Posted on 03/21/2008 7:13:04 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet
Hillary Clinton calls President Bush's talks with the Saudis about increasing oil output "pathetic." But it's not as pathetic as her co-president husband locking up billions of tons of clean coal in exchange for political contributions.
As Bush wrapped up his Middle East trip, Sen. Clinton commented: "President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic."
A large part of America's energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
"Why would he dedicate a Utah monument while standing in Arizona? Well, this federal land grab was done without any consultation with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation or any elected official in the state. The unfriendly Utah natives might have spoiled his photo-op.
"The state already had six national monuments, two national recreation areas and all or part of five national forests. Three-quarters of Utah already was in federal hands. Still, the land grab was sold as a move to protect the environment.
"Clinton took off the world market the largest known deposit of clean-burning coal. And who owned and controlled the second-largest deposit in the world of this clean coal? The Indonesian Lippo Group of James Riady. It is found and strip-mined on the Indonesian island of Kalimantan."
"The Utah reserve contains a kind of low-sulfur, low-ash and therefore low-polluting coal that can be found in only a couple of places in the world. It burns so cleanly that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act without additional technology.
-----------------------------
While this and of itself does not rise to the single reason we will not ever achieve energy self-sufficiency, it is symptomatic of what we face should any "serious effort" be made to achieve same--which just ain't happening.
Between the stranglehold which the EnviroNuts enjoy with near unparalleled success in applying veto-power over any attempt to extricate our precarious position thru new developments; coupled with bought-and-paid-for Pols and others too timid to confront or oppose them (can anyone say "BUSH?") we stand little chance of seeing any relief in the foreseeable future.
Adjusting my foil hat, I can surely speculate a scenario by which W is not serious about breaking our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, due to his close relationship with his good "buds" the Saudis as well as the very real possibility that he and others have been "counseled" that doing so, would "jeopardize" their (Arab States) continued assistance (Yeah, Right) in pursuing the WOT
Just some musings.
As an aside, though unprecedented, could not W rescind Clinton’s Proclamation under the aegis of National Security?
Could he not "mandate" that oil exploration and extraction be undertaken immediately (at least on gov't property) as an "Executive Order" based on the same premise--?
And much like Clinton did, Bush could just “dictate” that places like ANWR were now a “Federal Refuge” and lay clear a path for drilling as it would then be considered Gov’t Property?
Yes I know, court challenges and no doubt, impeachment proceedings suggested by the far-left, and all that, but that is what Leadership was designed to be.
Would be hell to pay politically, but with gas rapidly approaching $4.00 a gallon, cannot imagine that he would not enjoy considerable support from the majority of the populace?
Sadly, while W has some "redeeming qualities," he must have exhausted his supply of testosterone in his youth as well as checked his testicles in a lock box, when he took the oath of office--as I've seen no sign of either, in the past 7 /12 years.
-—sadly, I completely agree with your last paragraph-—
“this federal land grab was done without any consultation with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation or any elected official in the state.”
THAT is why he had to stand in Arizona when he signed it.
The key word “clean” coal. Coal can be made into diesel, and low sulfur is the standard of the times. The low sulfur coal in UTAH is the best for this purpose, but now is “off limits” thanks to Billary being more concerned with their own fortunes than that of the American people, economy or security. This alone should be held as the most treasonous act this duo has ever comitted.................
With Robert REDFORD grinning like the Cheshire Cat along side.................
What is with you people? He's only one man and none of you back him. No support = no political capital. If anybody metaphorically castrated him, it's his fickle "supporters".
Is that right? Not known, but not surprising.
Is that legal? As if anything the CLINTOONS ever did was, or even mattered to them??
My prediction: When oil goes over $250 per barrel and grannies start being found frozen to death in middle America, when brown-outs prevent Wall Street investors from trading, when the Chamber of Commerce screams because manufacturers can’t move their goods to market, ...all bets will be off. Even the press will demand that government loosen restraints on coal, nuclear and oil production for energy use. Finally, environmentalists will be seen in the same light as ambulance-chasing lawyers, horse thieves and Jeremiah Wright.
This story has been repeated over and over but I don’t completely buy it. We have > 400 years of clean coal in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, meeting the New Source Performance Standards of the Clean Air Act. There more clean coal in the Hanna Basin of Montana. Technology will catch up with the high sulfur reserves; Fluized Bed Boilers can use Illinois and West KY high sulfur coal.
