Oil / Gas

President Obama

The bottom line is this: given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel. So today we're announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration

Click for more pics

Gulf: 5 times what they originally claimed

Chevron Vs. Filmmaker

More: Stop Nestlé Waters; Cosmo Garvin - Going against the flow; Source Watch; Atty. Gen. Brown Warns Nestlé Of Legal Challenge To (McCloud) Water Bottling Plant; All Bottled Up: Nestlé’s Pursuit of Community Water; and last but not least, click the top picture for the trailer to Tapped, the Movie review here

What Nestle doesn’t want you to know about its plans to open a water bottling plant in Sacramento

• Nestlé and the City of Sacramento worked hard to quietly fast-track this project so Nestlé could open its South Sacramento bottling plant by January 2010. The project was only announced in a brief back page article in the Sacramento Bee at the end of July.

• While Sacramento residents are required to abide by city-imposed water restrictions, Nestlé would be able to siphon water from our municipal water supply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. According to one staff member at the Economic Development Department, the only limit on the amount of water Nestlé can pump is the size of their pipes.

• Nestlé claims the Sacramento plant would be a “micro-bottling plant,” bottling only 50 million gallons of water per year. However, according to the Department of Utilities, the estimated water usage is 215 thousand – 320 thousand gallons of water per day (78 – 116 millions per year). This would make Nestlé one of the top ten water users in Sacramento at a time when we are in our third consecutive year of a drought.

• According to Nestlé, approximately 30 million gallons of water would come from Sacramento’s municipal water system and 20 million would be trucked to the plant from “private springs.” City staff have refused to answer questions about the springs and Nestlé has provided no information about their location, other than telling the Sacramento News & Review that they are somewhere in the Sierra Nevada foothills.

  

• Bottling 50 million gallons of water a year would create 800 million water bottles annually. It takes over 400,000 barrels of oil to produce that much plastic. Only 14% of plastic bottles get recycled – the rest end up not only in our landfills, but also in our forests, streams, and oceans.

• The diesel fuel required to truck 20 million gallons of water from the “nearby springs” to Sacramento and 800 million bottles across the state is enormous. Diesel truck emissions contain carbon dioxide and diesel soot, which both contribute to global warming. Diesel exhaust also contributes to air contamination, which is known to cause cancer and other health problems.

• Nestlé would take our tap water and sell it back to us after marking it up over 1,000 times what they paid for it. If Nestlé is allowed to build a water bottling plant in Sacramento, they can take as much water as they want, for as long as they want, without any limits or accountability.

• Water is becoming scarcer as the population grows and the drought continues. The water in Sacramento should be for the plants, animals and humans in this region to live on, not for big companies to amass enormous wealth. If Nestlé is allowed to build this plant, we give up even more control of our water for as long as that plant exists. The City says that Nestlé has a right to move here. Shouldn’t Sacramentans have a right to a secure water supply?

[I've wanted to do this for a week but haven't had time. And I know this has been covered ... a little bit ... but no where near as much as the Iranian elections which have had wall-to-wall coverage. Wonder why that is? And it's nice that the Peruvian Parliament has "suspended" the disputed laws which caused the protests, but I have a feeling they will go back into place once the US military base at Palanquero, Colombia gets built - what? you haven't heard of it? Hmmm, sounds like one of the next blogs. Anyway click the links for the three articles, and here's another really good one from indymedia Ireland]

Massacre in the Amazon: The U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement Sparks a Battle Over Land and Resources

Raúl Zibechi | June 16, 2009

On June 5, World Environment Day, Amazon Indians were massacred by the government of Alan Garcia in the latest chapter of a long war to take over common lands—a war unleashed by the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Peru and the United States.

Three MI-17 helicopters took off from the base of the National Police in El Milagro at six in the morning of Friday, June 5. They flew over Devil's Curve, the part of the highway that joins the jungle with the northern coast, which had been occupied for the past 10 days by some 5,000 Awajún and Wampi indigenous peoples. The copters launched tear gas on the crowd (other versions say that they also shot machine guns), while simultaneously a group of agents attacked the road block by ground, firing AKM rifles. A hundred people were wounded by gunshot and between 20-25 were killed.

The population of the nearby city of Bagua, some thousand kilometers northeast of Lima near the border with Ecuador, came out into the streets to support the indigenous people's demonstration, setting fire to state institutions and local office of the official party APRA (Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana). Several police officers were attacked and killed in the counter-attack, and other indigenous protestors were killed by police. At the same time, a group of 38 police who were guarding an oil station in the Amazon were taken hostage. Some were killed by their captors, while some 1,000 Indians threatened to set fire to Station Number 6 of the northern Peruvian oil pipeline.

The versions are contradictory. The government claimed days after the events that there are 11 indigenous dead and 23 police. The indigenous organizations reported 50 dead among their ranks and up to 400 disappeared. According to witnesses, the military burned bodies and threw them into the river to hide the massacre, and also took prisoners among the wounded in the hospitals. In any case, what is certain is that the government sent the armed forces to evict a peaceful protest that had been going on for 57 days in the jungle regions of five departments: Amazonas, Cusco, Loreto, San Martin, and Ucayali.

