Rogers rips EPA chief over coal permits
By Erik Wasson - 02/29/12 02:29 PM ET
The powerful Republican head of the House Appropriations Committee got rough with President Obama’s environmental chief over the Environmental Protection Agency's coal mine permitting process on Wednesday.
The wood-paneled committee hearing room suddenly seemed like a small-town courtroom as Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) turned prosecutorial on EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.
At one point, after Jackson fumbled when trying to name any Appalachian mines she had permitted during her tenure, Rogers declared “I rest my case!”
At issue is an October Federal Court ruling in the case of National Mining Association vs. Jackson. Rogers said that the ruling makes clear that the EPA must quickly finish processing the coal permits before it, which the EPA reviews under the Clean Water Act.
“I’ve got people with pink slips all over the landscape because you will not process these permits on a timely basis as the court ordered you to do,” he said. “I find it contemptible that a public servant would utilize the practice, as you have, to by not deciding to make a decision.”
Rogers said that EPA has admitted that 130 permits are stuck in the process. Jackson said there are 37 under review.
“Do you know when the last one was approved?” Rogers asked.
Jackson said she did not know.
“Name me one permit you have approved since you have been director,” Rogers boomed.
Jackson named a January 2010 permit for the Hobet 45 mine.
“What’s that?” Rogers said, demanding Jackson spell it.
Jackson meekly said that rather than giving a faulty list, she would be happy to give one at a later date.
“No, I want to know now!” Rogers said.
Jackson said she could not give a list.
“I know you can’t because there has not been any,” Rogers insisted.
“I can’t understand how you would sit there and not know details of this magnitude to a whole section of this country,” he said.
Jackson retorted that Appalachia residents deserve clean water.
“I live in these hills, what you call navigable streams is a mountain gulley that has water in it once in eight years. For you to call that a navigable stream under your jurisdiction is absolutely ridiculous,” the chairman said.
Rogers signaled afterwards that while the EPA authorizing bill is the best place to resolve the issue, he might use his role as spending chief to deal with the coal mine issue through a rider in the 2013 department of Interior appropriations bill.
“I reserve the right to look at the appropriations process to try to resolve this issue,” Rogers told The Hill. Last year's appropriations bill had dozens of environmental riders, including several regarding the Clean Water Act, but these were stripped in negotiation with the Democratic-controlled Senate before a catch-all spending bill was passed in December.
Later, after Rogers left the room, Jackson’s staff produced the names of six mines she had approved.
EPA spokesperson Betsaida Alcantara said after the hearing that 110 individual and general mining permits have been issued by the Corps of Engineers since the Obama administration began under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. EPA has reviewed and commented on 38, she said.
She also said that the NMA vs. Jackson case does not address the speed with which EPA must address permits at all.
“The District Court decision does not affect EPA’s Clean Water Act authority to protect communities in Appalachia from the public health and environmental impacts caused by poor coal mining practices,” she said. “While the court's decision does not address the issue of "timeliness" of permit decisions, EPA and the Corps are working closely with the states to expeditiously approve permits for environmentally sound mining projects.
An aide to Rogers said Wednesday that no permits have been issued in Rogers' district, which is overseen by the Louisville Corps of Engineers, since 2009.
43 Comments
Like No
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Irrationale Idiots----want to make gas prices much higher
Top republicans went to white house to talk energy. Obama said no to everything that had anything to do with more production .
They are:
More drilling offshore
Keystone pipeline
Anwar
Use of natural gas on vehicles
Use of more coal
Opening up more public land
Building more refeneries
Reducing EPA rules hindering oil drilling and production and coal production
Building more nuclear plants
Chu wants to increase gas prices.
Face it , these irrationale idiots are out to destroy the USA. Better make a change in nov.
They are:
More drilling offshore
Keystone pipeline
Anwar
Use of natural gas on vehicles
Use of more coal
Opening up more public land
Building more refeneries
Reducing EPA rules hindering oil drilling and production and coal production
Building more nuclear plants
Chu wants to increase gas prices.
Face it , these irrationale idiots are out to destroy the USA. Better make a change in nov.
Oil more than 220 per barrel in 2012----The New War
1,354 Years in the Making:
The "NEW" War
That Could Rocket Oil
Past $220 In 2012
by Byron King, Editor
What could be eight times bigger than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan — and lethal enough to at least DOUBLE the price of gas and oil next year?
Brace yourself for the "new" and bloody war nobody saw coming... by bunkering down against soaring energy costs, thanks to a "safe haven" financial plan that could pay you gains up to 668%...
Nobody in the Pentagon will talk openly about it. Nobody in the White House knows what to do.
But make no mistake...
What I'm about to show you could be the deadliest surprise threat to your money and livelihood of the coming year.
I say "new" because as you'll see there's not much new about it at all — the pressure's been building behind this for the last 1,354 years!
Yet for the first time in history, that pressure has found its release. I’m imagining a volcano of blood.
When it blows, you could see your savings get SLAMMED... the dollar thrown into a TAILSPIN... and, here's what will stun the still-recovering world economy, gas and oil prices doubling or even tripling within the next 12 months.
How on earth is that possible?
It's the last thing most people expect, from market pros to bumbling D.C. bureaucrats... but if nothing changes in what I'm about to show you... this is a page in future history books that's already writing itself.
I'll show you the evidence myself.
If I'm right, as many as eight key Islamic countries are hurtling headlong toward a bloody "new" war — with each other — that's been FOURTEEN CENTURIES in the making.
This could begin as early as the next 12 to 18 months. And with no less than 66% of the world's key energy reserves smack dab in the crosshairs.
Sound impossible?
Even if I'm only half right, and we get an oil-state stalemate unlike anything the world has ever seen — you could see oil soar past the old high of $147.30 per barrel, well on its way to as much as $220... with gasoline bucking against a ceiling of $8 per gallon.
I'll show you how this unfolds below.
You'll see the maps, I'll name the names. And I'll reveal to you the stunning web of "secret revenge" that lies behind it all... waiting over 1,354 years for this moment!
Soaring Oil Costs, Even a Dead Economy?
Remember the "Nixon Shock" and market collapse of '73? Stocks fell 43%... but that didn't stop oil and gas prices from quadrupling thanks to an Oil Embargo.
And how about 1979 and gas lines? Even with Jimmy Carter's "malaise" and stagflation, oil prices almost tripled... thanks to the hostage crisis in Tehran.
It was oil that German subs targeted in both World Wars... and oil Japan gunned for in Pearl Harbor... even Afghanistan is part battle over a $3.2 billion oil pipeline.
After the S&L banking crisis of the late '80s, oil still soared in Gulf War One... and soared again on 9/11, despite the aftermath of the dot-com bomb. It took off again in 2003, as bombs dropped on Baghdad.
With politics as a driver, oil doesn't need a red-hot economy to take off... even the last peak of $147 came six months after the Dow first started shedding points and two years after property markets turned south!
Of course, events like these echo around the world.
And nobody gets the chance to just "sit on the sidelines."
But there's good news too.
Because, you see, just like every major shift of history... deep within every crisis... you'll also find an opportunity to protect yourself. And this event is no exception.
For instance, the last time we saw politics push up the price of petroleum, my readers found strategic gains in a "self-defense" move that shot up by 668%.
In fact, we've used all kinds of moments in flux to make protective and even impressive gains. Take a look at this small sample, drawn straight from our posted track record...
Our Strategic Gains in Turbulent Times
137% gains on KeyWest Energy 174% gains on PetroChina
151% gains on Wheaton River Minerals 270% gains on the July silver calls
162% gains on Intrepid Minerals 104% gains on the ICON Energy Fund
332% gains on Glamis/Francisco Gold 108% gains on Norsk Hydro
668% gains on Metallica Resources 118% gains on Anglo American PLC
105% gains on Gentry Resources 160% gains on Western Oil Sands
151% gains on Tocqueville Gold 182% gains on Talisman Energy
228% gains on Niko Resources 142% gains on BG Group
263% gains on Coeur d'Alene Mines 177% gains on Coeur d'Alene Mines again
116% gains on Cameco
And we continue to post new gains, even now. Some of today's open positions have already shot up 52%... 57%... 71%... 76%... 92%... 117%... 168%... 187%... 198%... 208%... 212%... 213%... 215%... 524%... and 553%... with more to come!
(I can't name those stocks for you right now. That wouldn't be fair to my readers. But I'll tell you how to find out about all of them, right after you finish reading this letter.)
My point is, today's moment is even larger than anything we've seen before. But so are the opportunities I see right now for you to protect yourself. I'd hate for you to miss any of them, while you still have the opportunity to make your move.
Over the next four minutes, I'll show you how.
But before I do, let's step back so I can explain how this "war" begins.
Long before $147 oil... before the war over 9/11 or the war in Afghanistan... before either war in Iraq, the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, or even the oil crisis of 1973.
All the way back to a lamb dinner, served up one evening in the year 629 AD...
The Murder That's About
to Change the World
Nobody could have known that the dinner they were about to eat would one day change history. Some say it was goat. Others say it was lamb.
Either way, it was poisoned.
And the guest of honor was Mohammed, the controversial founder of Islam.
It was just one bite, that's all it took. He tasted the poison and immediately spit it out. But it was too late. He would soon die, sparking a bitter and deadly divide.
See, when Mohammed died nobody could agree on who should take over...
And they've been killing each other as a result ever since.
On the one side, you've got the Sunni Muslims. They're the ones that run Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and many of the other countries in the Middle East.
