Energy Sanity Group

March 19, 2012 Leave a comment

In his recent Op-Ed in the Huffington Post entitled Time to Pass the Natural Gas Bill, Daniel Dicker wrote

The industry also indicated universally that they are willing to submit to any transparency request that environmentalists or Washington suggest in order to continue the U.S. shale revolution.

The industry is on board, it’s time for the people to get on board, too. Let’s call this grassroots effort the “energy independence coalition.” Or, how about the “energy sanity group.” That’s the only way to describe what we’re doing — or actually not doing — with our plentiful national resource of natural gas. We’re flaring — actually burning off natural gas instead of using it to get at more expensive oil resources in the Bakken and elsewhere. That’s not sane — it’s just nuts.

 I couldn’t agree more. As Dicker noted, gasoline prices are hovering near $4 per gallon while the equivalent cost of a “gallon” on Natural Gas would cost $1.60. Taking the national average into account at $3.83 per gallon and an undefined rise in gasoline prices predicted for the summer, considering a cleaner burning, cheaper fuel source should and will be in the minds of the average consumer. If we calculate this out in round numbers, each fill-up will cost a citizen with a twenty gallon tank $76.60. Filling up with Natural Gas would cost that same citizen $32.oo; meaning that the everyday American would spend less than half the price of one tank of gasoline for two full tanks of Natural Gas or a savings of $44.60 per trip to the pump. That is more savings than the cost of visiting a Natural Gas fueling station. If this plays out further, and we consider that the average person fills up three times per month, that is a savings of $133.80 per month or $1605.60 per year.
We could all use an additional $1605.60 in our account every year. This, more than anything else, will speak to Americans struggling in a recession and it is what the industry, who currently produces the oil and gasoline, has no problem supporting.
As Dicker said,
Natural gas is greener than oil, plentiful, domestic and cheap. As gas prices today rose over $3.83 as a national average, the equivalent cost of a “gallon” of natural gas is $1.60. Most analysts expect domestic prices for natural gas to stay relatively low for years, perhaps decades to come, while oil price is at the whim of every Middle East conflict, emerging market competition for resources and decreasing global production.

The oil and gas industry is ready for this. Last week’s CERA conference — the yearly global energy get-together of all the majors — could have easily been renamed the natural gas conference. Apache CEO Steve Farris claimed that U.S. supply of natural gas isn’t the claimed 100 years, it is more like 200 years.

Shell CEO Peter Voser spoke about investment in a new U.S. gas-to-liquids plant and the prospects of LNG exports. At one point, moderator and energy guru Daniel Yergin interrupted Voser to ask sarcastically: “You still produce oil too, don’t you?” The industry also indicated universally that they are willing to submit to any transparency request that environmentalists or Washington suggest in order to continue the U.S. shale revolution.

Realizing the savings in using our own resources is not a stretch. If shipping costs go down, particularly for those diesel operated trucks that move most of our goods nationwide, the savings will undoubtedly be passed along to those who purchase those goods. Diesel prices have soared over $4.oo per gallon and those massive trucker tanks cost hundreds of dollars to fill. With the most common setup for a big rig being twin 100 gallon tanks, it costs a cool $800 to fill up once. If they ran on Natural Gas, they would cost $320.00 per fill. That’s a savings of almost $500 per tank(s).
With the amount of Natural Gas we have, we can count on those prices staying low. When the cost to do business goes down, costs go down all around. So why are we, by doing nothing in the way of action on Natural Gas, continuing to import Oil and Gas that costs us so dearly? And it does, cost us dearly. With over 62 million cars on the road, that costs consumers, consumers, an additional $99,547,200,000 per year. I got this figure by multiplying the average savings at $1605.60 by 62 million. This doesn’t account for the 2oo gallon fill ups by Big Rigs; I used an average 20 gallon fill up for 62 million vehicles.
In summary, we burn nearly $100 billion in fuel costs, stay dependent on the Middle East for our cost stability, pass that cost instability along to the consumers, burn something three times dirtier than Natural Gas, waste our Natural Resource because of the glut, and leave our star energy player on the bench. Does that make sense? Certainly not.
While politicians play games in Washington, the US looks bent on foregoing a huge economical boost whose ramifications are currently incalculable because we won’t use this resource.  It is what we are doing by not doing. Why?
I think what we should do is look more closely at what we are doing by not using the Shale Gas as we aught because there isn’t a single figure that shows me why what we are currently doing is better. It isn’t better; it is nuts.
Spend more on fuel, pass that cost to the people. Burn a dirtier fuel, pass that impact to the globe. Leave shale on the bench, send more money to the Middle East instead of keeping it here at home. Stifle growth of the industry, stifle job creation and an increasing tax base.
This is what we are doing by not doing. I agree with Mr. Daniel Dicker. We need an Energy Sanity group. What are doing now is a Titanic Navigation strategy. Let’s avoid the Ice Berg. We can all see the thing.
Categories: Frac

Kill O&G Subsidies: Obama’s “Clean Energy” Trend

“It’s outrageous. It’s inexcusable. I’m asking Congress: eliminate this oil industry giveaway right away,…Let’s put every single member of Congress on record: *You can stand with oil companies, or you can stand with the American people. You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean energy future.”

According to the administration you are either for *the agenda, or anti-American.

Obama made this riling speech and I understand the politicking behind it. I know this is an election year and President Obama is looking for the opportunity to prove to the committed left that he is still their man, but I wonder, do the committed left know what the Obama administration is doing with the tax dollars he can control? It can be difficult to figure out, considering… In roughly the last month, the president has plugged the potential of shale gas and proposed its inclusion in his “all of the above” energy policy. This, while vowing to remove subsidies for oil and gas companies that he takes credit for leading toward increased domestic production and decreased foreign dependence. If you are confused, that is a good thing. It means that you heard him correctly.

As CBS News reports,

“Last year, a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service that was getting renewed attention on Thursday concluded that Obama’s oil and gas proposals ‘may have the effect of decreasing exploration, development, and production, while increasing prices and increasing the nation’s foreign oil dependence.’ ”

So at the very least, his policies are projected to decrease exploration, production and development, raise prices and increase the nation’s foreign oil dependence.

