“Like a shamed Roman soldier who dishonored Caesar in battle, EPA Administrator Al Armendariz fell on his own sword today, hoping that professional suicide would save the EPA and the Obama White House from more political fallout. But there is no indication that the regulatory crucifixions that Al Armendariz’s proposed will stop, despite damage control efforts being coordinated from the Obama campaign and the White House.

“The loss of one rogue regulator will not change the culture of arbitrary enforcement and politicized rule making that has developed at Lisa Jackson’s EPA. Congress must continue its vigilant oversight efforts to determine how pervasive Administrator Armendariz’s views are at the agency, and how consistently his proposed enforcement strategy has been applied. How many other EPA political appointees hold similar views, but have yet to be caught on tape advocating them so brazenly?

“From discredited studies attacking hydraulic fracturing to phony science behind the agency’s regulatory assault on conventional energy sources, there’s overwhelming evidence that the fish rots from the head. The American people deserve answers, especially given President Obama’s public assurances that his administration would find more ways to ‘skin the cat’ after the failure of his cap-and-trade policies.”

###

WASHINGTON D.C. – As a part of an ongoing multi-million dollar initiative to educate the American public about energy issues, the American Energy Alliance (AEA) released today results of a national survey of likely voters that reveals overwhelming support for increased energy production and widespread acknowledgment that a healthy energy industry – which not only provides us with our basic energy needs, but also is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of products we use every day – is a critical link to lower energy prices and an improved economy.

“Americans see a clear connection between a robust energy industry and lower energy prices here at home,” said Tom Pyle, President of AEA. “A solid majority of likely voters want our government to promote policies that increase energy production and help guarantee energy security. Americans overwhelmingly agree that more production from U.S. lands will reduce our level of imported oil and help moderate gasoline price spikes,” Pyle added.

Highlights of the survey include:

• Almost three-quarters of respondents (77%) said yes when asked whether increasing U.S. production could help moderate gasoline prices.  4 in 5 said that such an increase in production could help either “some” (32%) or “quite a lot” (57%).  Even 52% of moderates and 38% of liberals think that additional production of oil would help moderate gas prices ‘quite a lot’.  Additionally, 83% of total respondents agreed that increased U.S. production would reduce our dependence on imported oil.
• Respondents rejected the Obama Administration’s approach that emphasizes making the economy less dependent on fossil fuels versus increased production.  In that hard test, more than half (51%) preferred increased American production, while 38% said that the right answer was to reduce our overall dependence on fossil fuels.
• Respondents think that the federal government can do more.  When asked (on a scale of one to ten, with ten being “quite a lot”) how much the federal government could do to affect the price of gasoline, the mean response was 6.5 (and the median response was 7).  When asked what the President was actually doing, the mean response was 3.6 (and the median was just 3).  Voters perceive a fairly significant gap between what can be done and what is being done.

• Respondents are clear that the President is not as committed to traditional fuels as he is to alternative fuels.  Almost two thirds (64%) agreed that the President would rather focus on alternative energy instead of oil and gas.  It appears that the President has been branded as an alternative energy fan; that means that his efforts to seem to be in favor of more oil and gas production ring hollow (which is probably why respondents rate his efforts so low).

The national telephone survey of 1000 likely voters was conducted by MWR Strategies on April 6^th through April 13^th, 2012, and has a margin of error of 3.1%.

To view the actual survey questions, click here.

###

Nearly all of the independent advertising aired for the 2012 general-election campaign has come from interest groups that do not disclose their donors, suggesting that much of the political spending over the next six months will come from sources invisible to the public.

Politically active nonprofits that do not reveal their funding have spent $28.5 million on advertising related to the November presidential matchup, or about 90 percent of the total through Sunday, a Washington Post analysis shows.

Most of the ad spending has come from conservative groups criticizing the policies of President Obama in key swing states, the data show. Tens of millions more have been spent by secretive groups targeting congressional races, again primarily in support of Republicans.

The numbers signal a shift away from super PACs, which are required to disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission and which have dominated political spending in the Republican presidential primary contest. Instead, the battle between Obama and presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney appears likely to be dominated by a shadow campaign run by big-spending nonprofits that do not have to identify their financial backers.

The pattern underscores the growing influence of corporations and wealthy individuals in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that made it easier to spend unlimited money on elections. The numbers also suggest that many wealthy donors are increasingly opting for the confidentiality of nonprofits rather than allowing the public scrutiny that comes from giving to super PACs or candidates.