On the other, you've got the Shia Muslims. It's the Shia that run Iran. And now run Iraq, as well as Lebanon and Syria.
Think Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland... Serbs vs. Croats in Bosnia... or even the religious Thirty Years War that ripped apart Europe in the 16th century.
Only this Sunni-Shia split has built up pressure now for the last 1,354 years.
But it's only now that this pressure has found its ultimate release — with Iran driving a new Shia uprising smack dab in the middle of the most dangerous place on Earth — the oil-soaked Middle East.
Isn't the Middle East already a mess? Yes, it is.
What's different is that too many in the West... right up to the White House and the Pentagon... don't "get" just how deep this Islam divide could go or how far it could run.
Take a look at this map...
The Deadly Sunni-Shia Divide — 2011
If it's black in this map, it's Shia ground. It's also mostly oil heartland
and some of the most strategic territory in the entire Middle East!
One terrorist with a grudge can do a lot of damage.
Iran, all by itself, could even be a deadly force.
But can you imagine what millions of Shiites with a 1,354-year old ax to grind could do?
The 162-Million-Man March
Nobody knows exactly how many Shia there are right now in the Middle East. That's because in all but four Middle Eastern countries, Sunni leaders don't bother to count.
Sunni schools teach that Shiites aren't real Muslims. Shias don't get a seat in government. They can't become judges or even testify in high courts. In Sunni-run Saudi Arabia, Shias and Sunni can't even marry.
For centuries, the Shia have been the underclass.
But now, for the first time in history, they see this as their chance to turn the tide. And how big a tide is it? Hands down, saber-rattling Iran has the most — 70 million Shia.
But then you've got the "liberated" Shia of Iraq — 22 million. Plus as many as 2 million Shia in Iran-backed Lebanon. And up to 4 million Shia in Iran's top ally, Syria.
Then you've got another 700,000 Shia in Kuwait... up to 500,000 Shia in Bahrain... up to 400,000 Shia in the United Arab Emirates... 300,000 Shia in Oman... and around 100,000 Shia in Qatar, according to the Pew Research Center in Washington.
On top of that, as many as 10 million Shia in Yemen... another 7 million Shia in Azerbaijan... and 11 million Shia in Turkey... not to mention the combined 30 million Shia in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Not all Shia want a revolution.
But out of between the 147 million to 162 million Shia spread from Pakistan to Lebanon and Azerbaijan to Yemen, enough do that this is the river of "Secret Revenge" and common blood running through the entire Middle East.
The Sunnis are worried.
Especially in Sunni-run Saudi Arabia.
And especially now.
Here's why...
"New" Oil War Flashpoint #1:
The Real Reason Iran
Wants the Bomb
Don't forget, Iran used to be Persia.
At one point Persia was the biggest and most powerful empire in history!
Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt — even Israel — the Persians controlled them all. Along with all of Afghanistan and Pakistan and most of the oil-rich coast of the Caspian.
For 300 years, Persian armies held off the Roman Empire. Their scholars walked with Aristotle and Plato. And influenced Greek art.
It was the Persians who invented chess. And the windmill.
Not to mention bricks, algebra, trigonometry, and wine.
The bottom line is... no Empire forgets its past glory.
The Iranians resent losing theirs.
But now they see a chance to get it back.
The nuclear bomb? Tehran's crackpot leaders don't just want it to scare Israel. They want it so they can throw a dark shadow over their Sunni Arab neighbors, too!
Take a look at this...
Iran's First Move...
With total control of the Hormuz "oil chokepoint" in the Persian Gulf
and new power in "liberated" Iraq, the Iranians have a brand new foothold
for kicking off the long-awaited "Shia Revolution."
You'll notice two things.
First, you'll see how Iran's Shia influence has spilled across the border into southern Iraq. Southern Iraq is where you'll find six of Iraq's eight "Supergiant" oil fields. It's also where you'll find a key border with Shia Islam's mortal enemy — Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is Sunni.
For eight years back in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia helped Iraq wage a bloody war against Iran. Along with other Sunni governments, the Saudis even gave Saddam over $47 billion to launch missiles and nerve gas attacks over the Iranian border.
Iran hasn't forgotten. Or forgiven.
(Imagine if Canada or Mexico had given money to Japan to help them bomb Pearl Harbor. Iran has waited to make the Saudis pay — and now they have their chance.)
"Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front."
— Gen. David Petraeus,
Jan. 31, 2010
The second thing you'll see in the map above is that Iran has almost total control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Hormuz is the tight waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Over 17 million barrels of oil have to pass through Hormuz every day.
That's 40% of all the oil shipped in the world.
And 90% of all the daily oil shipments from the entire Middle East.
With Hormuz alone, Iran could cripple the world overnight.
Today, Iran backs Shia militants in Iraq. They give them money and guns. They've even helped Shia politicians take over the Iraqi government. Why?
Because gaining control in Iraq takes the Iranians one step closer in their twisted plot for secret revenge. For another one of those steps, just look further south... to Yemen.
"New" Oil War Flashpoint #2:
Yemen's Ugly Secret
The Pentagon has just tripled its budget on Yemen.
Top U.S. General Patraeus just had a not-so-secret meeting with Yemen's president.
And our own State Department calls Yemen a “threat... to global stability.”
What gives?
Even ABC News just called Yemen the next "top target" in the terror war and a "near-perfect haven for terrorists." Obama just sent Yemen our troops, ships, and weapons.
Here's what's happening...
The Shia Revolution's Next New Front...
Yemen's on/off Shia revolution gives and "Gate of Tears" oil chokepoint
could soon give Iran a strategic "backdoor" attack point into Saudi Arabia...
Yemen might be a failed country... with a collapsing government, a shrinking oil supply, an exploding population and not much of anything else but lawlessness and chaos.
But what Yemen does have is position.
It sits just on the tip of the Arab peninsula... south of another key Saudi border and on the coast of another key oil strait called Bab-el-Mandeb.
That name means the "Gate of Tears."
How Islam's Next "New"
World Oil War Will Begin
"Nature," goes the old saying, "abhors a vacuum."
For instance, when a failed assassin's bullet burst a blood vessel in Vladimir Lenin's brain in 1922... madman Josef Stalin quickly stepped in to fill the void. Likewise when the Weimar Republic collapsed in 1933... and Hitler stepped into power.
Today there's a new void about to be filled — in the ravaged Middle East — and the lethal force that's stepping up to fill it could plunge the entire region into a "new" Islamic war.
If that happens, nearly 66% of the world's oil supply will get caught in the crosshairs.
Soaring energy prices can hit almost every aspect of life... and pummel any economy... but there are ways you can protect yourself, financially. Read on to find out how...
And like Hormuz, most oil states on the Red Sea can't get a drop of oil out without shipping it through the Bab-el-Mandeb. Over 3.3 million barrels go through every day.
Blocking this chokepoint alone could slap a $30 "political premium" on the price of every barrel of oil... but there's an even bigger threat taking shape.
For the last six years, Yemen has fought a vicious and bloody war with Shia rebels. These rebels are poor. There's no way, says a Yemen general, these rebels "could fund and fight this war with pomegranates and grapes... no doubt there is Iranian support."
Could it be true? Absolutely.
Iran loves to buy loyalty.
Take the $1 billion Tehran now "donates" every year to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Or the billions they gave Syria's Shia president to build cement factories, car factories, power plants, and storage silos.
In return, Iran gets Hezbollah's Arabic-speaking terrorists to run militant Shia training camps in Iraq. And gets Syria to distribute Iran's money and weapons to others in the Shia network.
The secret money Iran sends to Shia rebels in Yemen could soon have a payoff too — by opening up another route for "backdoor" Shia access into Saudi Arabia.
Yemen's rebels have already hit towns across the Saudi border. And the Saudis have hit back, losing dozens of troops in the process. We’re just in the first innings of this one.
How bad is it?
So far, 50 Saudi schools along the border have had to close. Another 240 border towns have already been evacuated. And Saudi jets have already dropped bombs in Yemen.
What exactly has the Saudis running scared?
Final Oil War Flashpoint #3:
Iran's Final Prize — Saudi Oil
Don't think for a minute that I think Iran's plot for "secret revenge" could succeed.
But the threat alone could be enough to kick oil much higher.
And sooner than you might think.
For instance...
Our CIA, Britain's M16, and other top spy agencies say Iran could have a working nuclear bomb within three months... .
The Times of London uncovered a confidential document that says Iran already has a "neutron initiator" ready to test. That's the part you need to trigger a warhead.
And Der Spiegel, the German magazine, says Iran may even have the tech and material to build a simple nuclear bomb before the end of THIS year.
But the Bomb is just a beginning.
Even if the go ahead to build a nuke never comes from Iran's top cleric, the more immediate danger is a wildfire of Shia-Sunni unrest... starting in Iran's new hotbeds of Shia support... and spreading across the rest of the Sunni-run oil states... with the richest oil fields in the world's richest oil nation as the final battleground.
Take a look at this last map...
The Final Battleground — Saudi Arabia!
Suddenly, Iran has its mortal enemy, Saudi Arabia, surrounded —
millions of Shia even live on top of the Saudis OWN biggest oilfields.
As you can see, Saudi Arabia looks like a sitting duck.
Iran has a Shia network that reaches from Afghanistan to Lebanon once again... more connections building along the Persian Gulf... Yemeni Shias to the south... and Shia connections along the oil rich Caspian Sea.