Furthermore, I don’t know that President Obama himself fully realizes what it is that he has been communicating lately nor can I believe that he has discovered that the internet and cameras exist…or that his faithful Senate knows that there is a record of where they are sending money.

When Obama takes credit for cutting dependence on foreign oil, he is takes credit for the recession. The reason for a decreasing dependence on foreign oil is due to a recession effected reduction in oil usage. People spend less when they have less money. Our production is up because of Hydraulic Fracturing and shale plays. The latter has nothing to do with this administration.

The part of the playback that I hear the most clearly is when our president says

“Let’s put every single member of Congress on record: You can stand with oil companies, or you can stand with the American people. You can keep subsidizing a fossil fuel that’s been getting taxpayer dollars for a century, or you can place your bets on a clean energy future.”

But, if I were able to stand before the administration to question them personally, if I were allowed to sit across a desk from them, I would ask the following questions: “What does standing with the American people look like and why are you qualified to provide the definition? Why is there a commitment to an energy source that continually wastes money? Why does this administration pick and choose which interviews it is willing to participate in and the nature of the questions asked? ”

And where have they elected to send that money?…The answer is not “clean energy” because that would imply that energy was actually, well, created. The answer is not that simple.

When Spokesman Jay Carney said  “We have a choice to make as a nation, because we will be buying renewable energy products, you know, whether it’s wind, biofuel, solar, whether alternative — rather, you know, advanced battery technology, we’re going to be buying that stuff. Do we want to buy it with a stamp on it that says ‘Made in America’ or are we going to buy it from the Chinese or from other countries?” somebody needed to provide an answer to his question by presenting him with reports showing “clean energy” investments failing and “clean energy” failing in general while explaining to he and his boss why they are failing.

We won’t have a “Made in America” stamp on “clean energy” products as long as China can completely destroy us with their pricing. They can provide solar panels far cheaper than we can produce them. The government attempted to enable US manufacturers to compete but is wasn’t enough, they still failed.

That is why Solyndra, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Spectrawatt, and Energy Conversion Devices Inc. have all filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

So, not only did the market determine that it would buy cheaper panels from China, the US Government decided to back failing companies through guaranteed loans. What does that mean? It means the US decided to play the role of bank and instead of getting a return through interest paid on a loan, they got companies that went bankrupt so they failed as a bank and as an investor. The information is available.

With all of the attention given to alternative forms of energy, which Mr. Carney provided in list form, one would expect that the government look to those with experience in the matter for a lesson. The UK is now in the throes of learning that Wind Energy is a sham. According to that article by Matt Ridley:
To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide. 
Not only that, the price of maintenance is cost prohibitive. American made solar panels are a proven waste of tax payer dollars while battery powered cars, our current administration’s latest champ, from Fiskers and Tesla cost $96,000 and $57,000 apiece, respectively.
This isn’t the whole picture. According to ABC news, both Fiskers and Tesla both received half a billion in loans. Joe Biden said of this allocation of tax dollars, “This is seed money that will return back to the American consumer in billions and billions and billions of dollars in good new jobs.”
So far, Fiskers hasn’t produced a single vehicle in the United States. They have a production facility in Finland because it is too expensive to assemble their $96,000 dollar-car stateside; this is something that the US government knew when they approved the half billion dollar loan to the electric car maker. According to their CEO and namesake Henrik Fisker “We are not in the business of failing, we are in the business of winning so we make the right decision for the business…that’s why we went to Finland.”
As for Tesla, their report to the US Securities and Exchange Commission said that the company (Tesla) expects “…continuing losses for at least the foreseeable future.”
Their VP said “While expensive ($57,000), there is a very robust market.”
When ABC’s Brian Doss challenged this by saying “These are cars for wealthy Americans, not for average Americans.” Tesla’s VP, Diarmuid O’Connell responded by saying “Well, I don’t know how you define wealthy.”
I have a simple definition. When the average wage for a nation is $41,673.83 as of 2010 and you are not the VP of a company plugging a product, $57,000 or roughly $16,000 more money than the average worker will make in a year, is a car for a wealthy American.
A billion dollars worth of loans went to electric car companies who either build their cars in Finland or expect losses for the foreseeable future; and they charge either $96,000 or $57,000 apiece for these vehicles.
Is this a trend for our investment practices in “clean energy”?
What normal American can pay for that? Is it worth a billion dollars worth of government loans to find out?
Meanwhile, back at the farm in the Shale Plays. We have natural gas in abundance cheaper than we can find it anywhere on earth. Why won’t we use it here to create more jobs? Shale Gas currently supports over 600,000 jobs.
There are your “billions and billions and billions of dollars in good new jobs” Mr. Biden. They are already there, making money and being jobs.
Is this the industry for which this administration wants to remove subsidies?
How about we eliminate “outrageous” and “inexcusable” waste to multiple failing programs?
I say “Oppose wasting tax dollars and stand with the American people.” There is your real choice.

Obama’s Energy Policy: Insanity

February 28, 2012 Leave a comment

The United States has imported 103,644,130,000 barrels of crude oil from 1980-2010 or 3,454,804,333 barrels per year during that period. As of 2011, the Annual Average Domestic Crude Oil Price was $87.33 per barrel.

As a country, we’ve spent (on average, adjusted for inflation) $45.59 per barrel in the last thirty years. Following those adjusted figures, this equates to an average of $157,504,529,541.47 per year or $4,725,135,886,700 total during that thirty year span.

From June to November of 2011, the United States bought $37,929,375,530.00 worth of crude oil from OPEC.  This is a six month expenditure at the $45.59 per barrel figure, not the actual $87.33 per barrel annual average of 2011. That figure is $72,655,678,110.00 for imported OPEC crude in a six month period.

And these are only the OPEC figures.

We also imported 1,241,105,000 barrels of oil in addition to the crude we imported from OPEC. That’s an additional $108,385,699,650 in imported oil in a six month span for a grand total (all of our imports) of $181,041,377,760.00 in six months on imported crude alone.