“I think there is a potential to see a tremendous amount of money flowing through these nonprofit groups,” said Bill Allison, editorial director at the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates greater disclosure for political organizations and candidates. “For an awful lot of donors, it’s a very attractive way to give without leaving any kind of footprint.”

Crossroads GPS, the largest of the independent pro-Republican groups, said it raised nearly $40 million from unidentified donors in the first three months of this year, compared with less than $10 million by its affiliated super PAC, American Crossroads, which discloses contributions, according to documents and officials.

The Crossroads groups have run nearly $12 million in anti-Obama ads this cycle, nearly all of them paid for by the secretive nonprofit arm, according to data from Kantar Media/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks ad spending. Recent tax records showed that 90 percent of the $76 million raised by the nonprofit arm through 2011 came from unidentified donors who gave $1 million or more, including two who gave $10 million each.

Many of the spots aired by groups such as Crossroads GPS are considered “issue ads” because they do not specifically urge viewers to vote for a particular candidate. The strategy allows them to conform to Internal Revenue Service rules for “social welfare” groups, which do not have to disclose their donors as long as their “primary purpose” is not politics.

One Crossroads GPS spot currently running in Virginia, for example, castigates the president for high energy costs. “No matter how Obama spins it, gas costs too much,” the female narrator says. “Tell Obama: Stop blaming others and work to pass better energy policies.”

Despite its anti-Obama message, the ad is not considered an election-related message under FEC and IRS guidelines. That means the money spent to air the spot — about $204,000 in the Richmond, Charlottesville and Washington markets — will not count as part of the group’s political budget, experts say.

“We are still very early in the cycle, with virtually all of last year and the first quarter dedicated to framing legislative and regulatory issues with conservative messaging,” said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for the Crossroads groups. “As we approach the elections, more of our expenditures will be political and election focused.”

In addition to Crossroads, top expenditures on anti-Obama issue ads include $7 million from Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group with ties to oil billionaires Charles and David Koch; $3 million from the American Future Fund, a nonprofit conservative group based in Iowa; and at least $3.3 million from the American Energy Alliance, a group supported in part by the energy industry.

Liberal groups have spent little in comparison. The Environmental Defense Fund and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees have each spent about $1.1 million on ads related to the general presidential election, the data show. Most of the money on the left, particularly from labor unions, is expected to be spent on grass-roots organizing rather than advertising.

Benjamin Cole, communications director for American Energy Alliance, said the estimated $4 million the group has spent on television, radio and Internet ads “is just a fraction of what we’re expecting to spend” by November. He said the group is proud that it “fired the jump ball for the general election” with an ad running in 10 swing states that criticizes Obama’s energy policies and warns of $9-a-gallon gasoline.

“Almost overnight it became Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on energy,” Cole said. “There’s no problem with that. We want the conversation about energy and we’re happy to keep that conversation going.”

Nonetheless, Cole said, the group’s aims are primarily educational and nonpartisan. He noted that the group has criticized Romney, giving him its “Dim Bulb Award” last week for saying in 2003 that coal energy “kills people.”

Watchdog groups have long complained about a lack of disclosure by tax-exempt advocacy organizations, and Democrats have pushed for stronger requirements. Last month, a federal judge in Washington ordered the FEC to require tougher disclosure rules for nonprofits that run ads within 60 days of an election, but it’s unclear whether the agency will act on the matter before November.

Much of the advocacy spending related to the presidential election will go undocumented until 2013, when interest groups file their annual reports with the IRS.

Super PACs also have come under fire for transparency because many donations to the groups are from entities that are hard to trace. Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney super PAC that has raised $52 million, said it would revise its FEC disclosures this week after news organizations raised questions about a $400,000 donation linked to a defunct company address.

Spokeswoman Brittany Gross said the listing was the result of a “clerical error.” She said the filing will be updated to show a pair of $200,000 contributions from Gerald and Darlene Jordan, who hosted a recent fundraiser for Romney at their home in Palm Beach, Fla.

###

AEA purchased 45 million spots for both audio and visual advertisements on Pandora Radio in what constitutes one of the largest current campaigns hosted by the Oakland, Calif-based company and a first-ever venture into Internet-based radio advertising by the Alliance. The spots will air between Apr. 16 and Apr. 27, 2012.

“The American Energy Alliance is adopting an ‘all of the above’ strategy to reach the American public with our message about President Obama’s failed energy policies. What began as a $3.6 million television ad now continues through an aggressive effort to reach tens of millions of Pandora listeners with a hard-hitting message about Obama gas prices and the politically-connected companies who benefit from the administration’s war on fossil fuels,” AEA President Thomas Pyle noted.