You could see this spread to the nearly two million Shia that live and work on Saudi Arabia's oil fields very soon. Even though that's exactly what the Saudis — and our own Pentagon — hope will never happen.
As you read this, big and small Gulf states are piling up weapons, stocking anti-missile batteries, and sandbagging their oil terminals, ports, and water desalinization plants...
Abu Dhabi alone has already bought $17 billion worth of U.S. anti-missile hardware. And the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia just splurged on weapons, to the tune of $25 billion.
As you read this, our own F-16 fighter jets, Patriot missile systems, giant cruisers and up to 20,000 more U.S. troops are quietly digging in for an epic fight... that could spread past Iraq and Yemen... and even into Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.
All to get ready for what could be the fight of a lifetime...
Say Hello to the "Jihad Generation"
It's not just our experts saying it.
Leaders in all three of America's biggest Middle East allied countries — Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia — claim the epic Sunni-Shia showdown is in the cards.
It could start from any one of the flashpoints I just named.
But no matter how it starts, Saudi Arabia is where it's most likely to end up. Why?
Not only is Saudi Arabia home to Mecca, Islam's holiest place... but it's also home to the corrupt and U.S.-allied Royal House of Saud, considered an insult to all Islam.
The "NEW" War
That Could Rocket Oil
Past $220 In 2012
by Byron King, Editor
What could be eight times bigger than the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan — and lethal enough to at least DOUBLE the price of gas and oil next year?
Brace yourself for the "new" and bloody war nobody saw coming... by bunkering down against soaring energy costs, thanks to a "safe haven" financial plan that could pay you gains up to 668%...
Nobody in the Pentagon will talk openly about it. Nobody in the White House knows what to do.
But make no mistake...
What I'm about to show you could be the deadliest surprise threat to your money and livelihood of the coming year.
I say "new" because as you'll see there's not much new about it at all — the pressure's been building behind this for the last 1,354 years!
Yet for the first time in history, that pressure has found its release. I’m imagining a volcano of blood.
When it blows, you could see your savings get SLAMMED... the dollar thrown into a TAILSPIN... and, here's what will stun the still-recovering world economy, gas and oil prices doubling or even tripling within the next 12 months.
How on earth is that possible?
It's the last thing most people expect, from market pros to bumbling D.C. bureaucrats... but if nothing changes in what I'm about to show you... this is a page in future history books that's already writing itself.
I'll show you the evidence myself.
If I'm right, as many as eight key Islamic countries are hurtling headlong toward a bloody "new" war — with each other — that's been FOURTEEN CENTURIES in the making.
This could begin as early as the next 12 to 18 months. And with no less than 66% of the world's key energy reserves smack dab in the crosshairs.
Sound impossible?
Even if I'm only half right, and we get an oil-state stalemate unlike anything the world has ever seen — you could see oil soar past the old high of $147.30 per barrel, well on its way to as much as $220... with gasoline bucking against a ceiling of $8 per gallon.
I'll show you how this unfolds below.
You'll see the maps, I'll name the names. And I'll reveal to you the stunning web of "secret revenge" that lies behind it all... waiting over 1,354 years for this moment!
Soaring Oil Costs, Even a Dead Economy?
Remember the "Nixon Shock" and market collapse of '73? Stocks fell 43%... but that didn't stop oil and gas prices from quadrupling thanks to an Oil Embargo.
And how about 1979 and gas lines? Even with Jimmy Carter's "malaise" and stagflation, oil prices almost tripled... thanks to the hostage crisis in Tehran.
It was oil that German subs targeted in both World Wars... and oil Japan gunned for in Pearl Harbor... even Afghanistan is part battle over a $3.2 billion oil pipeline.
After the S&L banking crisis of the late '80s, oil still soared in Gulf War One... and soared again on 9/11, despite the aftermath of the dot-com bomb. It took off again in 2003, as bombs dropped on Baghdad.
With politics as a driver, oil doesn't need a red-hot economy to take off... even the last peak of $147 came six months after the Dow first started shedding points and two years after property markets turned south!
Of course, events like these echo around the world.
And nobody gets the chance to just "sit on the sidelines."
But there's good news too.
Because, you see, just like every major shift of history... deep within every crisis... you'll also find an opportunity to protect yourself. And this event is no exception.
For instance, the last time we saw politics push up the price of petroleum, my readers found strategic gains in a "self-defense" move that shot up by 668%.
In fact, we've used all kinds of moments in flux to make protective and even impressive gains. Take a look at this small sample, drawn straight from our posted track record...
Our Strategic Gains in Turbulent Times
137% gains on KeyWest Energy 174% gains on PetroChina
151% gains on Wheaton River Minerals 270% gains on the July silver calls
162% gains on Intrepid Minerals 104% gains on the ICON Energy Fund
332% gains on Glamis/Francisco Gold 108% gains on Norsk Hydro
668% gains on Metallica Resources 118% gains on Anglo American PLC
105% gains on Gentry Resources 160% gains on Western Oil Sands
151% gains on Tocqueville Gold 182% gains on Talisman Energy
228% gains on Niko Resources 142% gains on BG Group
263% gains on Coeur d'Alene Mines 177% gains on Coeur d'Alene Mines again
116% gains on Cameco
And we continue to post new gains, even now. Some of today's open positions have already shot up 52%... 57%... 71%... 76%... 92%... 117%... 168%... 187%... 198%... 208%... 212%... 213%... 215%... 524%... and 553%... with more to come!
(I can't name those stocks for you right now. That wouldn't be fair to my readers. But I'll tell you how to find out about all of them, right after you finish reading this letter.)
My point is, today's moment is even larger than anything we've seen before. But so are the opportunities I see right now for you to protect yourself. I'd hate for you to miss any of them, while you still have the opportunity to make your move.
Over the next four minutes, I'll show you how.
But before I do, let's step back so I can explain how this "war" begins.
Long before $147 oil... before the war over 9/11 or the war in Afghanistan... before either war in Iraq, the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, or even the oil crisis of 1973.
All the way back to a lamb dinner, served up one evening in the year 629 AD...
The Murder That's About
to Change the World
Nobody could have known that the dinner they were about to eat would one day change history. Some say it was goat. Others say it was lamb.
Either way, it was poisoned.
And the guest of honor was Mohammed, the controversial founder of Islam.
It was just one bite, that's all it took. He tasted the poison and immediately spit it out. But it was too late. He would soon die, sparking a bitter and deadly divide.
See, when Mohammed died nobody could agree on who should take over...
And they've been killing each other as a result ever since.
On the one side, you've got the Sunni Muslims. They're the ones that run Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and many of the other countries in the Middle East.
On the other, you've got the Shia Muslims. It's the Shia that run Iran. And now run Iraq, as well as Lebanon and Syria.
Think Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland... Serbs vs. Croats in Bosnia... or even the religious Thirty Years War that ripped apart Europe in the 16th century.
Only this Sunni-Shia split has built up pressure now for the last 1,354 years.
But it's only now that this pressure has found its ultimate release — with Iran driving a new Shia uprising smack dab in the middle of the most dangerous place on Earth — the oil-soaked Middle East.
Isn't the Middle East already a mess? Yes, it is.
What's different is that too many in the West... right up to the White House and the Pentagon... don't "get" just how deep this Islam divide could go or how far it could run.
Take a look at this map...
The Deadly Sunni-Shia Divide — 2011
If it's black in this map, it's Shia ground. It's also mostly oil heartland
and some of the most strategic territory in the entire Middle East!
One terrorist with a grudge can do a lot of damage.
Iran, all by itself, could even be a deadly force.
But can you imagine what millions of Shiites with a 1,354-year old ax to grind could do?
The 162-Million-Man March
Nobody knows exactly how many Shia there are right now in the Middle East. That's because in all but four Middle Eastern countries, Sunni leaders don't bother to count.
Sunni schools teach that Shiites aren't real Muslims. Shias don't get a seat in government. They can't become judges or even testify in high courts. In Sunni-run Saudi Arabia, Shias and Sunni can't even marry.
For centuries, the Shia have been the underclass.
But now, for the first time in history, they see this as their chance to turn the tide. And how big a tide is it? Hands down, saber-rattling Iran has the most — 70 million Shia.
But then you've got the "liberated" Shia of Iraq — 22 million. Plus as many as 2 million Shia in Iran-backed Lebanon. And up to 4 million Shia in Iran's top ally, Syria.
Then you've got another 700,000 Shia in Kuwait... up to 500,000 Shia in Bahrain... up to 400,000 Shia in the United Arab Emirates... 300,000 Shia in Oman... and around 100,000 Shia in Qatar, according to the Pew Research Center in Washington.
On top of that, as many as 10 million Shia in Yemen... another 7 million Shia in Azerbaijan... and 11 million Shia in Turkey... not to mention the combined 30 million Shia in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Not all Shia want a revolution.
But out of between the 147 million to 162 million Shia spread from Pakistan to Lebanon and Azerbaijan to Yemen, enough do that this is the river of "Secret Revenge" and common blood running through the entire Middle East.
The Sunnis are worried.
Especially in Sunni-run Saudi Arabia.
And especially now.
Here's why...
"New" Oil War Flashpoint #1:
The Real Reason Iran
Wants the Bomb
Don't forget, Iran used to be Persia.
At one point Persia was the biggest and most powerful empire in history!
Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt — even Israel — the Persians controlled them all. Along with all of Afghanistan and Pakistan and most of the oil-rich coast of the Caspian.
