Posted on 10/08/2010 10:50:07 AM PDT by Willie Green
I've waited three years for this to happen.
When Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 into law, something didn't sit right with me. A good chunk of my readers weren't too keen on it, either...
At the time, I had a feeling that it wouldn't last.
But what really surprises me is that most investors were completely unaware of it in the first place.
I'm talking about Section 526.
Section 526
What, exactly, is Section 526?
It's a small clause hidden deep within the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
According to Section 526, all federal agencies — with the exception of NASA — are prohibited from purchasing carbon-intensive unconventional fuels:
No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from non-conventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.
In other words, the United States military cannot get its fuel from areas like the oil sands.
Not surprisingly, our military is the world's largest purchaser of crude oil — using about three-quarters of it for mobility.
The problem with this, though, is that restricting access to the Canadian oil sands could lead us back to our addiction to oil from the Middle East.
Energy security: Pick your poison
Think about it...
Where would you rather have the government get its fuel from?
You've got three choices: Mexico, OPEC, and Canada.
Those are our largest sources for oil.
We can already discount our neighbors to the south. Mexican oil production has been on the brink of collapse for years. I think that Mexico could even become a net oil importer within the next ten years.
And let's be honest, do you really want to see an increase in our country's addiction to Middle Eastern oil?
Even after Iraq's recent announcement that its oil reserves jumped 24% to 143.1 billion barrels, I'm still not holding my breath for more Iraqi oil.
When was the last time you heard a public outcry for more OPEC oil?
That leaves us with one option...
(Excerpt) Read more at iStockAnalyst ...
Ping.
Term Limits. Lobbyists have no leverage over legislators that CANNOT seek re-elction. The corruption in our system is so bad, it will require RADICAL SOLUTION. Throw ALL the bums out. All career politicians need to get into some goverment retraining program. Most of them couldn’t change tires, so this could be a challenge.
Okay. Let me ask, how is this the fault of the evil Oil Lobbyists? Don't you find it even the slightest bit odd that the section bolded above sounds like statist, envirowhacko verbiage and not capitalist oil companies? It doesn't say that in the article...is that your conclusion, Willie Green?
You obviously believe in Peak Oil theory, even though the Peak oil people have been screaming disaster since the early Sixties. I asked you a question the other day whether you thought it was relevant if "Peak Oil" theory applies to a 100 year time frame or a 1000 year time frame, and I never heard an answer.
If someone asked you how long your supply of milk in the refrigerator would last, wouldn't you think it is important to know actually how much milk you have on hand before you could answer the question?
The reason I ask this is because unless you can state that you know how much oil is available, then...Peak Oil theory is completely meaningless. Completely.
And you don't know how much oil is left... nobody does. It turns out that the knowledge of how much oil left is a function of how much people are willing to spend to find out. When oil is cheap, it probably means supplies are plentiful and nobody is going to search for oil. When oil becomes more expensive, the profit motive drives people to spend more money on exploration. And that exploration mechanism is skewed right now because government and envirowhacko liberals will not let exploration or exploitation proceed as the market demands, so there is an artificial shortage.
Just like forcing people to have to live in certain places, pay a certain amount for housing, or utilize certain forms of transportation. You can guarantee that if government sticks it fingers in ANYTHING, it is going to be an abject failure, the military excepted.
Let me guess, you want to ship the Canadian crude to our refineries by Choo-Choo.
Yes, the corruption in this nation is the worst of any democracy. Nothing good here can advance until this changes & I see no evidence of it happening.
Okay. Let me ask, how is this the fault of the evil Oil Lobbyists?
It obviously isn't. And it is disingenuous of you to suggest that I support that postition.
I asked you a question the other day whether you thought it was relevant if "Peak Oil" theory applies to a 100 year time frame or a 1000 year time frame, and I never heard an answer.
And you don't know how much oil is left... nobody does.
You don't need to know how much is left.
All that you need to know is that conventional sources are no longer providing enough, and that production must come from more expensive, unconventional sources.