“We will use every available resource — from television to radio, the Internet to direct mail and grassroots mobilization — to educate American consumers who are paying for President Obama’s failures at the gas pump, on their electricity bills, and in the goods and services they use every day. The “Obama Promises” ad is latest component of our nationwide effort to combat bad policies that drive up the cost of energy and rob the American people of the affordable, organic energy sources our future depends on.”

To hear AEA’s “Obama promises” ad, click here.

To watch AEA’s “Nine Dollar Gas” ad, click here.

###

Gary Andres.  Michael Beckerman.  Alexa Marrero.  These people are without a doubt some of the best staff ever to serve at the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  Oh, and Chairman Upton has been better than pretty much any other chairman since the Republicans retook the majority The American (4/9/12) reports: U.S. energy policy needs a reboot—a broad reassessment of our strategies—because much of what we thought we knew has either dramatically changed or turned out to be plain wrong…When I first became involved in these issues, President Jimmy Carter told us our domestic energy supplies were running out and a foreign cartel would determine everything from the cars we drove to the temperatures in our homes. The future he painted looked bleak.

NYT is betting on the river card with this article — four paragraphs praising the virtues of affordable energy and then the party line New York Times (4/10/12) reports: Cheaper fuel produced domestically could reduce the cost of shipping and manufacturing, trim heating and cooling bills, improve the auto market and provide tens of thousands of new jobs…It might also pose new environmental challenges, both predictable and unforeseen, by damping enthusiasm for clean forms of energy and derailing efforts to wean the nation from its wasteful energy habits.

If people keep telling the truth, it will destroy the policy process as we know it Forbes (4/10/12) reports: High gasoline prices will fall once Americans start to conserve and they start to innovate. In the batter’s box: gas-to-liquids, or GTL, which can be used to power everything from buses to trucks to planes…Two key factors are at play. First oil prices are at $115 a barrel and second, natural gas is abundant and cheap at just more than $2 per million Btus. There’s a huge incentive to increase the value of that fuel given that the producers don’t want to get to stuck with undeveloped reserves.

You see, not every nation on the planet has gone insane Associated Press (4/10/12) reports: U.S. coal exports reached their highest level in two decades last year as strong demand from Asia and Europe offered an outlet for a fuel that is falling from favor at home…U.S. Department of Energy data analyzed by The Associated Press reveal that coal exports topped 107 million tons of fuel worth almost $16 billion in 2011. That’s the highest level since 1991, and more than double the export volume from 2006.

I wonder if Jim Hansen will shriek about how the NASA alums are trying to silence him Daily Caller (4/10/12) reports: Nearly 50 former NASA scientists, astronauts and technologists are chastising NASA for its position on man-made climate change…In a March 28 letter addressed to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, the group of 49 former employees ask NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies to “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites” because “it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

Roger Pielke (both Junior and Senior) is pretty smart.  So when they say that the IPCC is intentionally misleading people about something, you should probably pay attention Roger Pielker (4/10/12) reports: As I prepared for my lunch seminar which I am giving later today. I had a chance to revisit the press release issued by the IPCC on January 25, 2010 in response to an article that appeared in the UK Sunday Times one day earlier which detailed failures of the IPCC AR4 related to claims made about climate change and disasters…The Sunday Times article was about how the 2007 IPCC AR4 mishandled the issue of the economic toll of disasters and climate change. With the advantage of hindsight, we can now see that the claims made in the Sunday Times article have been completely vindicated and the IPCC press release was full of misinformation (to put it kindly).  This post has the details.

This is not the April Fools’ Day version.  This is a legitimate, accurate story.  Which should make you a little queasy The Hill (4/6/12) reports: The Energy Department said Thursday it expects to begin tentatively approving new taxpayer-backed loans for renewable energy projects in the coming months…The announcement comes about seven months after Solyndra, the California solar firm that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the administration in 2009, went bankrupt, setting off a firestorm in Washington.

It is significantly less ridiculous than the Chevy Volt or the Nissan Leaf.  And taxpayers aren’t paying rich people to buy it Wall Street Journal (4/8/12) reports: The second day of media previews at the New York International Auto Show is traditionally quiet, with less pressure than opening day and far fewer important press conferences. Many reporters leave the show early on day two so they can catch flights home or get back to their offices…This year, though, many are likely to stick around at least until 1:35 p.m., which is when the press conference for flying-car maker Terrafugia Inc. is scheduled to begin. Indeed, the road-and airworthy vehicle on display, called the Transition, may attract as much attention from people from inside the auto industry as from those writing about it.