For 300 years, Persian armies held off the Roman Empire. Their scholars walked with Aristotle and Plato. And influenced Greek art.
It was the Persians who invented chess. And the windmill.
Not to mention bricks, algebra, trigonometry, and wine.
The bottom line is... no Empire forgets its past glory.
The Iranians resent losing theirs.
But now they see a chance to get it back.
The nuclear bomb? Tehran's crackpot leaders don't just want it to scare Israel. They want it so they can throw a dark shadow over their Sunni Arab neighbors, too!
Take a look at this...
Iran's First Move...
With total control of the Hormuz "oil chokepoint" in the Persian Gulf
and new power in "liberated" Iraq, the Iranians have a brand new foothold
for kicking off the long-awaited "Shia Revolution."
You'll notice two things.
First, you'll see how Iran's Shia influence has spilled across the border into southern Iraq. Southern Iraq is where you'll find six of Iraq's eight "Supergiant" oil fields. It's also where you'll find a key border with Shia Islam's mortal enemy — Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is Sunni.
For eight years back in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia helped Iraq wage a bloody war against Iran. Along with other Sunni governments, the Saudis even gave Saddam over $47 billion to launch missiles and nerve gas attacks over the Iranian border.
Iran hasn't forgotten. Or forgiven.
(Imagine if Canada or Mexico had given money to Japan to help them bomb Pearl Harbor. Iran has waited to make the Saudis pay — and now they have their chance.)
"Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the Gulf front."
— Gen. David Petraeus,
Jan. 31, 2010
The second thing you'll see in the map above is that Iran has almost total control over the Strait of Hormuz.
Hormuz is the tight waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Over 17 million barrels of oil have to pass through Hormuz every day.
That's 40% of all the oil shipped in the world.
And 90% of all the daily oil shipments from the entire Middle East.
With Hormuz alone, Iran could cripple the world overnight.
Today, Iran backs Shia militants in Iraq. They give them money and guns. They've even helped Shia politicians take over the Iraqi government. Why?
Because gaining control in Iraq takes the Iranians one step closer in their twisted plot for secret revenge. For another one of those steps, just look further south... to Yemen.
"New" Oil War Flashpoint #2:
Yemen's Ugly Secret
The Pentagon has just tripled its budget on Yemen.
Top U.S. General Patraeus just had a not-so-secret meeting with Yemen's president.
And our own State Department calls Yemen a “threat... to global stability.”
What gives?
Even ABC News just called Yemen the next "top target" in the terror war and a "near-perfect haven for terrorists." Obama just sent Yemen our troops, ships, and weapons.
Here's what's happening...
The Shia Revolution's Next New Front...
Yemen's on/off Shia revolution gives and "Gate of Tears" oil chokepoint
could soon give Iran a strategic "backdoor" attack point into Saudi Arabia...
Yemen might be a failed country... with a collapsing government, a shrinking oil supply, an exploding population and not much of anything else but lawlessness and chaos.
But what Yemen does have is position.
It sits just on the tip of the Arab peninsula... south of another key Saudi border and on the coast of another key oil strait called Bab-el-Mandeb.
That name means the "Gate of Tears."
How Islam's Next "New"
World Oil War Will Begin
"Nature," goes the old saying, "abhors a vacuum."
For instance, when a failed assassin's bullet burst a blood vessel in Vladimir Lenin's brain in 1922... madman Josef Stalin quickly stepped in to fill the void. Likewise when the Weimar Republic collapsed in 1933... and Hitler stepped into power.
Today there's a new void about to be filled — in the ravaged Middle East — and the lethal force that's stepping up to fill it could plunge the entire region into a "new" Islamic war.
If that happens, nearly 66% of the world's oil supply will get caught in the crosshairs.
Soaring energy prices can hit almost every aspect of life... and pummel any economy... but there are ways you can protect yourself, financially. Read on to find out how...
And like Hormuz, most oil states on the Red Sea can't get a drop of oil out without shipping it through the Bab-el-Mandeb. Over 3.3 million barrels go through every day.
Blocking this chokepoint alone could slap a $30 "political premium" on the price of every barrel of oil... but there's an even bigger threat taking shape.
For the last six years, Yemen has fought a vicious and bloody war with Shia rebels. These rebels are poor. There's no way, says a Yemen general, these rebels "could fund and fight this war with pomegranates and grapes... no doubt there is Iranian support."
Could it be true? Absolutely.
Iran loves to buy loyalty.
Take the $1 billion Tehran now "donates" every year to Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Or the billions they gave Syria's Shia president to build cement factories, car factories, power plants, and storage silos.
In return, Iran gets Hezbollah's Arabic-speaking terrorists to run militant Shia training camps in Iraq. And gets Syria to distribute Iran's money and weapons to others in the Shia network.
The secret money Iran sends to Shia rebels in Yemen could soon have a payoff too — by opening up another route for "backdoor" Shia access into Saudi Arabia.
Yemen's rebels have already hit towns across the Saudi border. And the Saudis have hit back, losing dozens of troops in the process. We’re just in the first innings of this one.
How bad is it?
So far, 50 Saudi schools along the border have had to close. Another 240 border towns have already been evacuated. And Saudi jets have already dropped bombs in Yemen.
What exactly has the Saudis running scared?
Final Oil War Flashpoint #3:
Iran's Final Prize — Saudi Oil
Don't think for a minute that I think Iran's plot for "secret revenge" could succeed.
But the threat alone could be enough to kick oil much higher.
And sooner than you might think.
For instance...
Our CIA, Britain's M16, and other top spy agencies say Iran could have a working nuclear bomb within three months... .
The Times of London uncovered a confidential document that says Iran already has a "neutron initiator" ready to test. That's the part you need to trigger a warhead.
And Der Spiegel, the German magazine, says Iran may even have the tech and material to build a simple nuclear bomb before the end of THIS year.
But the Bomb is just a beginning.
Even if the go ahead to build a nuke never comes from Iran's top cleric, the more immediate danger is a wildfire of Shia-Sunni unrest... starting in Iran's new hotbeds of Shia support... and spreading across the rest of the Sunni-run oil states... with the richest oil fields in the world's richest oil nation as the final battleground.
Take a look at this last map...
The Final Battleground — Saudi Arabia!
Suddenly, Iran has its mortal enemy, Saudi Arabia, surrounded —
millions of Shia even live on top of the Saudis OWN biggest oilfields.
As you can see, Saudi Arabia looks like a sitting duck.
Iran has a Shia network that reaches from Afghanistan to Lebanon once again... more connections building along the Persian Gulf... Yemeni Shias to the south... and Shia connections along the oil rich Caspian Sea.
You could see this spread to the nearly two million Shia that live and work on Saudi Arabia's oil fields very soon. Even though that's exactly what the Saudis — and our own Pentagon — hope will never happen.
As you read this, big and small Gulf states are piling up weapons, stocking anti-missile batteries, and sandbagging their oil terminals, ports, and water desalinization plants...
Abu Dhabi alone has already bought $17 billion worth of U.S. anti-missile hardware. And the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia just splurged on weapons, to the tune of $25 billion.
As you read this, our own F-16 fighter jets, Patriot missile systems, giant cruisers and up to 20,000 more U.S. troops are quietly digging in for an epic fight... that could spread past Iraq and Yemen... and even into Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain.
All to get ready for what could be the fight of a lifetime...
Say Hello to the "Jihad Generation"
It's not just our experts saying it.
Leaders in all three of America's biggest Middle East allied countries — Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia — claim the epic Sunni-Shia showdown is in the cards.
It could start from any one of the flashpoints I just named.
But no matter how it starts, Saudi Arabia is where it's most likely to end up. Why?
Not only is Saudi Arabia home to Mecca, Islam's holiest place... but it's also home to the corrupt and U.S.-allied Royal House of Saud, considered an insult to all Islam.
Have we given up on final frontier? Shuttle retirement will cost USA ---USA maybe controlled by another space power.
Have We Given Up on the Final Frontier?
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
RecommendShare
Print
Email
Play00:00 / 00:00
ListenAddDownloadEmbed
Stream m3u
Enlarge
Image of Voyager 1. (Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech./NASA)
After half a century at the forefront of space exploration, NASA’s been hit by hard times. Last year, its groundbreaking and celebrated space-shuttle program was shuttered. The cosmos won’t see another American spacecraft for at least another decade, and that once dreamed of trip to Mars — not too long ago a serious interest of the U.S. government — isn't even close to being a priority.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, considers what the future of NASA is, and what could be done to reinvigorate the program in his book “Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier.”
GUESTS: Neil deGrasse Tyson
PRODUCED BY: Sitara Nieves
nasa space space travel
Leave a comment RSS Feed for Comments
Comments [1]
Jeffrey Peltz from Brooklyn, NY
I greatly enjoyed Mr. Tyson's discussion on today's show. Unfortunately you don't here an intelligent discussion of space and science in the media. Even less often, in fact almost never, if not never, do you year such a discussion by politicians.
Feb. 28 2012 08:35 AM
Score: 0/0
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
RecommendShare
Play00:00 / 00:00
ListenAddDownloadEmbed
Stream m3u
Enlarge
Image of Voyager 1. (Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech./NASA)
After half a century at the forefront of space exploration, NASA’s been hit by hard times. Last year, its groundbreaking and celebrated space-shuttle program was shuttered. The cosmos won’t see another American spacecraft for at least another decade, and that once dreamed of trip to Mars — not too long ago a serious interest of the U.S. government — isn't even close to being a priority.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, considers what the future of NASA is, and what could be done to reinvigorate the program in his book “Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier.”