This is the reason American O&G companies are all wound up about the current energy policies.

At a recent event, President Obama said,

“We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by ending the subsidies for oil companies, and doubling down on clean energy that generates jobs and strengthens our security…”

It was “reduce our dependence on foreign oil by ending the subsidies for oil companies” that got their attention.

The largest problem that I have with President Obama, is that his “clean energy” policy repeatedly operates while swimming in red ink.  His administration seems to be the most out of touch with how dependent we are, as a country, on fossil fuels for our existence and how ineffective “clean” technology (like solar and wind) has been at shouldering the burden.

His track record speaks for itself  according to the Natural Resources Committee. Those numbers and actions will give you an idea about what he is actually doing rather than what he says at press conferences.

President Obama has supported “clean energy” initiatives that have cost this country billions in guaranteed loans that will receive no ROI because his allocation of US tax dollars to multiple solar companies did not keep them from crashing into bankruptcy. (Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, Energy Conversion Devices, Solar Millenium).

The loans often came when those companies were already failing. I will say that again. President Obama guaranteed loans to failing companies, which filed for bankruptcy wasting billions in costs to tax payers.

He now announces a plan that backs “clean energy” and cuts fossil fuel subsidies.

He isn’t dealing apples to apples here. Reducing our imports of foreign Oil has little (less than 1% today, compared to approximately 10% in 1980) to do with energy production. He misled his audience.

Oil runs our vehicles and is the basis for most of our goods.

Energy is related to Natural Gas and Coal. He failed to make that differentiation.

The problem with his “plan” is that our country still needs to import 2,073,072,000 barrels of crude every six months in addition to our own production to operate, not to power our homes or businesses.  “Clean” energy accounts for less than two percent of our energy needs. Reducing oil imports has almost nothing to do with increasing that percentage. It would take diminishing the role of Coal and Natural Gas; so, it appears that he intends to cut fossil fuel subsidies across the board.

How does destroying an incentive to operate decrease our need to import?

While President Obama believes that our dependence on foreign oil will be fixed by “doubling down on clean energy” he cannot and has not provided the US with a plan that works or with one that is clear enough to explain without muddying the roles of various fossil fuels.

Throwing tax dollars to solar companies who do not produce energy (because they are bankrupt) and reducing our need for imported crude (which isn’t really related to energy) is not a plan.

I have said it before: you can’t make clothing or oil related materials like vulcanized rubber from sunshine, nor do cars run on beautiful cloudless days.

This is a world market.

President Obama: the market killed those solar companies because they are inferior as an energy source and their technological advancement is weak. It is the world market that controls what oil prices look like, not the Republicans. Bankrupt solar companies don’t give us power or reduce our need for imported crude when they sell their assets.

The people who spend money say so; take some notes and wake up.

Obama mocks Republicans for their pro-drilling policy but offers no functional alternative; drilling more at home, utilizing our shales, and ceasing to regulate in excess is a guaranteed way to be less dependent on foreign oil because we will use more of our own. You can’t overhaul a system whose life-blood is oil by supporting technology that is incapable of doing the job, especially when you don’t differentiate the difference between the roles of Natural Gas and Oil. Obama’s plan is aimed at removing our need for Oil & Gas. We can’t. We are years and years away from being capable of doing so.

I think the President is confused. Perhaps a history lesson will help.

Before Steve Jobs came back as the innovative rescuer of Apple, the company was all but dead. Those who invested in the company before his return saw what happened to their investments between 1988-1993. However, and in stark contrast to the previous trend, those who invested in Apple right before the advent of the iPod will attest to the fact that there is such a thing as “wise investment” and a “good time to invest”.

After Jobs came on board, Apple created a product that people would buy and keep buying. This is why Apple was successful: they had something that people would spend for, and an revolutionary evolutionary development process. Their innovations performed a function that caused people to wait in line to throw money at: first the iMac, MacBook, iPod, iPhone, and then the iPad.  So, using Apple as an example, there is a good time and a bad time to invest in technology and there is good and bad innovation.

Barack Obama, has proven that he is a terrible investor and a bad judge of good innovation.

He bets on losing horses (Solyndra etc.) and then tries to change that fate by changing the rules of the race (moratoriums, punting pipelines, slow permitting etc.).

By killing O&G and inhibiting that industry to do what it is capable of, he has attempted to re-emphasize the “clean” technology he supports…but he espouses that this is all the fault of the Republicans and the dismal economy he inherited. Bush didn’t impose a moratorium or punt the safest and the most economical means to transport oil from Canada to the GOM.

Bet on a winning horse, Mr. President.

According to his State of the Union, he understands the potential of home grown fossil fuel production, he even tried to take credit for it, but I can’t help believe that this was only a talking point to silence his critics. I know this because his new budget proposal cut subsidies for O&G. So if this administration realizes the potential for Oil & Gas here at home but does nothing but oppose it, what does that say?

His choices, not his words, for solar and against O&G have cost Americans jobs and money; real jobs and real money. The drilling moratorium and Keystone XL punt have cost Americans jobs and money. The guaranteed loans to failing companies have cost the American citizens jobs and money.

The moratorium alone has cost the US $24 billion and caused multiple companies, like this one, to go bankrupt and lay off employees during a recession; or this one, who is struggling to keep their employees employed after they rebounded following Hurricane Katrina.

President Barack Obama’s energy policy is costing America the very thing he keeps promising: jobs. It does not have to. It can create them.

His actions prove that he is following an ideological, politically affiliated, Green Dream that puts current employees out of work. Make no mistake, this is happening right now.

And now he is allocating $14 million to algal fuel research.


Obama is allocating funds to failing enterprises at a time when our government is supposed to be saving money. Instead of cutting off the dead, non-productive limbs, he looks to save money in other ways: he intends to make our veterans and military make up the difference by cutting their benefits.

He plans to save money by going paperless and painting roofs white.

While speaking out of both sides of his mouth, Obama tries to take credit for increased Oil production, his execution proves that lip service to be hollow.