I call this the “Goldfinger Effect”. Remember the movie? Did Goldfinger want to steal the gold in Ft Knox? No. He wanted to render it useless and therefore increase the value of his already substantial gold hoard.
Clinton and Riady did the same thing with clean burning coal, a very valuable commodity. Clinton took the largest deposit in the world off the market, making Riady’s holdings more valuable. Simple supply and demand. Remember this was worked out right before Clinton’s re-election. So Riady gave Clinton substantial and illegal campaign funds. And the American people are still paying ...
W lacks the skills of a moron, and will be remembered as one.
At the risk of repeating myself...
How expensive does it have to get before they give serious thought to coming for the anthracite in PA? At least we know exactly where the stuff is, and while oil drilling is “minimally invasive surgery” compared to coal mining, the coal in some areas is already burning in the ground: might be an environmental kindness to remove it.
If so, why are we now "importing" as much as 4% of our needs?
Though many reasons including cheaper prices in some countries, this should not even be an issue and we should be exporting instead
See: The Great Coal Grab:
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gue/2007/1118.html
"The US is often called the Saudi Arabia of coal. And there’s a good reason for that: The nation has more than 27 percent of the world’s known coal reserves and some of the highest-quality deposits in the world. That’s 90 billion metric tons more than Russia, the nation with the second-largest reserves.
"With a resource so vast, it may come as a surprise that the US isn’t a major player in the global coal trade. After all, the nation ranks only seventh in terms of coal exports, exporting less than 20 percent as much as Australia, the world’s largest coal exporter. In fact, US coal exports have been declining steadily since the late 1980s
What I found interesting on my visit to Norfolk, VA in 2004 and took the tour was that 90% of our coal is sent to foreign countries, primarily Italy.
Location probably has something to do with it. Australia ships coal to Asian customers that were formerly ours. We’re also burning more here.
A study done for the Office of the Secretary of Defense has been condensed into a PDF presentation complete with maps. In short, it documents that the US has TWICE the hydrocarbon resources than does Arab OPEC.
This is entirely apart from all the alternative fuels and conversion projects that are being rushed into commercialization by the high price of oil. The free market works if government will allow it to.
The company working on one viable conversion technology has stated that there are enough hydrocarbons in our sewage sludge, that when converted into burnable fuels, could entirely replace all our oil imports.
But make no mistake about it, price is a function of supply, and the only reason we are over $3/gallon for gasoline is because we have decided we would rather buy product from other sources than from by developing our own natural resources. Since the federal government owns most of the land west of the Mississippi, as well as ANWAR in Alaska and the seabed off our coasts, it stands to make billions if not tens of billions each year in royalties. Yet, it would rather borrow that money from the Chinese than to earn it by allowing drilling or digging.
Too many politicians have decided it is is their interests to forbid development of these resources and instead to buy product from foreign sources, some of which almost openly use the revenue to fund activities that are contrary to our national interests. Is this crazy or what? What political calculus is at work when near economic treason is the favored course of policymaking in Washington?
The study can be seen here:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/energy_expo/2005/pdfs/t_s4c.pdf
Politicians refusal to pursue any element of an energy solution is the problem with fuel costs.
According to them, all potential solutions have an availability date that is too far out, so we elect to do nothing.
It doesn’t matter that nuclear energy is the perfect answer to the theoretical problem they’ve invented (Global Warming).
They outlaw the measuring of the potential reserves at ANWR, and then declare the amount as too small to pursue.
They refuse to standardize gasoline formulas, so that one state can actually supply the state next door. (Which at last count left America with 28 different “boutique” fuels.)
They won’t license new refineries.
They don’t want us burning dirty coal and then they lock down the clean coal reserves in Utah.
THE LIBERALS DO NOT WANT AN ENERGY SOLUTION!!!! EVER!!!
A great reminder from the guys at IBD... This is one that should be brought back again and again as energy prices remain in the stratosphere. Just another of the disgusting pieces of history from the Clinton vacation from history. And just another of the cans kicked down the road that provided the foundation for his “bridge to the 21st century.” A rather shakey foundation indeed.
“this federal land grab was done without any consultation with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation or any elected official in the state.”
THAT is why he had to stand in Arizona when he signed it.”