Thank goodness.  Matt Damon is finally here to help us work out national energy policy.  Words cannot express the relief of a grateful Nation Politico (4/8/12) reports: Matt Damon will star in “The Promised Land,” an anti-fracking movie set to begin filming later this month…WME Agency, which represents Damon, confirmed that the “Good Will Hunting” star has signed on to the movie and co-wrote the film, and that it is, indeed, about hydraulic fracturing — the controversial practice of pumping a mixture of sand, water and chemicals into a well to break up rock and help extract natural gas.

These are the endangered polar bears that poorly-informed but well-meaning people (kind of like Matt Damon) are always talking about.  Happily, they can now read this and learn something Globe and Mail (4/7/12) reports: The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing…The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

Wind energy comes up snake eyes in Nevada, but you already knew that. This is getting to be a dog bites man story, and we are not going to run them anymore. Except to point out that people who support extending the wind PTC (like Jerry Moran) are fools Las Vegas Sun (4/2/12) reports: A year ago, a Reno clean energy businessman warned the Public Utilities Commission that if it didn’t set a few standards for NV Energy’s wind rebate program, its customers could end up footing the bill for turbines that rarely produce electricity…One reason behind his concern: To be eligible for rebates, customers didn’t need to prove that the wind actually blows enough to justify installing a turbine on their property.
If you were blind, there would be no sin in that. But you say “we see”. And your sin remains Politico (4/3/12) reports: Former federal offshore oil-and-gas-drilling enforcer Michael Bromwich readily admits he might have rubbed people the wrong way…“I may be not as good as some other people are at turning the other cheek,” he said in an interview Monday. “I think that I’m a strong personality, I have strong views. I let people know what I think — including members of Congress at hearings — and I think people don’t like that. Some people don’t like that.”

Well now.  Maybe Lincoln was right with that whole fooling some of the people some of the time Smart Money (4/3/12) reports: March sales rose 22% from the previous month and 13% from a year ago to an annualized rate of 14.3 million vehicles, according to data released today by Edmunds.com. Experts credit rising gas prices as a leading factor for this spike in consumer demand. Sales of subcompact cars and mid-size cars made up 24% of total market share in March, up three percentage points from a year ago – the biggest growth in any category, according to forecasts by Kelley Blue Book. But despite the large swings in gas prices, hybrid sales have barely budged: they made up just 2.1% of market share last month, almost unchanged from a year ago. Of the 1.4 million cars that sold last month, less than 30,000 of them were hybrids. “Interest in hybrids is not as high as one would think especially in light of high gas prices,” says Jesse Toprak, vice president of market intelligence at TrueCar.com.

So if Romney’s policies are bad, does that mean that President Rig Count’s policies are good?  Or does it just mean we are already in the campaign of personal destruction?  Kind of sad for a guy who started out as the Messiah New York Times (4/3/12) reports: The Obama campaign is putting nearly $1.4 million behind its newest commercial, getting the president’s message on the air in some of the nation’s largest television markets, according to figures provided by a Republican strategist who tracks media purchases…The ad buy covers six battleground states — Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada and Virginia — and includes cities like Tampa, Fla.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; Des Moines; and Cleveland…The ad will be shown on both broadcast and cable television.

Now we are on to something New York Times (4/2/12) reports: Butterfly wings are not just beautiful. They are also sophisticated collectors of solar energy that help butterflies stay warm, and researchers say that their shinglelike structure could provide valuable clues into developing better solar technology.

Wow.  We must have really hit a nerve with our latest ad Politico (4/2/12) reports: President Obama’s reelection campaign has launched their third television spot of the cycle — an energy-themed ad that takes aim at both Mitt Romney and Big Oil companies…”Under President Obama, domestic oil production’s at an eight-year high,” the ad charges. “So why is Big Oil attacking him? Because he’s fighting to end their tax breaks.”…”He’s raising mileage standards, and doubling renewable energy,” the ad’s narrator says. “In all these fights, Mitt Romney’s stood with Big Oil— for their tax breaks, attacking higher mileage standards and renewables.”