As the Washington Examiner reports

“Oil industry leaders reject Obama’s claim to have given significant support to oil production. ‘These have been the most difficult three years from a policy standpoint that I’ve ever seen in my career,’ Bruce Vincent, president of Swift Energy, an oil and gas company in Houston, said yesterday. ‘They’ve done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting.’ “

And now the administration is cutting subsidies.

In summary, the energy plan looks like this: spend money on risky and non-productive Green ventures that comprise a relatively miniscule ROI while penalizing a proven industry which thrives. Confuse the American public by failing to clarify that Oil doesn’t produce a whole lot of energy. Also fail to mention that Solar and Wind produce about as much energy as Oil. Take credit for the thriving industry while attacking them with policy and ignore all of the failures.

Yeah. That sounds about right.

Let me reiterate. Insanity.

A political, re-election agenda shouldn’t have a place for a civil servant. Stop burning the money we work so hard for. Stop fighting against the spirit of American industry that built this great country.

Stop the insanity.

Categories: Frac

“The Entire Story of Shale Has Been to Hell With Facts.”

February 17, 2012 Leave a comment

That’s right, Mr. Grealy.

The entire story concerning the needlessly volatile “Fracking” controversy is not about facts. This has been by design due to some careful editing and outright refusal to disclose, through national media, a complete and thorough representation of the practice of Hydraulic Fracturing. The reasons behind the outright objections to the practice are very clearly non-factual. Antis refuse to concede a point before scurrying onto their next objection so that none of those facts can land on them with their full weight.

This strategy is their only option. By bouncing around like a pinball, they have created a scenario similar to boxer conditioning: the Oil and Gas Industry is running around trying to catch a chicken. It has been effective.

I recently watched an interview with Josh Fox, the Oscar nominated Director of the Yellow Journalist film “GasLand” on “The Ed Show” in which Josh Fox sounded off on congressional Republicans for limiting his First Amendment Rights unconstitutionally by expelling him from the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Meeting “Examining EPA’s Approach to Ground Water Research: the Pavilion Analysis”.

He was booted from the meeting because he was not a credentialed member of the press according to rule 9. The reason for his ejection was read aloud before the meeting commenced. Basically, Josh Fox did not think it necessary to go through the proper means that would have allowed him to be present at “a very crucial hearing”. He did not not take care of business on his end. One would think that if Josh Fox found that meeting to be so crucial, that he would have done everything required to enable him to be present. He attempted to circumvent the process and was ejected according to the rules.

Mr. Fox has again become the face of the Fractivist Movement and been portrayed as a victim.

Laurel Whitney, of reported

“As Fox was led out of the room, Democratic Representative, Brad Miller (D-NC), attempted to suspend the committee rules to let the crews film the hearing but was blocked by the Republican Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD).”

This is a misrepresentation of the truth. Representative Miller moved that an exception be made. When Rep. Andy Harris saw that a quorum was not present, he called a recess so that one could be present to vote on the exception. When the meeting re-convened, the move for the exception was voted down seven to six. Rep. Miller called for a recess of “no less than one week” so that Fox and ABC news could apply for the permits to attend. This move was again voted down seven to six.

This is democracy, majority ruled.

When Fox appeared on “The Ed Show”, he went on a tirade blaming Republicans for obstructing his ability, as a member of the press, to cover the meeting. Again, it was Fox’s fault that he was not allowed to attend that meeting. He could have applied and then been granted press credentials to attend. He simply did not have the credentials necessary to film.

Josh Fox’s statement reads like this:

“We were there covering, uh, a very crucial hearing about a case of, uh, groundwater contamination in Pavilion, Wyoming; a three and a half year investigation by Region 8 EPA which shows subjects from the first film ‘GasLand’ from Pavilion, Wyoming with groundwater contamination resulting in fifty times the level of benzene in groundwater, um, and EPA has pointed in this case at hydraulic fracturing as the likely cause and what’s happening on The Hill today is Republicans in the Science, and, uh, Space, Technology Committee hearing to challenge science. Their panel was made up of gas industry lobbyists and we were there to expose what I believe is an actually rather ugly and brazen attack on science itself, uh, on what’s happening across the country with hydraulic fracturing water contamination. So, we were there actually doing our jobs as journalists. I was not interested in disrupting that meeting, was not charged with disrupting the hearing, I was simply interested in capturing on film, in broadcast quality, uh, camera, what the Republicans were going to be doing right there putting the EPA and the citizens of Pavilion and everyone across the nation who, who’s complaining of contamination due to hydraulic fracturing on trial. I wanted to make sure that people knew what was happening…Since the Republicans have taken over, we have had obstruction after obstruction getting into congress…it’s ironic that all of these strands have come together and they’re kicking science out of the House of Representatives. They’re kicking science and journalism out of the Science and Technology committee and it is a, really a brazen attack on American Civil Liberties, um, and uh, frankly, on our ability to investigate the truth.”

This is another “to hell with the facts” moment.

In Mr. Fox’s words, “I was simply interested in capturing on film, in broadcast quality, uh, camera, what the Republicans were going to be doing right there putting the EPA and the citizens of Pavilion and everyone across the nation who, who’s complaining of contamination due to hydraulic fracturing on trial. I wanted to make sure that people knew what was happening.”

He wanted to capture, on film, what the Republicans were doing by reviewing the EPA’s findings in Pavilion, WY. He wanted to make sure that people knew what was happening.

To answer Mr. Fox, I will quote Rep. Andy Harris.

“Every word, every phrase, no editing and it will be available on the same site in its entirety following the hearing; therefore, every piece of information, from this hearing is fully available to every member of the public.”

The committee’s website has the full meeting available for viewing here and the full meeting is available on YouTube, here.

In other words, anyone so inclined, with a computer and fingers, and the ability to type and click a mouse, can view the entire meeting online. The committee itself wanted to make sure that “people knew what was happening”.

This makes Fox’s entire argument baseless.

