Halt the dam dismantling on the Klamath River! #stopenvironmentalists

How environMENTAL regulations affect REAL people.

They did this to my community, shutting down all mining and logging. They spiked trees to “save” them from loggers, which ultimately killed the trees. They successfully federalized forest management to the point that wide swaths of the forests with no undergrowth management burned to the ground. Other forests were devastated by beetle infestations that could have been prevented with spraying. They have successfully lobbied to restrict most ranching, leaving us with a 3 month seasonal tourism economy. What little ranching remains is still under constant attack.

Totalitarian environmentalism must be STOPPED and STOPPED NOW!!!

Fish or Foul on the Klamath River – YouTube.

Obama: Gas Prices are High Because Climate Change Deniers Refuse to Tackle Global Warming

Obama: Gas Prices are High Because Climate Change Deniers Refuse to Tackle Global Warming.

Oh, but let us not forget the lessons of the very recent past!

March 2008Soros Invests $811 Million In Brazilian Oil

August 2009Obama Helps Soros Drill For Oil In Brazil

Then this happens:

and, “suddenly”, one year later…

March 2011 – Why is Brazilian Oil Giant Petrobras Pumping Oil Off America’s Gulf Coast?

It’s like Obama and Soros don’t even care that we can read their timeline for the destruction of America’s economic superiority and independence from foreign oil directly in the headlines of the news outlets.

So, what are you going to do about it?

US student shows how to listen through steel walls… and send 50W while you’re at it

I hope Tristan Lawry’s found some protection for himself and that he is sleeping in a different place each night. He may end up like John P. Wheeler if he doesn’t.

The fact that Lawry’s device also transmits a significant amount of power — and he says it can be improved upon — means a spook can wander into any lair, stick one transducer on the wall and transmit any signals from inside from a corresponding transducer on the outside of the wall.

No electronic jamming. No concerns about batteries running flat.

Of course, Lawry couldnt care less if the MI6 suddenly has to find a new way to gather state secrets. Hes doing it for the good of humanity and claims it can solve a myriad of design problems.

Submarines are a good example. Because those inside cant collect sensory data from the outside without drilling hundreds of holes through shell for power and data cables, that makes for structural integrity issues.

The same problems arise for aerospace and nuclear engineers.

But for now, it simply means Traistan Lawry’s well on his way to becoming either extremely wealthy… or extremely missing.

via US student shows how to listen through steel walls… and send 50W while youre at it | News.com.au.

Related articles

The Effect of Obama’s Energy Policies on Gas Prices | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Brazos Wind Farm in the plains of West Texas

Image via Wikipedia

Some on the right have criticized Obama for having no energy policy. This is wrong. Obama’s energy policy is working exactly the way it is designed. This administration knows that unless the price of fossil fuels skyrocket, expensive alternative energy sources, no matter how heavily subsidized, will continue to be unattractive to American consumers.

Obviously, this risky desire to have high gas prices is a punitive policy that foolishly ignores how Americans use petroleum. While oil is largely a transportation fuel, solar and wind can only contribute to our electricity demands. Oil accounts for less than 1% of our electricity demand.

The liberal fascination with developing expensive vehicles that run on electricity doesn’t change that: 1) Solar or wind powered vehicles don’t commercially exist; 2) The cars that do run on electricity, or even battery-powered hybrids still require gas; and 3) the high cost of the alternatively fueled vehicles makes them largely insignificant in the auto market and cost-prohibitive to the average consumer.

Sure, it would be ideal to have a national fleet of cars that are inexpensive and run on cheap and widely available alternative sources of energy. But the markets have demonstrated this reality is nowhere close to fruition. And when you try to hasten that reality by artificially jacking up the price of gas, the economic effects are felt largely by the poorest among us and disincentives business owners from hiring as their fixed operating costs increase.

Think about it, who feels the pain of an extra $1 at the gas pump? The rich guys that the left demonizes or the middle-to-low income wage earners who balance their budgets by the penny, not the dollar? If the only cars available on the market were $40,000 Chevy Volts, would a Lexus or BMW consumer be hit hard, or would the family looking for a barely affordable mode of shuttling their family be affected? Consumer Reports said Obama’s heralded Volt “is an expensive way to be green.”

via The Effect of Obama’s Energy Policies on Gas Prices | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News..