Vroom…Vrooom! Chevy Volt production will remain idle for the next 12 weeks Detroit Free Press General Motors plans to halt production of the Chevrolet Volt at its Detroit-Hamtramck plant for three weeks in July, instead of the traditional two-week shutdown…”This is (a) normal part of business as managing to market demand,” GM spokeswoman Michelle Malcho said in an e-mail…Volt production has been idled for a five-week stretch through April 23 because dealers had a surplus of the plug-in extended-range electric vehicle…The Volt, which can travel about 35 miles on a single charge of electricity until a gasoline-powered generator kicks in, has yet to live up to the automaker’s original sales expectations. Chevrolet sold 1,023 Volts in February.

You know the best part?  The Rubio crew sent along an op-ed supporting ethanol as proof that the Senator is really right on global warming.  He will definitely make a great running mate for Willard Buzzfeed (4/2/12) reports: Florida Senator Marco Rubio is considered a likely Republican Vice Presidential nominee. But Rubio’s past carries some positions now decried by the right. In 2008, as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio presided over a vote directing the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to create rules for limiting carbon emissions. In 2007, Rubio delivered this speech on energy, where he said “this nation and ultimately the world, are heading towards emissions caps,” adding Florida could become the “Silicon Valley” of green energy. Update This was not as strong as the federal legislation known a “cap and trade” and a Rubio spokesman emails this 2007 op-ed in which the then House Speaker cites opposition to cap and trade legislation.”

And EPA immediately tried to regulate it . . .Wall Street Journal (4/2/12) reports: When our ancestors first used fire has been a long-running debate, and a new study concludes the earliest firm evidence comes from about one million years ago in a South African cave…The ash and burnt-bone samples found there suggest fires frequently burned in that spot, researchers said Monday…Over the years, some experts have cited evidence of fire from as long as 1.5 million years ago, and some have argued it was used even earlier, a key step toward evolution of a larger brain. But it is a tricky issue. Even if there is evidence of an ancient blaze, how do researchers know it wasn’t just a wildfire?

Somewhere, Randy Randol is laughing GWPF (4/2/12) reports: Analysis by the GWPF of the newly released HadCRUT4 global temperature database shows that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years – a timescale that challenges current models of global warming…The important question is whether 15 years is a sufficient length of time from which to draw climatic conclusions that are usually considered over 30 years, as well as its implications for climate projections.

WASHINGTON D.C. — The Obama campaign, the Democratic National Committee and a pro-Obama Super PAC are frantically deploying television propaganda to distract the American public from the president’s energy record. In an ongoing multi-million dollar educational advertisement sponsored by the American Energy Alliance, the president’s true record is laid bare. Yet in the last week, the partisan Democratic triumvirate launched an apparently coordinated response to AEA’s ad, “Nine Dollar Gas,” now airing in eight states.

“The desperate response of Team Obama reveals the degree to which the president feels personally responsible for higher gas prices and is worried that the American people will listen to the truth instead of his propaganda. Rather than address the facts in the AEA ad, the Obama campaign, the DNC and his Bill Maher-funded Super PAC, throw up smokescreens and false allegations to hide from the truth,” noted AEA President Thomas Pyle.

“With rising gas prices, the president understandably wants to run from his record. His efforts to distract the public by floating specious claims and making unsubstantiated allegations about the American Energy Alliance are schizophrenic and shameful. Airing dubious response ads won’t lower gas prices, and it most certainly won’t absolve the president or his administration for a three-year energy embargo on federal lands.”

The Obama campaign claims that AEA’s ad is “false,” and without giving evidence of a single false claim, proceeds to make some whoppers of their own. Consider the following:

Obama False Claim #1: “[T]his president has expanded oil and gas drilling.”

AEA Truth: According to data released last month by the Energy Information Administration, oil production on federal lands was down 14 percent in FY2011. Offshore oil production alone declined by 285,000 barrels a day over the past fiscal year, and natural gas production on federal and Indian lands has fallen by 781 billion cubic feet since FY2009.

Those decreases are enough to deny a year’s worth of oil supply to both Nevada and New Mexico, and enough to shut off all natural gas to the states of Ohio or Michigan.

Obama False Claim #2: “[President Obama] is taking steps to … save consumers at the pump by making sure we are no longer tied to the volatile prices in the global oil market.”

AEA Truth: The only steps the president has taken so far to directly address the rising price of gasoline was to ask the Saudi royal family to boost oil production, to call for increased production in Sudan, and to dispatch Attorney General Eric Holder to form another task force targeting oil markets.

Meanwhile, the president has cancelled oil development off the Atlantic coast, cancelled offshore development in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, cancelled lease sales in the Alaskan seas, and cancelled oil shale development in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. All told, the president’s policies have embargoed more than 1 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil reserves.