Fox was arrested for “Unlawful Entry” because he did not follow the law. His fault. He could have gotten a pass if he had wanted to but he did not. It wasn’t important enough to him to apply for the credentials necessary to attend the meeting.

The First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Mr. Fox needs a definition of “abridge”. I will provide one for him.

a archaic : deprive b : to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>
: to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>
: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

By providing the entire meeting for public review via recording, that meeting did not infringe on Mr. Fox’s or any other citizen’s civil liberties. The only ironic part is how Mr. Fox decided to interpret the First Amendment by forgetting that “abridge” was the exact word utilized by the Founding Fathers. I doubt that he would include the entire meeting in his documentary. He would have included part of it, to support the thesis of his film, thereby, abridging the content.

Mr. Fox said, in “The Ed Show” interview,

“I’m going in there because this the First Amendment, this is the Freedom of Speech, the Amendment is ‘Congress shall make no law which infringes upon the freedom of the press, that’s an abridged part of it. But that means Congress can’t pass a law or a rule or a regulation in a sub-committee hearing, um, to obstruct journalists from coming in and exposing to the American people what they’re doing.”

Was that an abridging of the First Amendment and recognizing that he abridged it?


The First Amendment that he cited isn’t long. An actual memorization would have been more fitting. Actually Josh, this shows that you have a problem understanding what you read, and remembering what you’ve read. Words have meanings.

I will draw as an example, an observation by C.S. Lewis on the abuse of the English language in this mode:

“The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said – so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully – “Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.”

Mr. Fox offered an “abridged” version of the First Amendment that says ‘Congress shall make no law which infringes upon the freedom of the press, that’s an abridged part of it. But that means Congress can’t pass a law or a rule or a regulation in a sub-committee hearing, um, to obstruct journalists from coming in…” rather than the First Amendment that guarantees that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Ironic, no?

They didn’t abridge the freedom of speech or of the press. They did not omit anything. They did not alter the content and bend the meaning. They freely offer the entire meeting publicly and voluntarily and comprehensively. This means the meeting was not subjected to Mr. Fox’s editing table.

The First Amendment means that Congress cannot pass a law that allows the voice of the people or the press to be abridged. It means the government cannot control what one says or diminish the essence of what was said nor can they dictate to the public or the press how they should say what they say. It does not guarantee him the right to record a meeting that is being recorded comprehensively already.

Because of the public airing of that meeting, there is no obstruction to journalism or the press in obstructing journalists from “coming in and exposing to American people what they’re doing.” Especially when that journalist ignores protocol. This is something the EPA and Mr. Fox have in common: they both ignore protocol.

Congress did not hiding anything so the subject of the review was in no way altered or edited and anyone with nearly two hours of free time can see that.

Josh Fox claims to be a documentary film maker and a champion of the First Amendment but he would have a congressional sub-committee forgo the review of government agency’s findings.

Fox said,

“I was simply interested in capturing on film, in broadcast quality, uh, camera, what the Republicans were going to be doing right there putting the EPA and the citizens of Pavilion and everyone across the nation who, who’s complaining of contamination due to hydraulic fracturing on trial.”

Of course they are putting the EPA on trial, of course they are putting the claims of people in Pavilion and across the US on trial. This is entirely normal in the science world. It is called the “Peer Review Process”. They need to see that the reports and claims are factual. The EPA released their preliminary findings without one. Then they promptly got shelled and extended the public comment period. I wrote a blog about how unwise their release was.

The Pavilion, WY study needs review.

Mr. Fox believes that “…it’s ironic that all of these strands have come together and they’re kicking science out of the House of Representatives. They’re kicking science and journalism out of the Science and Technology committee and it is a, really a brazen attack on American Civil Liberties, um, and uh, frankly, on our ability to investigate the truth.”

Excuse me Mr. Fox, you are defeating your own argument based on the premise of your values. You want an “investigation of the truth” but you don’t agree that the results of a 3 1/2 year study by the EPA in Pavilion, WY deserves to be reviewed for accuracy before Congress. You are the one seeking to undermine a completely typical peer review process because “preliminary” findings (not reviewed findings) pointed to contamination.

Do you support the abandonment of the Peer Review Process? Do you believe the EPA’s findings to be unquestionable or perfect? By their own admission, they abandoned their own mandated protocol. This is why there is a congressional review. In this case, you are the one attempting to remove science from the process and by painting a picture with a very specific bent, removing journalism as well. The process is a review of the scientific accuracy behind EPA’s conclusion.

I can guarantee that Mr. Fox will not represent all of the questions and controversy revolving around the legitimacy of Area 8 EPA’s methods nor will that be included in “GasLand 2”.

Mr. Fox finds Congress to be worthy of investigation because they are reviewing a study wherein the preliminary findings suggest that Hydraulic Fracturing may have contaminated groundwater in Pavilion but Mr. Fox does not find it necessary to investigate that data and subject it to a completely normal review process.


Mr. Fox is conflicted. I don’t know how talk show hosts don’t call him out on his blatant inconsistency.

So why do I use Mr. Fox, in a post called “The Entire Story of Shale Has Been to Hell with the Facts”?

Because he is the most egregiously public offender and most notorious representative of this situtation. presents this bent of the press.

If he were interested in the facts, then he would support the review of the EPA study to guarantee accuracy. He would desire that it be entirely accurate and as passionately as he opposes Hydraulic Fracturing, call them to task for ditching protocol on the grounds that it makes the EPA look like a joke. He would support fact finding. He would include the studies that conclude that Hydraulic Fracturing does not contaminate groundwater. He would recognize and account for specific geologic formations, water tables, etc.

He doesn’t.

He is all about himself and a forgone conclusion. This is why I think he is a “to hell with the facts” man.

I have quoted him before and I will quote him again.

Sherlock Holmes said “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.” and It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

I think Mr. Fox would be well served to read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle because he is a glaring example of the conclusions of both of these quotes.

What seems irrational is that one could guess that studies concluding that Hydraulic Fracturing does not cause groundwater contamination would be celebrated. Uncontaminated water supplies is the end game, isn’t it?