Pelosi Becomes Captain Obvious: Blocks Investigation into Oil Spill

Pelosi pushes the stripped down CLEAR act in order to block any substantive investigation into the BP oil spill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stripped out authorization for an independent investigation into the Gulf disaster.

The Natural Resources Committee unanimously passed the amendment in committee markup July 14 offered by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) that would establish a bipartisan, independent, National Commission on Outer Continental Shelf Oil Spill Prevention.

Unlike the commission set up by President Obama — packed only with environmental activists and no engineers — the commission unanimously approved by the Natural Resources committee would be comprised of technical experts to study the actual events leading up to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Not a single member of the committee voiced opposition at the bill’s markup.  The Senate has also approved an independent commission.

“To investigate what went wrong and keep it from happening again, the commission must include members who have expertise in petroleum engineering.  The President’s Commission has none,” Cassidy, the amendment’s author, told HUMAN EVENTS after the announcement.  “It defies common sense that this amendment passed unanimously in committee, only to be deleted in the Speaker’s office.”

Is anyone really surprised?

Drudge Report: The Fix is In

Drudge dredged up some pretty disturbing quotes today…just a few minutes ago, in fact…about the relationship between Barack Obama, Cap and Trade legislation, and at least three major oil companies.  I’ll bet you can guess at least one.

BP America President and Chairman Lamar McKay: “BP supports an economy-wide price for carbon based on fair and equitable application across all sectors and believes that market based solutions, like a cap and trade or linked-fee, are the best solutions to manage GHG emissions.” (Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 6/15/10)

Shell President Marvin E. Odum: “That is why Shell supports legislating a solution to energy and climate issues as a means to create a secure U.S. energy future, reduce dependence on foreign oil and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. This requires setting a price for carbon, and we recommend cap and trade.” (Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 6/15/10)

ConocoPhillips CEO James J. Mulva: “Another key element of a comprehensive energy policy should be federal action to address global climate change. As you are aware, ConocoPhillips supports passage of a comprehensive federal law establishing a clear and transparent price for carbon.” (Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, U.S. House Of Representatives, Hearing, 6/15/10)

Natural oil spills happen every day…and have for thousands of years

Lest you buy into the media’s notion that oil in our oceans is as incompatible as…well…oil and water, I present you with information to disabuse you of such folk wisdom.

Science Daily reported in January 2000 that tons of oil seep into the Gulf of Mexico each year.

Using a technique they developed in the early 1990s to help explore for oil in the deep ocean, Earth Satellite Corporation scientists found that there are over 600 different areas where oil oozes from rocks underlying the Gulf of Mexico. The oil bubbles up from a cracks in ocean bottom sediments and spreads out with the wind to an to an area covering about 4 square miles.

“On water, oil has this wonderful property of spreading out really thin,” said Mitchell. “A gallon of oil can spread over a square mile very quickly.” So what ends up on the surface is an incredibly thin slick, impossible to see with the human eye and harmless to marine animals.

When oil spreads out over water, surface tension causes it to act like a super-thin sheet of Saran Wrap, flattening down small waves on the ocean surface. To spot the oil slicks, EarthSat scientists use radar data from Canadian and European satellites. The oil slicks stand out in the radar image because they return less of the radar signal than the wavy surfaces.

To get an estimate of how much oil seeps into the Gulf each year, the researchers took into account the thickness of the oil-only a hundredth of a millimeter, the area of ocean surface covered by slicks, and how long the oil remains on the surface before it’s consumed by bacteria or churned up by waves. “The number is twice the Exxon Valdez’s spill per year, and that’s a conservative estimate,” said Mitchell.

In May 2009, the International Society of Automation reported on the research of researchers at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) who found that “Oil residue in seafloor sediments that comes from natural petroleum seeps off Santa Barbara, Calif., is equivalent to between 8 to 80 Exxon Valdez oil spills…”

There is an oil spill everyday at Coal Oil Point (COP), the natural seeps off Santa Barbara, where 20-25 tons of oil have leaked from the seafloor each day for the last several hundred thousand years.

This has implications for climate change “science”, as it were.

Climate change “experts” claim that the breakdown of fossil fuels by human beings alone causes catastrophic global warming. But has anyone asked if they are taking into account the natural breakdown of oil seeping to the ocean surface every day for millennia? From the Science Daily article:

Oil that finds its way to the surface from natural seeps gets broken down by bacteria and ends up as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. So knowing the amount of fossil fuel that turns to carbon dioxide naturally is important for understanding how much humans may be changing the climate by burning oil and gas.