But, 80% of Americans make decisions based primarily on emotion. Unless conservative thought leaders promote our ideas with emotion and as beneficial to an individual with a touchy feely story, they will never have the impact on American voters like the ideas of the left.
The public promotion must be ‘for the children’, ‘to empower women’, or ‘level the playing field for minorities’
followed by a story about a specific child, woman or minority.
And/or about how the ideas of the left have/will hurt them with the corresponding individual story.
For example the fiction that Americans are ‘addicted to oil’. We are addicted to providing a good life for our children; getting them to soccer practice in summer; heating their bedrooms in winter. We don't care if the energy to do that comes from oil, hydrogen, or electricity. We just want to enjoy our lives and provide for our families as efficiently and with as low of cost as possible.
Our best current means to do that is through the oil infrastructure as we explore other options.
What would be the emotional impact of showing dozens of working oil rigs flying Chinese flags on a split screen with a smiling warm Chinese child playing in his room followed by the image of abandoned American rigs on a split screen with an American child bundled up in warm winter clothes sitting in her room? Burn that image into the American consciousness and we can change opinions.
"...The Oil Lobbyists reject deployment of civilian transportation technology that would reduce our national dependence on oil, yet maneuver behind the scenes to abuse the military procurement process to sell the more costly unconventional oil at excessive price..."
Perhaps I misunderstood you. What exactly did you mean about "maneuvering"...to do what? Insert this text into a bill?
"...No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from non-conventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use, other than for research or testing, unless the contract specifies that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and combustion of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources..."
Now. You believe that the evil oil companies are lobbying to get this passage removed so they can make even more exorbitant and unscrupulous profits than they currently do?
Do I understand you correctly?
That’s right.
What do you have to back up your claim that they are doing it so they can sell “crap” and gouge the military and the taxpayer?
I really am curious, do you have knowledge of the procurement process the military has to go through in order to purchase petroleum products, regardless of the source?
What do you have to back up your claim that they are doing it so they can sell “crap” and gouge the military and the taxpayer?
The article that's posted on this thread.
Didn't you bother to read it?
Or do you simply have comprehension problems?
The obvious choice is Mexico, because they need/would use the money to stabilize their society, create new job oprotunities that would compete with the cartels, and end the need for honest, hard working Mexicans to illegally cross the American border for work to support their famlies. < /sarc >
Yes, I read it, a few times.
Where in the article does it state what you maintain? Or is that YOUR opinion?
I have tried to remain civil to you. I would appreciate it if you would remain civil to me as well.
Do you have knowledge of the procurement process that the military must follow when purchasing petroleum products?
House Republicans Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss have introduced a new bill that would repeal Section 526.
Why else would they want to repeal Section 526 if they didn't intend to foist that overpriced, low-grade crap on the Military?
Do you have knowledge of the procurement process that the military must follow when purchasing petroleum products?
No doubt it's the same bureaucratic clusterf*ck as everything else they buy.
I am no fan of those two men, but I think you are making a leap of logic. I had read the entire article, but nowhere did I see even the inference that this was being done to gouge, specifically not the military.
I do not view those men as conservatives, but as a conservative myself, I believe in removing ALL artificial restrictions related to the exploration and production of energy if there are not overriding safety or environmental concerns.
And this restriction with this global warming BS language does not meet that standard, and you can bet it wasn’t put in there so the military could buy better petroleum products at a lower price. It was put in there by people trying to squash any kind of alternative energy production.
If you want to adhere to a conspiracy theory, how about considering that the language was put there by liberal environazis who want to make damn sure we can never, ever, EVER develop cost effective alternative sources of petroleum because to them, ALL petroleum is EVIL and all sources must be eradicated down to the root, and that there might be people who want it removed to create a larger market for alternative petroleum sources INCLUDING the largest consumer, the US military. And while considering it, keep in mind that larger production scales that MIGHT be open to military procurement channels will make it cheaper to produce and it may even open the door to new techniques that will open up our OWN resources to development.
Willie, to me this is a MUCH more plausible explanation for the attempt to remove this than simply opening up the military channels to more “expensive crap” so the oil companies can line their pockets.
I just don’t buy it in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.