If the practice functions without contaminating water supplies, then what is really the problem? These reports are very public and well circulated.

Why isn’t Fox happy? I would conclude that such a result would put Fox out of a job and stop all of the benefits and wine tastings he attends. What is this man’s motivation for continuing a debunked crusade while disregarding the same facts he alleges he is trying to present?

The only thing I could conclude would be that Mr. Fox is not interested in presenting what the public should know. He is abridging the truth. He refuses to acknowledge a base of information and undermine the way our country works. That is his problem.

This is the only way that he can continue is to turn a blind eye to the truth and report accordingly. He is, in essence, saying “To hell with fact.” in favor of an agenda rooted in fear.

Santa Clause, Purple Squirrels, Cancerous Deer, Fractivists

February 14, 2012 Leave a comment

To be completely honest, I have no idea what time it was.

I just remember that I was trying to walk as quietly as possible down my hallway. It seemed to be a simple task at the time, gray shaggy carpet was an undeniable ally in my sneaky quest on that cold December night. I, armed with a bowl cut and my ninja pajamas felt the part. That didn’t serve to quiet my nerves.

You see, it was Christmas and I had to pee, I had to go badly. I’d held it as long as I could but I was only six years old so the pee pee dance was out of the question as I was lying in my bed under my Charlie Brown sheets.

It was the middle of the night and I knew that I ran the risk of seeing the Big Man in Red eye to eye. This was going to be a risky operation. Back to the shaggy carpet I crept, wide eyed and attentive, darting into the hallway. My ninja jammies were serving me like PF Flyers had helped Benny “The Jet” Rodriguez outrun “The Beast” in “The Sandlot”. The bathroom was only a short walk, but as we all know, short walks are long when silence is required and late night urination is LOUD in the way that firecrackers are loud. This wasn’t the only instance in my life where the volume of late night bathroom breaks and the flush of the toilet felt as though it would be so loud as to wake the whole house and the dead…or worse yet, let Santa Clause know that I was wide awake and aware that he could be conducting his covert gift drop at the exact time I had to “go” so bad that my teeth were floating.

Freaking hot cocoa, I knew our love affair was too much for my little bladder to hold…but I don’t even like Egg Nog, I was all about the cocoa. How many gifts would this cost me? Risky, risky.

My eyes wrapped around the corner of my door frame. The hallway was dimly lit but the Christmas tree, that beautiful bright Christmas tree, was radiantly flooding my intended path with multi-colored blinking light.


I would have to make a run for it. If I ran quickly enough, maybe Santa wouldn’t recognize the three foot blur. Maybe he would mistake me for an elf and let the whole thing ride. Maybe he wouldn’t, Santa is a crafty old man, seasoned my centuries of perfectly accounting the activities of little children world-wide.

Man, I had to go. Squirming, I ran for it. I ran across the hall to the bathroom doorway with speed that I was proud of. I was six-year-old proud. I was lightning.

I forgot that I was wearing socks of course. When I hit the tile floor of the bathroom my little socks caused me to skid into a whirlwind of disappointment and dread. *SLAP* My little body skipped across the tile as my hands fell flatly on the tile.

“NO!” My brain screamed, this was no time for an actual yelp. Santa would have certainly heard that. I rolled into the shadows like any six year old ninja would. I closed the door as silently as possible, turning the handle at eye level so that there was no click when the door shut to the lock. If Santa couldn’t see who had run into the bathroom, maybe he would dock my brothers some presents instead of me. I jammed a towel at the bottom of the door to keep the light from spilling through.

Sweet glorious relief. I aimed at the side of the bowl to muffle the report. After I was finished, I debated as to whether or not I should flush. I decided not to. Sanitation could wait. I needed to get back to bed and fast. I needed Santa to think that I had been sleeping the whole time. Somewhere inside, I knew that sleep wouldn’t find me. I thought “Man, if I get back to bed, and Santa wasn’t here, then I will hear him make his delivery of goods.” The anticipation gripped me the same way that having to pee had before I endeavored to fulfill my quest to meet King John.

I was right about not sleeping but it wasn’t for the reason that I had previously thought. When I opened the door to scurry back to the bedroom, it happened.

There he was, the big man himself, his mustache frothed with milk, crunching cookies, a gift in hand.

It was my dad.

The fantasy was over, the dream done. At six, I stomped back to my room realizing that silence was pointless. Santa was dead. He had been replaced by a large man named “Dad” and part of my childhood died in the door frame of the commode.

We had a conference the next day after my joyously ignorant brothers rejoiced in the generosity of Santa. I interrogated my parents.

“So the Easter Bunny, he isn’t real?! And the Tooth-Fairy?! She is a product of my imagination?!” I didn’t say “product of my imagination” but you get the drift.

The Fairy Tale was over.

For whatever reason, this is the story that came to mind when I read this recent article from Grist about how Frac’ing could have caused the now famous Purple Squirrel. A few weeks ago, there was this story about a cancerous deer in Dimock, PA, also, they claimed, the result of Hydraulic Fracturing.

How much more ridiculous can this get? That Purple Squirrel and that wart covered deer were no more the cause of Fracturing than Santa Clause is responsible for delivering billions of presents to billions of children worldwide in a single night.

The goofy thing is that these reports are gaining traction. People are actually circulating this garbage. Children believe in Santa Clause because they don’t understand the laws of physics and they can’t possibly wrap their brains around the fact that Santa’s late night deliveries of gifts are entirely impossible on this terrestrial plane. Adults know that Santa Clause doesn’t exist because he can’t. Their gift receipts prove that.

Those who know about Hydraulic Fracturing know that the reaches Fractivists are going through (similar to the way that retailers love the obligation to purchase gifts created by the belief in Santa Clause) are the causal factor in the perpetuation of their cause.

They want Frac’ing held responsible for everything. Earthquakes, water contamination, air-contamination, ozone destruction, global warming, melting ice caps, sick people, the death of the American dream, attacks on families, Purple Squirrels and cancerous deer. These are all issues they have attempted to link with Frac’ing.