GUESTS: Neil deGrasse Tyson
PRODUCED BY: Sitara Nieves
nasa space space travel
Leave a comment RSS Feed for Comments
Comments [1]
Jeffrey Peltz from Brooklyn, NY
I greatly enjoyed Mr. Tyson's discussion on today's show. Unfortunately you don't here an intelligent discussion of space and science in the media. Even less often, in fact almost never, if not never, do you year such a discussion by politicians.
Feb. 28 2012 08:35 AM
Score: 0/0
Why are we even talking about Birth Control?
The reason we are talking about this is because of the fools in the present adm and losers like Pelosi, Debbie blabbermouth Schultz, Reid, Obama, Valerie jarrett etc.
Birth control is a non issue. People can get it if they want, so why are we talking about it.
Get on something significant.
Birth control is a non issue. People can get it if they want, so why are we talking about it.
Get on something significant.
Chickens have come home to Roost----re. Gasoline price
GAS PRICES TO COST OBAMA
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on February 28, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
I hate to quote the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but the chickens have come home to roost for President Obama as higher oil and gasoline prices swamp his reelection bid.
Count the chickens:
•Obama refused, until two months ago, to impose tough sanctions on Iran, increasing the likelihood of an Israeli attack. Already, speculation that such a strike might be in the offing is driving up oil prices.
•His anti-Israeli policies have diminished that nation's confidence that it can rely on the United States to handle Iranian nuclear ambitions.
•The president's veto of the Keystone pipeline and his refusal to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge makes it crystal-clear to voters that there will be no relief coming from the north.
•His stubborn refusal to issue deep-water drilling permits despite having officially lifted the moratorium he imposed after the BP spill is costing us hundreds of thousands of daily barrels in domestic production.
•His relentless crusade against oil company tax privileges undermines our ability to explore, drill and produce oil.
As gas prices rise, President Obama owns them. His public stands against oil drilling are coming back to haunt him. After his approval ratings peaked at 50 percent, Rasmussen and Gallup both have him back in the mid-40s.
Obama proudly points to the fact that we are producing more oil domestically than we have for some years. True. But that's because Bush issued permits for a massive expansion in offshore drilling and exploration on federal lands. And it's because private and state land is being used for horizontal drilling and fracking despite the increasing objections of Obama's EPA.
Obama says that more domestic drilling is not the answer. But it is. Even with his stubborn refusal to issue deep-water drilling permits, American oil production is slated to rise by 2 million barrels of oil per day -- an increase of about 25 percent -- over the next two years. Canadian production will rise by 1 million barrels, assuming we can get it to the United States over Obama's objections.
Globally, a 3 million-barrel increase in oil production would be huge -- about a 4 percent increase in global supply. Those 3 million new North American barrels will make it possible for the United States to cut off all imports from the nations that hate us: Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Russia, Algeria.
By 2020, we can be the new Saudi Arabia -- providing the world's oil needs -- if only Obama would get out of the way.
Peter Morici, professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School, and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, points out that domestic oil production lowers prices in the United States. He points out, for example, that Texas oil is selling for $17 less than oil from the North Sea off the United Kingdom. He says "this indicates the U.S. market is becoming somewhat separate and less wholly determined by global conditions; hence, more domestic production and increased access to Canadian oil would lower U.S. oil and prices -- more drilling in the Gulf and elsewhere in North America, and the Keystone pipeline, would significantly affect gas prices and employment."
Nor has Obama hidden his opposition to oil production under a bushel. He has been front and center in calling for movement away from fossil fuels and has made clear that he is more worried about climate change than keeping prices down. Now Americans see that his policies are backfiring and it is costing them at the pump.
For Obama, the risks are even greater. The surge in oil prices that will follow speculation about an Israeli attack on Iran -- and the huge increase that will take place if there is an actual attack -- will derail his so-called recovery. And everyone will know where to place the blame.
ALERT: The One Thing You Should Do For Your Prostate Every Morning
Subscribe to Dick's Newsletter
Other Useful Links
DickMorris.com
Follow Dick on FACEBOOK
Follow Dick on TWITTER
See Dick's YouTube Videos
Sign up at DickMorris.com to get Dick's breaking thoughts on the most critical events of the day.
Please forward this email and help us spread the word!
To Advertise with DickMorris.com Click Here
About Dick Morris
Dick Morris is well known for his insightful and hard-hitting commentary on the FOXNews channel. With his wife, Eileen McGann, Dick has written 14 books, including 10 NY Times best-sellers. Together they pen almost daily columns for their website www.DickMorris.com, the New York Post, Newsmax, the Hill Magazine and many other publications. Domestically, Morris has handled the winning campaigns of more than 30 Senators and Governors, including President Bill Clinton and Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. Internationally, he has piloted the successful campaigns of the president or prime minister of Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Kenya, Hungary, Poland, Taiwan, and Japan.
Morris' and McGann's latest book is Revolt!: How to Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Agenda - A Patriot's Guide.
Related Links:
DickMorris.com
Follow Dick on FACEBOOK
Follow Dick on TWITTER
See Dick's YouTube Videos
COPYRIGHT 2012, DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN.
REPRINTS WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION ONLY.
To unsubscribe from all Dick Morris Reports emails, please click here
Triangulation Strategies LLC
1801 S. Federal Hwy
Delray Beach, FL 33483
561-278-2501
You have received this DickMorrisReports e-mail because you subscribed to it at DickMorris.com, signed one of our petitions, or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below.
You are currently subscribed to dickmorris-reports as: Bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com
Add subscribers@dickmorris.com to your email address book to ensure delivery.
Forward to a Friend | Subscribe | Unsubscribe
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on February 28, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
I hate to quote the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but the chickens have come home to roost for President Obama as higher oil and gasoline prices swamp his reelection bid.
Count the chickens:
•Obama refused, until two months ago, to impose tough sanctions on Iran, increasing the likelihood of an Israeli attack. Already, speculation that such a strike might be in the offing is driving up oil prices.
•His anti-Israeli policies have diminished that nation's confidence that it can rely on the United States to handle Iranian nuclear ambitions.
•The president's veto of the Keystone pipeline and his refusal to drill in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge makes it crystal-clear to voters that there will be no relief coming from the north.
•His stubborn refusal to issue deep-water drilling permits despite having officially lifted the moratorium he imposed after the BP spill is costing us hundreds of thousands of daily barrels in domestic production.
•His relentless crusade against oil company tax privileges undermines our ability to explore, drill and produce oil.
As gas prices rise, President Obama owns them. His public stands against oil drilling are coming back to haunt him. After his approval ratings peaked at 50 percent, Rasmussen and Gallup both have him back in the mid-40s.
Obama proudly points to the fact that we are producing more oil domestically than we have for some years. True. But that's because Bush issued permits for a massive expansion in offshore drilling and exploration on federal lands. And it's because private and state land is being used for horizontal drilling and fracking despite the increasing objections of Obama's EPA.
Obama says that more domestic drilling is not the answer. But it is. Even with his stubborn refusal to issue deep-water drilling permits, American oil production is slated to rise by 2 million barrels of oil per day -- an increase of about 25 percent -- over the next two years. Canadian production will rise by 1 million barrels, assuming we can get it to the United States over Obama's objections.
Globally, a 3 million-barrel increase in oil production would be huge -- about a 4 percent increase in global supply. Those 3 million new North American barrels will make it possible for the United States to cut off all imports from the nations that hate us: Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Russia, Algeria.
By 2020, we can be the new Saudi Arabia -- providing the world's oil needs -- if only Obama would get out of the way.
Peter Morici, professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School, and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, points out that domestic oil production lowers prices in the United States. He points out, for example, that Texas oil is selling for $17 less than oil from the North Sea off the United Kingdom. He says "this indicates the U.S. market is becoming somewhat separate and less wholly determined by global conditions; hence, more domestic production and increased access to Canadian oil would lower U.S. oil and prices -- more drilling in the Gulf and elsewhere in North America, and the Keystone pipeline, would significantly affect gas prices and employment."
Nor has Obama hidden his opposition to oil production under a bushel. He has been front and center in calling for movement away from fossil fuels and has made clear that he is more worried about climate change than keeping prices down. Now Americans see that his policies are backfiring and it is costing them at the pump.
For Obama, the risks are even greater. The surge in oil prices that will follow speculation about an Israeli attack on Iran -- and the huge increase that will take place if there is an actual attack -- will derail his so-called recovery. And everyone will know where to place the blame.
ALERT: The One Thing You Should Do For Your Prostate Every Morning
Subscribe to Dick's Newsletter
Other Useful Links
DickMorris.com
Follow Dick on FACEBOOK
Follow Dick on TWITTER
See Dick's YouTube Videos
Sign up at DickMorris.com to get Dick's breaking thoughts on the most critical events of the day.
Please forward this email and help us spread the word!
To Advertise with DickMorris.com Click Here
About Dick Morris
Dick Morris is well known for his insightful and hard-hitting commentary on the FOXNews channel. With his wife, Eileen McGann, Dick has written 14 books, including 10 NY Times best-sellers. Together they pen almost daily columns for their website www.DickMorris.com, the New York Post, Newsmax, the Hill Magazine and many other publications. Domestically, Morris has handled the winning campaigns of more than 30 Senators and Governors, including President Bill Clinton and Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. Internationally, he has piloted the successful campaigns of the president or prime minister of Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Kenya, Hungary, Poland, Taiwan, and Japan.