I’m not an apologist for BP. I think their handling of this has been poor to say the least. I’m in no way saying that the BP spill is not without consequences separate and apart from this seepage phenomenon. This is much more oil in a much more concentrated spot and amount per day than what is coming from natural seepage. The consequences to sea and land biology and ecosystems is going to definitely be an issue for years to come.

But the idea that only human activity causes oil slicks…or global warming…is becoming harder to defend as balanced science is reported.

What isn’t being said (enough) about the Gulf oil spill

A dear friend asked out loud on Facebook today what people made of the total absence of benefit concerts for the oil spill cleanup. Most of the folks that organize these things are wracked with guilt. They’d never admit it, of course, but they know deep down that it was extreme environmentalism that drove us away from safer land and near-shore drilling to the very risky “10 miles out and one mile down” scenario in which we find ourselves now. This disaster is partly, if not mostly, on them, so they’re not exactly eager to start raising funds for the cleanup.  They would then have to deal with the PR consequences that would come from admitting the folly of pushing America in the direction of the deepest sea drilling ever attempted in lieu of land-based drilling. They need to explain how the added risk was worth it.

We also have the Department of Energy to thank for this. The Department of Energy was instituted on 8-04-1977 as a result of the energy crisis of that time with the express purpose of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Part of its mandate was to develop both clean energy sources AND fossil fuels in parallel so that a) we’d have an inexpensivesource of energy through our fossil fuels here at home while b) developing renewable and cleaner solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, and anything else that could be discovered. The wide-eyed plans of the time called for acres and acres of solar energy plants, and even plans to beam concentrated solar energy from space to the ground via large orbiting microwave transmitters.

But something went horribly wrong.

It is now 2010. We still depend on foreign sources of oil. We’ve shut down all but a few of our refineries, and even those aren’t running at top capacity or maintained very well. We are now prohibited from using our own underground sources for oil. We’re no closer to a viable, efficient fuel cell technology than we were in 1977. Solar efficiency has only gone up 10% since then. The cleanest, most abundant and efficient, and measurably environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power (yes, nuclear…it’s not your father’s nuclear). Other nations are building plants by the dozens, but we’ve become so paralyzed by the stigma of the word “nuclear” that we decided to cut off our own nose just to spite our faces. Nobody in the science community who wants to keep their credentials and funding dares utter very loudly our need to restart and rebuild our nuclear facilities.

The budget for the DOE is now over $25 billion a year. They have 16,000 federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees.

33 years, two generations of federal employees, and hundreds of billions of dollars later and we’re no better off than we were in 1977. In some ways, we’re worse off, especially now that we have to go so far out into the ocean for oil that one mistake costs the world its oceans.

Who would like to contact their congressperson and demand a restructuring or even outright elimination of the Department of Energy?

The savings from eliminating that department alone would help pay many of the costs associated with the oil spill clean-up.

If that sounds like crazy talk, ask yourself if you’d keep going to the same doctor after discovering that each time you take his prescriptions, you inexplicably keep getting sicker. At some point, we have to stop the sickness by refusing to take our “medicine” and getting a second opinion.

But should you hold your breath for the media to come out and talk about these things? The answer is a demonstrable “no”, as evidenced by this breathless rhetoric (appropriately entitled “If There Was Ever a Moment to Seize”) coming from Bill McKibben of Firedoglake.com, who seems stuck in the pre-ClimateGate past:

The planet’s future (and [Obama's] legacy) will, in the long run, be defined by his response to global warming, which is clearly the greatest problem humans have ever faced.

If we were rapidly running out of oil, scarcity would drive up its price and make alternatives affordable without needing subsidies. But Obama left out the facts about our abundant untapped onshore reserves. As Heritage Foundation energy expert David Kreutzer notes,

  • ‘He also could have noted that billions of barrels of “easily accessible” oil have been turned into “impossible to access” oil by federal regulations and moratoria that block any access. There is still a lot of non-deep sea oil available off the coast of California that can be accessed from onshore. And, don’t forget, there are the 10 billion barrels in ANWR. All of this oil has been placed completely off limits by federal regulations.’

Instead, Obama’s speech simultaneously condemned overspending and denounced subsidies to big oil–even as he proposed spending billions more in new subsidies for the competitors of oil and gas.