They can’t prove it, but they like that the average Joe doesn’t have the time to do their homework.

If the Average Joe would do his homework, he would find Dad eating the cookies in the Fractivist camp and realize how completely ignorant they sound. I want there to be a “Death of the Fantasy” moment like there was for a six year old ninja who looked on the truth of Santa Clause for the first time and I want them to grip the reality that it presents.

The truth is the truth and the truth will out. I want to be there when it does, then maybe, the sweetness of truth and the death of a fantasy believed by so many will come full circle and I will finally be happy to know that Santa and his fantastical cohorts were never real.




Categories: Frac


February 13, 2012 Leave a comment

John Mayer wrote “And when they own  the information, oh, they can bend it all they want” in his popular song “Waiting on the World to Change”.

I understand what he meant.

If “they” control all of the information we see on the news and “they” determine what they define as “news”, then over time, they can “bend it all they want.”

They have and they still do.

News outlets are owned by media companies run by people. These people are not void of the opinions possessed by all men; they’re ultimately the decision makers on the content and whatever content you see is what they want you to see. This has been the largest problem related to the representation of Hydraulic Fracturing. It has allowed for great harm with bent representation of Frac’ing practices in little towns like Dimock and Pavillion because we’ve finally seen whatever those decision makers have decided that we should see rather than a balanced and factual portrayal of the facts. Their ultimate interest in not in the accurate representation of what is.

Fear and doom gather higher ratings than mundane facts.

It is all about the angles for these folks. For a country deciding on an energy policy, facts need to be the currency for choice rather than ratings. This has not been the case.

In eight days, film makers Ann McElhinney, Phelim McAleer, and Magda Segieda have raised $46,998 dollars of a needed $150,000 from 504 different backers to create a documentary called “FrackNation”. With 52 days to go, they need only $103,002 dollars to fund the whole project. The link to their video and the story behind why they are motivated to complete such a project can be found here.

To provide an abbreviated explanation, “FrackNation” will be a documentary that supports Hydraulic Fracturing backed with the voices of the people living in towns misrepresented by the film “GasLand”. It will be a factual rebuttal to the propaganda hype of Josh Fox and his negative portrayal of the potential of Shale Gas, propaganda that has already been far too influential in the Frac’ing policy making of the United States and the world.

“GasLand” intentionally misrepresents an industry as unconcerned with the citizens near their leases and it represents an industry hell bent on profiting by contaminating aquifers and water sources. The film has raised pulses but it is a twisting of the truth. I would call much of it an outright lie.

In eight days, $46,998 dollars have been raised for a film project that supports Hydraulic Fracturing when what has been regularly shown in the media is an Anti Hydraulic Fracturing sentiment nationwide. This leads me to believe that this anti Hydraulic Fracturing sentiment is a creation of the media.

Despite all of the positive information available on Hydraulic Fracturing and despite all of the potential that Shale gas presents to the United States and abroad, it has taken non-American Independent Film Makers to create a documentary that supports the practice. Lately, it appears that expertise of all of the engineers and geologists employed by the Oil and Gas Industry is irrelevant according to the mainstream.

That is a travesty. It undermines the educations of these masses of people. What good are Universities if the expertise they teach is biased as to disqualify them from speaking as being “on the industry payroll”?

Phelim mentioned farmers crying because they would have to lose their farms if not for Shale Gas. I have not heard of their stories until this point.

The fund raising for this film and its apparent success is indicative of a group of people who would like the misinformation to stop. Up until this point, the Industry has not been clearly represented and the important questions, the questions worth asking, have been neglected to some dark corner void of public airwaves. We should be asking these questions rather than taking film makers like Josh Fox at their word. We should be asking Josh Fox to prove it and answer for his stance in a public setting. This film will do just that.

We hope that the current level of fund-raising success, a representation of a hunger for the truth, will be fully funded and well received. It is, after all, going to be a far more accurate representation of the truth about Hydraulic Fracturing than “GasLand” could ever hope to be.

Films like this are greatly needed because there is a severe shortage of this sort of work in our industry. PSAs are nice but they are not engaging. In an age where engaging is one of the few cards left to play, this film is extremely important and more than that, timely and necessary.

In conversations with Industry employed engineers, the sentiment is that they don’t want to answer ignorant questions posed by ignorant people. They have no problem fielding informed questions. And that is just it. This sentiment is misrepresented as Industry folks refusing to answer questions when it is the equivalent of asking “How should we bolster our defenses and policies against dragons?”

FrackNation will rebut the goofiness of all the hype and hopefully, this converse position will get the same mileage as a lie.

What is that old adage?

“A lie can be halfway around theworld before the truth gets its boots on.”

I can only hope that this is not true in this case but this does prove my point because “GasLand” has spread lies and they are halfway across the world.

Get your boots on truth, and use them.

Categories: Frac

Will Obama Put Our Money Where His Mouth Is? Politics Are Getting Old.

January 31, 2012 Leave a comment

It’s a wonder to me that after three years in the presidency, Barack Obama, in an election year, per his State of the Union Address, talked about the importance of American Energy Independence related directly to the Shale Gas boom.

The sense of wonder that overtakes me stems from a publicly conflicted Barack Obama. His policies and his speech are noticeably opposed to one another.

I am equally surprised that he thought it wise, before a national audience, to take credit for the private sector’s production in spite of his policies, policies that have done next to nothing to help the industry.

To quote The Washington Times: “President Obama taking credit for higher oil and natural gas production is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise.”

I am not surprised at Obama’s words because the pulse of the American culture is racing and folks are looking for answers to the following questions: “Why is the economy so bad?”, “How did we get here?” and “Who is to blame?”.

The approval rating of congress is abysmal, and Obama is the most divisive and polarizing president ever. Among Republicans, his approval rating is 12%, more proof of growing polarization.

The citizens of the United States are gradually realizing how politics have cost them and their grandchildren.

Politics have cost us dearly.

The reason that Obama’s announcement is a surprise is by in large due to the data that those of us in the Oil & Gas Industry have recognized for years; the same data that up to this point, Barack Obama has either sought to ignore or resist by laundering his “Green” actions through government agencies.