Morris' and McGann's latest book is Revolt!: How to Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Agenda - A Patriot's Guide.
Related Links:
DickMorris.com
Follow Dick on FACEBOOK
Follow Dick on TWITTER
See Dick's YouTube Videos
COPYRIGHT 2012, DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN.
REPRINTS WITH WRITTEN PERMISSION ONLY.
To unsubscribe from all Dick Morris Reports emails, please click here
Triangulation Strategies LLC
1801 S. Federal Hwy
Delray Beach, FL 33483
561-278-2501
You have received this DickMorrisReports e-mail because you subscribed to it at DickMorris.com, signed one of our petitions, or someone forwarded it to you. To opt out, see the links below.
You are currently subscribed to dickmorris-reports as: Bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com
Add subscribers@dickmorris.com to your email address book to ensure delivery.
Forward to a Friend | Subscribe | Unsubscribe
Abundant Green derived energy in 100 to 200 years
The present bunch won't admit they have screwed up. How many times have I heard, " it will take ten or twenty years for drilling to have an affect". " need to place more emphasis on green". They all think more emphasis on green will work-- how can they think this way when fossil fuel derived energy is 86 percent of total, green is less than 1 percent. Face it, green technology can't do the job at this point in time, maybe in 100 or 200 years.
about a minute ago · Like
about a minute ago · Like
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
SLS use of SSME----Expensive Reusable SSME on EXPENDABLE Vehicle
The space shuttle main engines are the most expensive rocket engines ever produced. They're so expensive because they're REUSABLE, which is awesome and way beyond what other engines can do. So now SLS has the brilliant brain wave to take SSMEs and put them on an expendable booster. Brilliant, I tell you.
8 hours ago
Sent from my iPad
8 hours ago
Sent from my iPad
Astroid may come near Earth
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 08:34:18 -0600
Begin forwarded message:
Tunguska-Sized Asteroid Homing on Earth
Tunguska-Sized Asteroid Homing on Earth
© NASA PL-Caltech/T
22:29 26/02/2012
MOSCOW, February 26(RIA Novosti) — An asteroid of the same class as one that allegedly detonated over Tunguska River in 1908 will pass by Earth next year, flying closer than some man-made satellites, according to NASA.
The asteroid, 2012 DA14, will miss the planet by 26,900 kilometers on February 15, 2013, which is closer than satellites in the geostationary orbit of 35,700 kilometers, according to data on NASA’s website published Sunday.
The asteroid, first detected by the Spanish Observatorio Astronomico de La Sagra, is between 40 and 95 meters in diameter and belongs to Apollo group of near-Earth asteroids, many of which are potential collision hazards.
Astronomer groups around the world are continuing monitoring 2012 DA14 to determine its size and trajectory.
The estimated size of 2012 DA14 places it in the same category as the celestial body that, scientists say, exploded over western Siberia in 1908. Though many theories exist concerning the event on Podkamennaya Tunsguska River, the leading explanation is a space body over 50 meters in size blew up in the atmosphere, the blast being at least 1,000 more powerful than the nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.
© 2012 RIA Novosti
===============================================================
===============================================================
Scientists say big asteroid bears watching
An artist's illustration of asteroids. Credit: European Space Agency/P. Carril
Feb. 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM
VIENNA, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- Scientists at a United Nations meeting in Vienna say they're keeping a close eye on a large asteroid that may pose an impact threat to Earth in a few decades.
The subject of the asteroid known as 2011 AG5 was on the agenda of the 49th session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.
Some researchers at the session said the possibility the 460-foot-diameter asteroid could strike Earth in 2040 is significant enough that now is the time to discuss how to deflect it.
Astronomers in Tucson discovered the asteroid in January 2011.
"2011 AG5 is the object which currently has the highest chance of impacting the Earth … in 2040. However, we have only observed it for about half an orbit, thus the confidence in these calculations is still not very high," Detlef Koschny of the European Space Agency's Solar System Missions Division in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, told SPACE.com
"In our ... discussions, we thus concluded that it not necessarily can be called a 'real' threat. To do that, ideally, we should have at least one, if not two, full orbits observed," Koschny said.
The asteroid currently has an impact probability of 1 in 625 for Feb. 5, 2040, said Donald Yeomans, head of the Near-Earth Object Observations Program at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.
"Fortunately, this object will be observable from the ground in the 2013-2016 interval," Yeomans said, and in the unlikely scenario that its impact probability does not significantly decrease, "there would be time to mount a deflection mission to alter its course."
© 2012 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
===============================================================
Big Asteroid 2011 AG5 Could Pose Threat to Earth in 2040
by Leonard David, SPACE.com’s Space Insider Columnist
Date: 27 February 2012 Time: 06:57 AM ET
An artist's illustration of asteroids, or near-Earth objects, that highlight the need for a complete Space Situational Awareness system.
CREDIT: ESA - P.Carril
View full size image
Scientists are keeping a close eye on a big asteroid that may pose an impact threat to Earth in a few decades.
The space rock, which is called 2011 AG5, is about 460 feet (140 meters) wide. It may come close enough to Earth in 2040 that some researchers are calling for a discussion about how to deflect it.
Talk about the asteroid was on the agenda during the 49th session of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), held earlier this month in Vienna.
A UN Action Team on near-Earth objects (NEOs) noted the asteroid’s repeat approaches to Earth and the possibility — however remote — that 2011 AG5 might smack into our planet 28 years from now.
The object was discovered in January 2011 by Mount Lemmon Survey observers in Tucson, Ariz. While scientists have a good bead on the space rock's size, its mass and compositional makeup are unknown at present. [The 7 Strangest Asteroids in the Solar
System]
Gravity Simulator image of 2011 AG5 passing the Earth-Moon system in February 2040. Earth is the blue dot, the moon’s orbit is gray, and 2011AG5 is green. Simulation created with JPL Horizons data.
CREDIT: Tony Dunn
View full size image
An asteroid desktop exercise
"2011 AG5 is the object which currently has the highest chance of impacting the Earth … in 2040. However, we have only observed it for about half an orbit, thus the confidence in these calculations is still not very high," said Detlef Koschny of the European Space Agency’s Solar System Missions Division in Noordwijk, The Netherlands.
"In our Action Team 14 discussions, we thus concluded that it not necessarily can be called a ‘real’ threat. To do that, ideally, we should have at least one, if not two, full orbits observed," Koschny told SPACE.com.
Koschny added that the Action Team did recommend to the NEO Working Group of COPUOS to use 2011 AG5 as a "desktop exercise" and link ongoing studies to the asteroid.
"We are currently also in the process of making institutions like the European Southern Observatory aware of this object," Koschny said. "We hope to make the point that this object deserves the allocation of some special telescope time."
Non-zero impact probability
The near-Earth asteroid 2011 AG5 currently has an impact probability of 1 in 625 for Feb. 5, 2040, said Donald Yeomans, head of the Near-Earth Object Observations Program at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.
This impact probability isn't set in stone, however. So far, researchers have been able to watch the asteroid for just a short time — the first nine months of 2011 — and the numbers may change after further observation, Yeomans told SPACE.com. [Photos: Asteroids in Deep Space]
"Fortunately, this object will be observable from the ground in the 2013-2016 interval," Yeomans said. In the very unlikely scenario that its impact probability does not significantly decrease after processing these additional observations, "there would be time to mount a deflection mission to alter its course before the 2023 keyhole," he added.
Keyholes are small regions in space near Earth through which a passing NEO's orbit may be perturbed due to gravitational effects, possibly placing it onto a path that would impact Earth.
Prudent course of action
2011 AG5 may zip through such a keyhole on its close approach to Earth in February 2023, which will bring the asteroid within 0.02 astronomical units (1.86 million miles, or 2.99 million kilometers) of Earth.
One astronomical unit is the average distance between Earth and sun, which is approximately 93 million miles (150 million km).
According to a JPL estimate, the 2023 keyhole — through which 2011 AG5 must pass in order for there to be a real chance of an Earth impact in 2040 – is roughly 62 miles (100 km) wide.
"Although this keyhole is considerably larger than the Apophis keyhole in 2029, it would still be a straightforward task to alter the asteroid’s trajectory enough to miss the keyhole – and hence the impact in 2040," Yeomans noted, referring to the asteroid Apophis, which could threaten Earth in 2036 if it zips through a keyhole in 2029.
"The prudent course of action is then to wait at least until the 2013 observations are processed before making any preliminary plans for a potential deflection mission," Yeomans said.
Processing additional observations in the 2013-2016 time period, he added, "will almost certainly see the impact probability for 2011 AG5 significantly decrease."
Wanted: Higher-fidelity assessment
"Yes, the object 2011 AG5 was much discussed at the AT 14 meetings last week, but perhaps prematurely," said Lindley Johnson, NASA’s NEO Observations Program Executive in Washington, D.C.
Johnson said NEO watchers have flagged the asteroid "as one we should keep an eye on." At present, he said, while researchers have better preliminary orbit data for 2011 AG5 than for many other asteroids in the NEO catalog, "we have only medium confidence in the derived orbital parameters."
"Fortunately, we are confident our uncertainties in the current orbit model will be reduced when we will have good observation opportunities in September 2013 with the larger follow-up assets," Johnson told SPACE.com. Observing opportunities are even better, he added, starting in November 2015 and for several months thereafter.