Obama False Claim #3: “[D]omestic oil production is at its highest level in eight years.”

AEA Truth: According to a Congressional Research Service report released last month, 96 percent of the increases in domestic oil production are occurring on private and state lands. Moreover, production increases that have occurred over the last three years are due to Bush-era policies, a fact even The New York Times cautiously admits.

Obama False Claim #4:  “President Obama’s historic investments have also helped increase clean energy production — net electricity from wind and solar have more than doubled since 2008.”

AEA Truth:  First, it is telling that the president takes credit for “his investments” in solar and wind energy. Last time we checked, he’s been “investing” the money of the American people, and doing a pretty poor job at it. Between Solyndra, Beacon Power, Blythe Solar, and Solar Trust of America, the Obama administration owns these failures, regardless of how politically unpalatable they are. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been thrown into renewable energy sinkholes by this administration with no prospect of a return on the “investment.”

As for the ‘doubling’ of wind and solar, it’s also telling what the Obama campaign does not disclose. Last year, wind and solar energy generated less than 3 percent of our net electricity.  But on a total consumption basis, these sources only suppled 1.3 percent of our energy needs. Moreover, according to an EIA report released last year, taxpayer-funded renewable energy subsidies increased by 186 percent over three years to $14.7 billion. Simply put, the president’s favorite renewables may be producing more electricity, but at nearly three times as much cost to taxpayers.

Obama False Claim #5: “Why is Big Oil attacking [President Obama]? Because he’s fighting to end their tax breaks . . . So when you see [AEA]‘s ad, remember who paid for it and what they want.”

AEA Truth: The Washington Post Fact Checker has now called response ads aired on behalf of President Obama “misleading,” and “stretches of the truth.” To read why Team Obama has received “Three Pinocchios” for false ads twice in the last four days, click hereand here.

###

It is tragic and ridiculous that Canadians are better at anything than we are Oil Daily (subscription) (3/29/12) reports: The Canadian government presented a federal budget on Thursday which includes at least one provision that should go down well with the country’s oil and gas industry….One of the key elements is an initiative to shift environmental reviews for natural resources projects to provincial governments. The idea is to reduce regulatory delays faced by energy and mining companies which are pursuing large infrastructure projects…The new guidelines will limit environmental reviews to a maximum of two years…And in a surprise twist, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the new regulatory process will also apply to environmental reviews that are currently underway, including the hearings on Enbridge’s controversial Northern Gateway pipeline from northern Alberta to the Pacific coast.

Sometimes this business just makes me tired all over.  So let’s do some math.  If I give you $41 billion a year, and you give me $4 billion back, which of us is subsidizing the other one?  How can anyone take the crew that started this conversation by asking the House of Wahhabis for more oil seriously? Yahoo (3/29/12) reports: President Barack Obama’s plea to Congress to end $4 billion in tax subsidies to oil companies was rebuffed Thursday as the Senate turned back a Democratic bill to repeal the tax breaks…Moments after Obama made his election-year appeal in the White House Rose Garden, the Senate failed to reach the threshold of votes needed to proceed to a measure that would have ended the subsidies. Obama had argued that Americans are getting hit twice — once at the gas pump, and once more by sending billions of dollars in tax subsidies to oil companies.

I have no idea why this guy seems surprised.  I mean, what are the odds that environmentalists would be opposed to energy projects?  But the best part is buried in the story:  the guy who runs CAISO (the grid operator) in California admits that the State’s renewable energy mandate is going to further destabilize the grid and compromise reliability.  As tragic, doomed California sinks deeper into the quicksand Forbes (3/29/12) reports: The North American Electric Reliability Corp. says that if a national grid is not built out then renewables will suffer. It says that 11,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines are needed to ensure that the lights stay on for the next decade. The paradox is that many green groups want to first encourage more conservation before considering transmission — lines that would carry wind and solar electrons. “The California grid is unstable and it is likely to become even more unstable,” as an increasing amount of green energy is required by state mandate, says Bob Foster, who heads the California Independent System Operator that serves as the state’s traffic cop for the transmission grid.

Ramming speed….Law 360 (3/20/12) reports: Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. on Wednesday won a court order blocking Greenpeace Inc. activists from barricading or occupying its drilling ships bound for the Arctic until October, which will be months after the oil giant plans to kick off exploratory drilling…A federal judge in Alaska upgraded Shell’s temporary restraining order against Greenpeace to a preliminary injunction, finding that Shell could face irreparable harm without it.