media a few times last week and I want to follow up on a few points you made. You said on Bloomberg that Nouriel Roubini did not do his homework regarding the asset bubbles about which he is now warning. Can you explain what homework he did not do?

Jim: All of it. How can you talk about a bubble when assets such as silver are 70% below their all-time high? Same for coffee, sugar, cotton, natural gas, and many more. I have a problem talking about a bubble when assets are this depressed from their all-time highs.

A bubble is when assets are screaming to new highs everyday, everyone is talking about them, and everyone owns them. Right now, virtually no one owns commodities. So for Mr. Roubini to talk about a bubble in commodities defies comprehension. It proves he does not understand markets.

I am flabbergasted at Mr. Roubini's comment about bubbles because there is not a single market in the world making all-time highs except Gold, US Government Bonds, Cocoa, and the Sri Lankan stock market. That's hardly reason to call for a bubble. So, I am most perplexed about this alleged bubble which is out there.

If an asset rises 100% in one year, that's a great year, but not necessarily a bubble. Look at oil. It's up huge off the bottom but nowhere near it's old highs. Look at Citigroup. The stock is up 3 or so times off the bottom ...

Damien: ... and I doubt long term shareholders feel like they are in a bubble.

Jim: Exactly. And since Mr. Roubini thought oil would stay below $40 a barrel for all of 2009, I would love for him to tell me and the rest of the world exactly where are all the oil supplies because the International Energy Agency (IEA) -- which has the best global data set on energy supplies -- has no idea where is the oil. Mr. Roubini should tell us where this price suppressing oil supply is hidden. All the oil possessing countries in the world have declining reserves. All the oil companies have declining reserves. So Mr. Roubini must know something the rest of is don't.

Damien: On another note, Gold has been reaching new all-time highs, although not inflation adjusted. You said Gold may reach $2,000 an ounce over the next decade. Can you explain what variables will push Gold to $2,000?

Jim: First, I hope you will keep Mr. Roubini's statement where he said Gold going to $2,000 an ounce by 2019 is "utter nonsense." I think you're going to get a chance to call him before 2019 to ask him what he thinks of Gold at $2,000 and why he thought it was "utter nonsense."

Regarding variables, it's very clear there is huge suspicion about paper money around the world. This suspicion is gathering steam. Governments are printing huge amounts of money. This has always led to higher prices. Maybe I am wrong and it's different this time. But I doubt it.

Additionally, no new large gold mines have been opened in decades. Some of those mines are over 100-years old. They are all depleting. On the other hand, central banks have huge Gold reserves above ground -- and they are less interested in selling than in the past.

If you adjust Gold for inflation and go back to it's former all-time high in 1980, Gold should be over $2,000 an ounce right now if you want to say it's reaching new inflation adjusted all-time highs. That does not mean Gold has to get back to a true all-time high. Nothing has to. However, I suspect that given all the money printing in the world, we will see much higher prices for hard assets.

Despite Gold's potential, I think I will make more money in other commodities such as silver, cotton, or coffee -- all of which are terribly depressed.

Damien: Speaking of other assets, as an outsider living abroad, what is your opinion on US Equities?

Jim: This is one of the few times in my life I have not had shorts anywhere in the world. I have also not had a lot of longs in the stock market because I've chosen longs in commodities and currencies. I have kept away from shorts because there is a gigantic amount of money being printed and it has to go somewhere. I thought some of it would end up in the stock market, and it has.

How much higher can the equity markets go? I don't know. There are a lot of problems in the economy, but I don't know when those problems will cause a downdraft in the stock market. All we've done is paper over the problem, so I expect we'll have to deal with those issues in the future. Printing and spending money we don't have simply prolongs the problems and makes them worse in the long run.

If the world economy improves, commodities will lead the way due to demand and shortages. If the world economy does not get better, commodities are still a great place to be because governments are printing so much money. And, if the world economy doesn't get better, they will print even more money!

Damien: Jim, thank you for taking the time to share your outlook and opinions. I greatly appreciate it.

Jim: You are very welcome. Your site is very impressive. I look forward to staying in touch.

Daphne Zuniga: People Versus Chevron

2009-11-10T10:25:51Z

Co-authored by Bill Gallegos

Atchison Village would seem like a great place to live. It's a pleasant-looking neighborhood in Richmond, California on the east shore of San Francisco Bay. The residents are diverse. Some have lived there since the village was built in 1941. Others have discovered the neighborhood more recently. It's an ethnically diverse neighborhood with a comfortable feel, barbecues on the weekend and neighbors who know each others' names, with home prices far more affordable than most places in the Bay Area.

But there's a downside: Atchison Village has a bad neighbor. You know the kind we're talking about, right? The kind of neighbor that seems not to care about property values, or endangering the welfare of the people around them. The kind of neighbor that lets their garbage blow into other people's yards. The kind of neighbor that makes messes and refuses to admit it or clean them up.

In most places, behavior like that might get a person run out of town on a rail. But Atchison Village's bad neighbor has some clout: it's the third-largest corporation in the world.

The Chevron Corporation has run a gigantic oil refinery just west of Atchison Village since 1902. Ever since the city of Richmond was built, its residents have been breathing in the poison that comes out of the refinery stacks, or escapes from its miles of pipes. People in Atchison Village and other nearby neighborhoods report much higher levels of diseases from asthma to cancer. Kids living in Atchison Village are much more likely to be hospitalized for asthma than kids in other neighborhoods. Tests have found high levels of toxic substances like sulfur and heavy metals inside Atchison Village residents' homes, which are pollutants known to be emitted by oil refineries.

Some days Chevron's a worse neighbor than usual. There was a day in March 1999 for instance, when an explosion at Chevron's refinery -- and the resulting thick cloud of toxic smoke that settled on the city of Richmond -- sent hundreds of neighbors to local emergency rooms complaining of lung pain, burning eyes, and other problems.

But even on a good day, stuff comes out of that refinery that no one should have to breathe. Stuff like hydrogen sulfide. Toxic particulate matter. Sulfur dioxide. Cancer-causing solvents like benzene and toluene. Dioxin, and -- to name a toxic chemical with which Daphne has had more personal experience than she likes -- mercury.

This would be bad enough already, but for the past couple of years Chevron has been trying to "upgrade" their refinery so that they can refine even dirtier crude oil than before.

Which could expose the people of Atchison Village, and a couple dozen other neighborhoods just like it, to even more pollution. And that could make Chevron's neighbors even sicker.

We have some great news, though: there's a hitch in Chevron's plan. Three environmental justice groups and their talented attorneys have stopped the world's third-largest corporation in its tracks, at least for a little while. After failing to get Chevron to agree not to refine dirtier crude in Richmond, the groups Communities for a Better Environment, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and the West County Toxics Coalition, represented by attorneys from Earthjustice, went to court to challenge the environmental impact report for the refinery project. In June the judge ruled that the report was inadequate, partly because it didn't inform the public about whether the project would allow Chevron to process heavier oil.

Chevron has appealed the ruling. A decision on the appeal is due soon. The fight isn't over, and these environmental justice groups definitely need your support. But there's also a lesson here: a few people, with the truth on their side, can bring even the biggest Goliath down. We can stop Chevron in its tracks if we work together.