"This, in turn, will enable us to better assess the likelihood of any ‘keyhole’ passage in 2023 and therefore a much higher fidelity assessment of any impact probability for the 2040 time frame," Johnson said. [5 Reasons to Care About Asteroids]
"So, rather than a need to immediately jump to space mission solutions, the situation with 2011 AG5 shows the value of finding potentially hazardous objects early enough so that there is time for a methodical approach of observation and assessment as input to any need for an expensive spacecraft mission," Johnson said. "A more robust survey capability would improve the data available to make such assessments."
Decision challenge
Long-time NEO specialist and former Apollo astronaut Russell Schweickart played an active role in the dialogue about 2011 AG5. He represented the Association of Space Explorers (ASE) Committee on Near Earth Objects and presented to the Action Team an analysis of the situation with 2011 AG5.
The space rock presents a "decision challenge" to the international community, Schweickart suggested, "in the unlikely chance that its current low, but significant probability of impacting Earth in 2040 continues to increase after additional tracking becomes available."
Schweickart spotlighted a rough Association of Space Explorers analysis of the options to deflect the asteroid in the future, in the unlikely scenario that the Earth impact probability continues to increase.
He also provided to the Action Team several new appraisals of options for deflection of asteroid 2011 AG5 to avoid a potentially dangerous Earth encounter in 2040.
The key moment of the Don Quijote mission: the Impactor spacecraft (Hidalgo) smashes into the asteroid while observed, from a safe distance, by the Orbiter spacecraft (Sancho).
CREDIT: ESA - AOES Medialab
View full size image
Delayed deflection campaign
A decision date for a keyhole deflection is very soon, if not now, Schweickart suggested. Asteroid 2011 AG5 represents an actual threat that underscores the need for a NEO hazard decision-making structure within the UN COPUOS, he said.
Based on the latest analysis, Schweickart reported, a deflection campaign delayed until after the 2023 close approach appears marginally possible, as long as a decision to commit is made immediately thereafter.
In the low-probability case in which the impact threat of the asteroid persists beyond its 2013 apparition, "should a keyhole deflection campaign be foregone — for whatever reason — the international community may be faced with the difficult decision of choosing between an expensive multikinetic impactor or a nuclear explosive to prevent an impact should the NEO indeed pass through the keyhole," Schweickart said.
The timelines that would be required to mount a successful deflection of the asteroid, Schweickart told SPACE.com, might be challenging.
But first things first — researchers stress that more study of the asteroid’s trajectory is called for. The next tracking opportunities of 2011 AG5 will occur in September 2013, and then again in November 2015.
NASA chief: We still have time
In response to a letter from Schweickart regarding 2011 AG5, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said that 2011 AG5 is "high on NASA’s list of NEOs to monitor for impact hazard potential," adding that "we take these duties very seriously."
Bolden also noted the opportunities for highly accurate ground-based observations in the near future.
"Based on these observations, a more informed assessment can then be made on the need for any type of mitigation," he said.
Bolden also remarked that the asteroid makes an apparition in 2015, more than seven years before the close keyhole passage in 2023 that could set in motion an Earth impact in the 2040 time frame.
"As a point of comparison, NASA’s Deep Impact mission [the Deep Impact probe smashed into comet Tempel 1 in July 2005] was conducted in six years from selection to impact under much less urgency, demonstrating the adequacy of a seven-year period for any necessary response," Bolden said.
Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. He is a winner of last year's National Space Club Press Award and a past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines. He has written for SPACE.com since 1999.
Copyright © 2012 TechMediaNetwork.com All rights reserved.
===============================================================
ObamaCare Deficits
ObamaCare's Crippling Deficits
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN in the WSJ
September 8, 2009
While the deficits caused by the fiscal stimulus package will end in 2011 and will help to sustain a fragile recovery in 2010, the deficits projected for the longer term are a threat to our economic future. The starting point for controlling those future deficits is for Congress to abandon the administration’s health-care plan—a plan that will cost more than $1 trillion.
The deficits projected for the next decade and beyond are unprecedented. According to an assessment released in March by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the president’s budget implies that deficits will average 5.2% of GDP over the next decade and will be 5.5% of GDP in 2019. Without the president’s proposals, the budget office forecasts a 2019 deficit of only 2% of GDP.
The CBO’s deficit projections are based on the optimistic assumptions that the economy will grow at a healthy 3% pace with no recessions during the next decade; that there will be no new spending programs after this year’s budget; and that the rising national debt will increase the rate of interest on government bonds by less than 1%. More realistic assumptions would imply a 2019 deficit of more than 8% of GDP and a government debt of more than 100% of GDP.
Such enormous deficits would crowd out productivity-enhancing investments in new equipment and software as the government borrows funds otherwise available to private investors. The result would be slower economic growth and a lower standard of living.
In the nearer term, the projected deficits could cause interest rates on bonds and mortgages to rise sharply if bond investors fear that the government will not prevent inflation. This is a greater risk now that more than half of the U.S. government debt is held by the Chinese and other foreign investors. Such an interest rate rise could kill a recovery in 2010 or 2011 and depress growth in the years that follow.
Dropping the Obama health plan would significantly reduce fiscal deficits over the next decade and help restore public confidence in the ability of Congress to control spending. The CBO estimates that the House committee versions of the Obama health plan would add more than $1 trillion to federal deficits over the next decade. But the actual costs would be much higher.
For starters, $1 trillion of extra debt-financed spending would cause the government to pay about $300 billion of extra interest in the next decade. Moreover, the CBO’s method of estimating the cost of such a program doesn’t recognize the incentives it creates for households and firms to change their behavior.
The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created “insurance exchanges,” but not if they get their insurance from their employer. The CBO’s cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion.
The administration’s claim that the health-care plan would be “self-financing” is both false and irrelevant. It is false because it would only be self-financing if one counts a variety of President Obama’s proposed tax increases—and even those would produce much less revenue than is assumed in the budget calculations. The claim is irrelevant because those tax increases have nothing to do with health care and could be used instead to reduce other projected deficits.
For example, the administration and the congressional designers of ObamaCare say they would finance a substantial part of health reform with the revenue from new taxes on corporate foreign profits and on high-income individuals. The likely revenue from these tax changes would be much less than the official estimates because of the induced changes in taxpayer behavior that the estimators ignore.
Previous experience with changes in the marginal tax rates of high-income individuals implies that the current proposal to raise the marginal tax rate to about 50% from today’s 40% would produce only about half of the official revenue estimates. No one knows how much of the estimated extra tax revenue on foreign profits would be lost as the resulting fall in international competitiveness reduces profits, and as businesses sell their overseas subsidiaries or shift their profits in other ways.
While abandoning health reform would be an important step, it would not be enough to limit the exploding level of future deficits and debt. That requires substantial reductions in existing spending programs, if large tax increases are to be avoided. Since Medicare is the largest contributor to the explosive growth in government spending, a good way to start shrinking government outlays would be by restructuring Medicare to shift more of its costs to supplementary private insurance, perhaps on an income-related basis.
Given the perceived need for significant additional tax revenue to shrink future fiscal deficits, there is now talk in Washington of introducing a value-added tax (VAT), the kind of national sales tax that European governments use to finance their welfare states. That would be a triply bad idea. Although it is a tax on spending, a VAT effectively raises marginal tax rates. Like the income tax, it reduces the reward for work and entrepreneurship by adding a tax to the prices of all goods and services. A VAT would also be grossly unfair to those whose lifetime savings would now be subject to a new tax when they start to spend those savings.
A VAT would open the door to an explosion of new spending programs. That’s because, no matter how low the initial rate, the tax rate would be drawn inevitably to European rates of more than 15%—on top of existing income and payroll taxes.
The key to raising revenue without raising marginal tax rates or creating a new tax is to reduce or eliminate some of the “tax expenditures” that now lower tax revenue by special deductions and exclusions. Ending the current exclusion from taxable income of employer payments for health insurance would increase income tax revenue by more than $1 trillion over the next five years and nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. Eliminating this subsidy would also lead to a restructuring of private health insurance that would give patients the incentive to seek more cost-effective care and thereby bring down the overall cost of health care.
Restructuring Medicare and reforming tax rules would be politically difficult. But a failure by Congress to address the exploding path of fiscal deficits would be morally irresponsible.
Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal’s board of contributors.
Send this article to my friend(s).
Print this page.
« back to articles index
By MARTIN FELDSTEIN in the WSJ
September 8, 2009
While the deficits caused by the fiscal stimulus package will end in 2011 and will help to sustain a fragile recovery in 2010, the deficits projected for the longer term are a threat to our economic future. The starting point for controlling those future deficits is for Congress to abandon the administration’s health-care plan—a plan that will cost more than $1 trillion.
The deficits projected for the next decade and beyond are unprecedented. According to an assessment released in March by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the president’s budget implies that deficits will average 5.2% of GDP over the next decade and will be 5.5% of GDP in 2019. Without the president’s proposals, the budget office forecasts a 2019 deficit of only 2% of GDP.
The CBO’s deficit projections are based on the optimistic assumptions that the economy will grow at a healthy 3% pace with no recessions during the next decade; that there will be no new spending programs after this year’s budget; and that the rising national debt will increase the rate of interest on government bonds by less than 1%. More realistic assumptions would imply a 2019 deficit of more than 8% of GDP and a government debt of more than 100% of GDP.