The Inter-American Human Rights Commission (CIDH), part of the Organization of American States, condemned the violent acts on June 8 and reminded the Peruvian government of its obligation to clear up the facts and to compensate for the consequences and called on both sides to promote a process of dialogue.1 On June 9, the National Coordination of Human Rights announced that it found a series of irregularities and possible human rights violations in the Bagua area. It denounced the government's refusal to divulge what police are in charge of the investigation of the events, and expressed concern for the situation of 25 detained at the El Milagro base and the 99 arrested since a curfew was imposed in Bagua.2

President Garcia accused the Indians of being "terrorists" and spoke of an "international conspiracy," in which, according to government ministers, Bolivia and Venezuela are involved because as oil- and gas-producing countries they want to keep Peru from exploiting these resources and becoming a competitor.3 Just a few weeks ago, Peru granted asylum to the anti-Chavez leader, Venezuelan Manuel Rosas, accused of corruption, and three former Bolivian ministers from the government of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lazada prosecuted for the death of nearly 700 persons during the "gas war" of October 2003.

[...]

Peru: Battle lines drawn over the Amazon

AB 32 - California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires Sacramento City’s 2030 General Plan to mitigate for additional greenhouse gases produced as the result of the growth of Sacramento.



Global warming is serious problem that will continue to get worse for the rest of this century. It’s also a difficult problem manage effectively. All the effective responses require some sacrifice and may not pay-off for a generation.

Obama quietly drops windfall tax proposal
By DAVID IVANOVICH Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Dec. 2, 2008, 10:30PM

President-elect Barack Obama has quietly shelved a proposal to slap oil and natural gas companies with a new windfall profits tax.

An aide for the transition team acknowledged the policy shift Tuesday, after a small-business group discovered the proposal — touted throughout much of the campaign — had been dropped from the incoming administration’s Web site.

“President-elect Obama announced the policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel,” the aide said. “They are below that now and expected to stay below that.”

[Yea, I know ... shocking! Usually I'm bashing Dianne Feinstein for her enabling of all things Bush and Republican, but this time she actually stood up to the corporate overlords and took our side, by that I mean average people -- my mouth is agape. And I have no idea if she happens to read this website - prolly not - but coincidentally about a week after this post she started talking about closing oil speculator loopholes]

How Democrats made your gas cheaper

by Steven R
Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 10:28:55 AM PDT

[...]

It’s the "Enron loophole," which exempts energy speculators who make trades electronically from US regulation. Some argue that the unregulated energy speculation, codified in 2000, can account for $20 to $25 in the jump in oil prices.

But now, 8 years after energy traders were able to push legislation exempting their electronic trades of energy futures from US regulation, a measure in the Farm Bill aims to close the loophole and subject futures trades made electronically inside the United States to US law.

"This bill is really our best bet to deter unscrupulous traders from manipulating energy prices and engaging in excessive speculation. This has been a long, hard road – and this is a major legislative victory," Said California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein after the Senate passed the underlying Farm Bill on a broad, bipartisan basis.

Specifically, according to her office, the bill would "require electronic energy traders to provide an audit trail and record-keeping, monitor for market manipulation, and increase financial penalties for cases of market manipulation and excessive speculation."

[Why?!? Are they shipping gas and diesel out of this country when there is allegedly a shortage, causing gas prices to soar? And then using that as an excuse for off-shore drilling? Oh yea, disaster capitalism]

ANALYSIS-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar

07.03.08, 2:40 PM ET

United States - By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON3 (Reuters) - While the U.S. oil industry want access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.


style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow">A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

From the Environmental Defense Fund...

With gas prices skyrocketing, public transit ridership is at an all time high. Instead of cutting back on public transportation services, we should be reforming our national transportation system to create more affordable travel options for the whole country.

Check out our 10 Facts About Oil and Gas to learn more.

96
Percent of the world's transportation energy currently supplied by oil.

$75
Cost of barrel of oil on July 18th, 2007.

$131
Cost of barrel of oil on July 18th, 2008.

Here's oil in your eye
Bush lifts drilling ban, oil execs leer, nation cringes, Obama sighs
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist - Friday, July 18, 2008

I admit to bafflement. I admit to a bit of total confusion mixed with a certain level of stupefied awe and teeth-rattling frustration as to why anyone with the mental acuity of more than a housefly would think that stabbing more holes into Alaska and the eastern seaboard in the search for a few remaining precious drops of oil is a good idea, would solve anything at all, is anything more than the equivalent of hurling matches at the devil.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps there's some dark, secret genius behind President Bush's otherwise absolutely imbecilic and dangerous corporate-whore move to lift the federal ban on offshore drilling, a ban placed there by his own father, as Dubya actually stood there with a straight face and tried to imply that this insidious move was meant to impart something good and helpful for a gas-stunned nation, that he was "doing all he could" to help with prices at the pump, when you could actually see the oil dripping from his shivery bones and the giant hand of Exxon shoved up his weak little spine, making his mouth move.

Drilling for Oil Is Not the Answer

The Politics

Why is Bush the most unpopular president in the history of political polling? Maybe it’s because he thinks Americans are fools. Last Monday, Bush signed an executive order to reverse his 7½ year policy against oil drilling in some offshore areas, falsely suggesting that it will help lower the soaring price of gasoline. Bush’s flip-flop on offshore drilling is just the latest attempt to divert attention from the conservatives’ failed energy policies.

The Facts

Since George Bush took office, the price of gasoline has skyrocketed. When Bush took office in January 2001, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.47 per gallon. It’s now $4.10 (as of June 30, 2008). Even adjusted for inflation, gas prices have more than doubled under the Bush administration. As a result, the average household will spend about $2,300 more on gasoline this year than in 2000 (adjusted for inflation). [CAF]

Bush and McCain are cynical flip-floppers on oil drilling. Since the Reagan Administration, offshore oil drilling has been banned on most of the outer continental shelf. Until June 2008, Bush and McCain opposed lifting that ban. [New York Times] And while Bush has favored drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), he could never persuade a conservative-dominated Congress to approve that scheme. Even McCain opposes it. [New York Times]