We’ve long recognized that Hydraulic Fracturing is a safe practice that has enabled our Oil & Gas production to rise significantly in a country where, just a few years ago, we thought about energy demand in a way that included lots of Natural Gas imports from Russia.

We’ve understood the potential of homegrown energy through Natural Gas in terms of job creation, economic stimulation, and the benefits of decreasing energy imports from unstable or unfriendly nations.

Our production is the reason that energy bills are lower, the reason that Natural Gas prices are at a low, and the reason that we don’t have to live in fear about expensive energy or power shortages. We have an industry that actually pays its bills, an industry that actually works in the real world.

More reasons for this sense of wonder is that four years ago, when Sarah Palin was chanting “Drill Baby Drill”, Barack Obama rallied against her; and now Natural Gas is the answer.

Under his administration, “Green Energy” was given $14.7 billion dollars in guaranteed loans and subsidies; this, while “Clean Energy” was setting itself up for a giant bust. With $3 billion dollars spent on Green training, a pathetic 8,000 jobs were created at a cost of $375,000.00 per job.

There was the Solyndra debacle, and now Evergreen Energy and Ener1 are biting the dust.

While he claimed to create 22 million jobs, he delivered 3 million.

This isn’t all.

Barack Obama is not only currently strangling drilling onshore by overstepping the bounds of regulation (when Lisa Jackson says the states are doing a fine job),  his EPA is still working to openly attack Hydraulic Fracturing while practicing Mad Hatter science in Pavillion, WY that they want deemed “credible”. They swing back and forth on their positions monthly.

He is also personally responsible for a broad, knee jerk drilling moratorium and a subsequently handicapped permitting process that cost this nation $24 billion dollars.

This administration has already cost Americans billions in failed Green Projects and billions more through the offshore drilling moratorium, Keystone XL refusal, and the EPA’s questionable practices in Dimock, PA and Pavillion, WY. We still have to recover from an administration that has caused our nation to bleed money. With Government backed Green Companies folding like cards while conventional energy projects like the Keystone XL are repeatedly opposed (which by the way would have created some 22,000 jobs and would have been privately funded) it is no curve ball to see what we all just found out.

He just racked up another trillion, with a “T”, dollar deficit.

All that being said, it is good, I suppose, that Obama is finally recognizing that Oil & Gas, in spite of his opposition and blind fiscally irresponsible commitment to Green Energy, is the future of American Energy.

BUT, and I mean BUT, can we believe him?

You see, there is one major complication.

Obama’s approval ratings are terrible and this speech smacks of political strategy.

Is this a political strategy or is he actually going to enable the Oil & Gas Industry to lead the way in American Energy?

In his State of the Union Address he said

Think about the America within our reach: a country that leads the world in educating its people; an America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs; a future where we’re in control of our own energy; and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded

Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last, an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values…

…So my message…

My message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that: openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”

None of these goals are possible the way his current policies are trending. In other words, “talk is cheap” Mr. President, so far you have delivered hollow orations while you are clearly impotent on issues that count. You have done nothing to support Oil and Gas.

You need to give them your vote of confidence and put forth concrete policies that prove the same level of enthusiasm you’ve had for failing Green initiatives.

The truth of the matter is that in the land where we “control our own energy; and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world” the land that endeavors to do so must incorporate a foundation of native Oil & Gas.

There is no getting around it. 80% of our energy comes from coal, and Oil & Gas. Our current Green friendly energy plan needs an overhaul.

All of those job openings he is talking about, the “openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.”, those jobs are in the Oil & Gas sector to the tune of 18,000 available jobs in North Dakota alone (thanks to the Bakken Shale). There would have been an additional 22,000 jobs (plus a projected 100,000 + spinoff jobs) created by the Keystone XL Pipeline. More money means businesses grow.

Those business leaders are demonized (thanks to the press) CEOs like Aubrey McClendon.

The big question:  Will Obama Put Our Money Where His Mouth Is? Or is he again placating Oil and Gas Companies in an election year in the hopes that citizens have a short memory or are ignorant? Is he scrounging for votes with the hidden intention of wasting more tax payer dollars on failed projects. He needs a sense of national (not just Democratic Party) responsibility.

Going into this election, industry folks may be his strongest opposition, as he has been one of their strongest assailants and we have noted his opposition.

As Michael Economides notes,

“With little likelihood of a divided Congress enacting much that is new on energy this year, the President’s remarks last night (at the State of the Union address) are mainly interesting for what they suggest about the energy platform on which he will run for reelection this fall. In terms of clean energy, that seems to mean more of the same from 2008 and the last three years, but with much less emphasis on climate change than we heard in his last campaign. The new element is his pivot to embrace rising oil production and the possibilities created by shale gas, even as he cautiously distances himself from the technologies (hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling) that make these two trends possible. Although this might appeal to independent voters, it’s also vulnerable to deflation by fact-checking and stands in tension with his rejection–for now–of the Keystone XL pipeline. And if tensions in the Persian Gulf or some other oil hot spot were to increase, so would the scrutiny applied to the administration’s energy policies.”

Obama seems to be acting politically at a time when he needs to be executing.

He has to be willing to do something that revitalizes the American Economy regardless of popularity. Isn’t that what he said he was willing to do when he appointed Richard Cordray.

I believe he said

“When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” Obama said “I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people.” AND “I will not stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve,” Obama said. “Not when so much is at stake. Not at this make-or-break moment for the middle class.”

Then approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, which has overwhelming national support for job creation and stop stalling with all of this federal-regulation-of Hydraulic-Fracturing-garbage.

He is trying to walk a fence that will enable him to guarantee the largest number of votes. For a man who talks a lot about the greater good of the people, he sure doesn’t act like it. He wants all the accolades without paying the toll. There is no free lunch on earth. Somebody has to pay for it.

Will Obama Put Our Money Where His Mouth Is? If so, he will move to explicitly support Oil & Gas as the future of American Energy.

Categories: Frac