Not sure that is exactly true. I had heard from friends who live near Salt Lake City that Clinton had been talking to Utah members of Congress. The Utah members had heard rumblings that Clinton was planning this action, and they were demanding information and input. There were large companies ready to mine the coal- the employees had already been hired, and equipment was in place.
Clinton lied to Sen Hatch and the others right up to the last minute.
Not only did Clinton do his dirty deed on the Arizona side of the border, he did it on a holiday weekend, when he could totally blindside Utah, and in effect, the entire USA, with these coal deposits not being implemented in our quest for more energy.
I find all this ironic in more than one way. Except for nuclear power plants, almost all the electricity generated EAST of the Mississippi river is generated by coal fired plants. The Clintons use electricity that is most likely created by coal.....
THAT is why he had to stand in Arizona when he signed it.
With Robert REDFORD grinning like the Cheshire Cat along side.................”
Yesss... Robert Redford, another ethically challenged person whore the “environment” is concerned.
He sucessfully got regulations passed about development in and around his canyon property in Utah——AFTER his Sundance property was all developed....
Ethics...Morals... 2 words Liberals cannot even begin to understand or spell.
I missed that one... Thanks for the post!
1.7 MILLION Acres? That’s the equivalent of a square with 50 MILES on each side!
...and to think, it didn’t occur to any one to just push BOTH of them into the canyon. What a wasted opportunity.
“W lacks the skills of a moron, and will be remembered as one.”
It is unfortunate that someone cannot be all things to all people. Would you have been more happy if Bush was against immigration, against increased spending, for the war, against Dubai, against Meirs but was pro-choice?
Then again, based on that, while you may have liked him better, the pro-life crowd would have hated him. And if he was everything, but didn’t defend a marriage amendment someone else would have hated him.
The toughest job on the planet is being a Conservative politician.
There was a thread just this week about some imbecile’s plan to eliminate use of coal by 2050. I hope that wasn’t Algore.
Conservative politician, you are not talking about this jerk are you?
I don’t think he is a jerk. Everyone knew what he was when he was elected. There was no suprises.
We wanted a strong leader in the war on terrorism, we got it. We wanted a leader who was pro-life and pro-marriage and we got it. Aside from the Meiers fiasco, we got two very strong Conservatives on the bench, which in my opinion is the most successful part of this presidency.
With a congress hellbent on spending like drunken sailors and a senate more concerned with giving the country to the UN and staying in power then working for the American people, I think Bush did pretty good.
A President cannot do it on his own as much as we think he can.
“Terrorism wasn’t on the table when he first was elected.”
I disagree. Terrorism was huge when he took office. WTC in 93,Khobar Towers, The Cole, etc. Add Somalia in 93 and everyone knew terror had to be addressed. And he addressed it.
Open borders was a given. He was the Governor of Texas. Did anyone think that he was going to take money out of the pockets of his business buddies in Texas? It’s a bit naive to think differently. Did congress put a strong anti-immigration bill on his desk? Did he veto it?
IIRC and please correct me if I am wrong, congress put a bill in front of the President for a fence and he signed that. Aside from him going down there and building the fence himself, what else could he do?
What did Bush do? Go along with justice and the homo ACLU which got us 911. That’s all keep your head in the sand, I will hear no more of your BS.
Sooo... you're saying President Bush caused queers to fly jets into buildings?
That's a new one.
While this and of itself does not rise to the single reason we will not ever achieve energy self-sufficiency, it is symptomatic of what we face should any “serious effort” be made to achieve same—which just ain’t happening.
Between the stranglehold which the EnviroNuts enjoy with near unparalleled success in applying veto-power over any attempt to extricate our precarious position thru new developments; coupled with bought-and-paid-for Pols and others too timid to confront or oppose them (can anyone say “BUSH?”) we stand little chance of seeing any relief in the foreseeable future.
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Well said. Thanks for the article.
I agree that there is plenty of potential energy out there. It’s all a matter of the political will to tell the tree-huggers to take a hike. My fear is that won’t happen until Americans are confronted with hard times and tragedy.
I hope you are right. But, it seems that currently we are a liquid fuel economy. Retooling that economy to provide transportation for 300 million people and countless goods, that currently travel in cars, trucks and airplanes that require petroleum based liquid fuel, will take a decade.
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.