Nuclear power, however, has far more abundant potential and needs only the lifting of government barriers rather than subsidies. As noted by Heritage’s nuclear expert, Jack Spencer, “the monthly cost of producing electricity from uranium-based fuel remains slightly less than coal and substantially less than natural gas or oil” because, “Nuclear power is the least expensive form of electricity produced in the United States.”

But nuclear does not fit political correctness. So another proposal is a backdoor subsidy that does not give government money directly toward alternative energy but instead dictates that utilities must generate certain levels of our electricity from sources like wind and solar (but not nuclear) — a so-called RES “renewable energy standard.”

But for anyone who believes we can power America solely through windmills (even though it is costlier), dream on. This would require 55,000 square miles densely packed with nothing but windmills. That’s like emptying the entire state of Wisconsin and making it all windmills all the time. But our lights would still go dark when the wind wasn’t blowing.

Solar power is even trickier than wind power, requiring rare elements to build solar cells, plus daylight and large surface area.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

If I hated oil companies, how would I erase them?

If I were part of a political movement whose platform was hatred of oil companies, how would I do major damage to them?

Well, I might start by pulling my strings in various arenas of government to damage their infrastructure in environmentally sensitive ways so that doing business would be very difficult.

If I were particularly radical, I might see the greater good in sacrificing the environmental stability of an area to create a disaster so large that it would threaten to bring Big Oil to its knees.

If I were part of such a movement and felt so angry I might just help someone sabotage a major oil platform operating in the Gulf of Mexico so as to adversely affect BP, Chevron, Exxon, Total, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, BG Group, Repsol, Suncor Energy, and Statoil, among others.

What a problem that would cause for each oil company’s market capitalization!

Now, that’s just crackpot paranoia, you might say.  Yes, you might say that if you didn’t know that critical safety test logs went missing seven hours before the explosion.

While some data were being transmitted to shore for safekeeping right up until the April 20 blast, officials from Transocean, the rig owner, told Congress that the last seven hours of its data are missing and that all written logs were lost in the explosion.

The log confirms that three pressure tests, conducted from the morning to the early afternoon of April 20, indicated unseen underground leakage into the well. But there is no mention of a fourth test that BP and Transocean say was conducted and that they say indicated it was safe to proceed.

In the hours leading up to the explosion, workers finished pumping cement into the exploratory well to bolster and seal it against leaks until a later production phase. After the tests that indicated leakage, workers debated the next step and eventually decided to resume work, for reasons that remain unclear.

Will we ever get clarification on those reasons? Not if the workers in question are not among the survivors. The alarm might even have been muted. The explosion happened when most of the crew was asleep and BP Oil executives were present on the rig to celebrate both an incident-free safety record and the final process of moving the rig to a production well. Who muted the alarm under such conditions? And why?

Even as the Deepwater Horizon was in its last throes before sinking beneath the Gulf, speculation was already rampant about what had caused the explosion. Was it negligence? A freak accident? Foul play?

Contradictorily, another article mentions a man going only by the name of “Stenson” says:

One man in an orange jumpsuit who gave his name only as Stenson said he’d been awake 48 hours. He was on his way home after emerging from the hotel surrounded by relieved relatives, including small children.

“It blew out and we had like zero time from the time the alarm went,” the man said. “It was all in flames.”

Which alarm? The one that was supposed to have sounded before the explosion, but reportedly didn’t? Or another one after the explosion?

A story reported under the headline of Oil Rig Explosion Survivors Arrive In New Orleans by NPR is missing from its Web site. The teaser for the story on Google says:

A boat carrying survivors from Tuesday night’s oil rig explosion and fire contract to the oil giant BP and doing exploratory drilling.

No Google cache version exists either. Why? What did the story say before it was apparently rewritten and replaced with this quite empty one?

There are a lot of questions and nobody is asking or answering them. Had the oil companies “made enough money already”? Is the Energy sector the next target of an Obama bailout? Is Halliburton, which was in charge of sealing the exploration wellhead, really as evil as we’ve been led to believe and is trying to trigger another oil crisis so that we’ll go to war again for foreign oil?

Are you paying attention? Have you looked into this beyond the normal media coverage? Or are you taking it on the word of the wonks and pundits that it was simply an accident that was “bound to happen” because offshore oil drilling is as risky a process now as it was back in the relatively technologically deficient 70s and 80s?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]