Such enormous deficits would crowd out productivity-enhancing investments in new equipment and software as the government borrows funds otherwise available to private investors. The result would be slower economic growth and a lower standard of living.
In the nearer term, the projected deficits could cause interest rates on bonds and mortgages to rise sharply if bond investors fear that the government will not prevent inflation. This is a greater risk now that more than half of the U.S. government debt is held by the Chinese and other foreign investors. Such an interest rate rise could kill a recovery in 2010 or 2011 and depress growth in the years that follow.
Dropping the Obama health plan would significantly reduce fiscal deficits over the next decade and help restore public confidence in the ability of Congress to control spending. The CBO estimates that the House committee versions of the Obama health plan would add more than $1 trillion to federal deficits over the next decade. But the actual costs would be much higher.
For starters, $1 trillion of extra debt-financed spending would cause the government to pay about $300 billion of extra interest in the next decade. Moreover, the CBO’s method of estimating the cost of such a program doesn’t recognize the incentives it creates for households and firms to change their behavior.
The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created “insurance exchanges,” but not if they get their insurance from their employer. The CBO’s cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion.
The administration’s claim that the health-care plan would be “self-financing” is both false and irrelevant. It is false because it would only be self-financing if one counts a variety of President Obama’s proposed tax increases—and even those would produce much less revenue than is assumed in the budget calculations. The claim is irrelevant because those tax increases have nothing to do with health care and could be used instead to reduce other projected deficits.
For example, the administration and the congressional designers of ObamaCare say they would finance a substantial part of health reform with the revenue from new taxes on corporate foreign profits and on high-income individuals. The likely revenue from these tax changes would be much less than the official estimates because of the induced changes in taxpayer behavior that the estimators ignore.
Previous experience with changes in the marginal tax rates of high-income individuals implies that the current proposal to raise the marginal tax rate to about 50% from today’s 40% would produce only about half of the official revenue estimates. No one knows how much of the estimated extra tax revenue on foreign profits would be lost as the resulting fall in international competitiveness reduces profits, and as businesses sell their overseas subsidiaries or shift their profits in other ways.
While abandoning health reform would be an important step, it would not be enough to limit the exploding level of future deficits and debt. That requires substantial reductions in existing spending programs, if large tax increases are to be avoided. Since Medicare is the largest contributor to the explosive growth in government spending, a good way to start shrinking government outlays would be by restructuring Medicare to shift more of its costs to supplementary private insurance, perhaps on an income-related basis.
Given the perceived need for significant additional tax revenue to shrink future fiscal deficits, there is now talk in Washington of introducing a value-added tax (VAT), the kind of national sales tax that European governments use to finance their welfare states. That would be a triply bad idea. Although it is a tax on spending, a VAT effectively raises marginal tax rates. Like the income tax, it reduces the reward for work and entrepreneurship by adding a tax to the prices of all goods and services. A VAT would also be grossly unfair to those whose lifetime savings would now be subject to a new tax when they start to spend those savings.
A VAT would open the door to an explosion of new spending programs. That’s because, no matter how low the initial rate, the tax rate would be drawn inevitably to European rates of more than 15%—on top of existing income and payroll taxes.
The key to raising revenue without raising marginal tax rates or creating a new tax is to reduce or eliminate some of the “tax expenditures” that now lower tax revenue by special deductions and exclusions. Ending the current exclusion from taxable income of employer payments for health insurance would increase income tax revenue by more than $1 trillion over the next five years and nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. Eliminating this subsidy would also lead to a restructuring of private health insurance that would give patients the incentive to seek more cost-effective care and thereby bring down the overall cost of health care.
Restructuring Medicare and reforming tax rules would be politically difficult. But a failure by Congress to address the exploding path of fiscal deficits would be morally irresponsible.
Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal’s board of contributors.
Send this article to my friend(s).
Print this page.
« back to articles index
You think the Hubble is not in trouble without Shuttle? what planet are you on?
Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest most Americans value the space program. Take the example that Tyson uses in his article: the Hubble Space Telescope. Hubble has provided an unprecedented glimpse into our universe and even managed to save lives along the way (see Tyson's article for details). As Tyson points out, when Hubble's fate was in jeopardy it 2004, "the loudest voices of dissent were not those of scientists but rather those of everyday Americans."
PHOTOS: Hubble's Best Images
PHOTOS: Hubble's Best Images
USA greatest Nation on Planet---we have the most power--Use It on Terrorist/Enemy
Show our Enemies the scene from aircraft leaving Hiroshima.
Do not place troops in war zone, use air power.
We are the greatest nation on the planet. We got in this position as a result of great leadership in business & industry , the drive of the people with high values, and the form of government established in the 1700's.
Now the country is on the wrong track in many important areas.
Foreign policy---
For decades we wasted much time and treasure for what. Nothing changes in in these areas, we lost many great Americans and in a few years these countries wii revert back to the way they were. WW 2 was the exception, since then it has been pure waste. All the diplomacy, the UN, and money associated with these activities, total waste.
With technology as it is, we should stay home and use air power & surveillance to control our enemies.
Debt
We must stop printing money and get a budget. We can not do this forever.
We must eliminate waste in every department of gov and eliminate many.
Environment
We must eliminate the EPA, it is hindering our economic development, and significantly slowing business activity.
Energy
Ten thing that should be done.
Below the fold is my humble 10-point plan: Things President Obama could (but won’t) do to reduce domestic gasoline prices by November 2012.
1. Commit to a strategic goal of North American energy security. That includes reasonable and responsible domestic drilling. That includes taking the lead on the Keystone XL Pipeline; we could find a way to make it happen while addressing the legitimate environmental concerns of Nebraskans. It includes a commitment to maintaining the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and opening ANWR.
2. Ditch the anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s or the government’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling; more drilling means more future supply and lower prices. Besides, American oil companies are not owned by a cabal of wealthy executives, but by America’s pension funds, mutual funds and private investment accounts. “They” are “us”.
3. Stop targeting the oil industry for punitive tax treatment. States such as Texas and Louisiana have production tax abatement programs that have successfully encouraged new drilling. If you don’t believe that the threat of increased taxes discourages drilling, just ask Governor Perry or Governor Jindal.
4. Realize that Uncle Sam is in the energy business and is a partner in industry’s success. Oil and gas royalties are the federal government’s #2 source of revenue, after the income tax. Offshore slowdowns hurt not only industry and jobs, but government revenue.
5. Recognize that industry does not need to be led by government; industry needs to be unleashed and encouraged to innovate. The resurgence of the domestic energy sector was rooted in the private sector, not matter how much President Obama and Dr. Chu would like to take credit for it. The growth in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas happened in spite of the federal government, not because of it.
6. Trust that no oil operator wants to be the “next BP”. The BP spill cost that company something on the order of $40 billion. Industry safety and environmental commitment is motivated more out of self-interest and less out of fear of the government. When it comes to federal regulation, the nation would be better served by Sheriff Taylor, not Barney Fife.
7. Return offshore permitting to the pre-Macondo pace. Your overreaction to the BP Spill has cost on the order of 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico. The ridiculous “Worst Case Discharge” calculation as a routine part of offshore permitting is engineering malpractice, in my humble opinion. The professional staff of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is capable of reasoned regulation, but they currently operate in fear of their political masters.
8. Declare hydraulic fracturing & well design to be the regulatory domain of the states, not the EPA. Geology and environment vary widely; Pennsylvania is not Louisiana is not North Dakota is not California. It is insanity to think that one broadly-applied set of rules can be applied to regulate industry without suffocating development.
9. Rescind the recently-enacted royalty rate increase for new onshore Federal oil and gas leases. Secretary Salazar’s stated rationale for increasing the government’s take by a whopping 50% – from 12.5% to 18.75% of gross production – was to equate onshore royalties with the offshore royalty rate. That makes no sense. Higher royalties mean less drilling, poorer economics of production and premature abandonment of wells. Besides, an IHS-CERA Study recently showed that the federal government’s total take of offshore cash flows makes the Gulf of Mexico the second-most punitive fiscal regime in the world, after Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. [Update: In keeping with the First Rule of Holes, rolling back the royalty rate increase may be the first thing the government should do if it is serious about reducing energy prices. - Ed.]
10. Encourage development of a nationwide distribution system of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. Its potential as a transportation fuel has scarcely been tapped.
Bonus #11: Get real about the promise of alternative fuels. Recently you said: “You’ve got a bunch of algae out there; If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright.” Maybe so, but I will stick my neck out and say it ain’t gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime, not on a scale that will impact pump prices.
Energy policy will be a President Obama’s key vulnerability in November. His goal has always been to encourage alternative fuels by raising conventional energy prices. Alternative energy may poll well, but the average voter who fills his tank with $4+ gas on the way to the ballot box will certainly “Hope for Change”.
Borders
This is simple, control it with whatever force required
Terrorist are terrorist
We should not put up with terrorist around the world, determine where they are by various techniques and eliminate them not by ground troops but by air power.
Attacker Nidal Malik Hasan, was an enemy combatant by any definition. He was also an Army Major who had given every indication to his superiors that he wasn't to be trusted. That, in fact, he was growing hostile and plotting against America and our troops. Then, on November 5, 2009, Hasan did what he had told anyone who would listen he was going to do. He launched an assault on the men and women of Fort Hood Army Base in Kileen, Texas. He killed 12 servicemen and women, and one civilian. He wounded 30 more.
The only difference between Nidal Malik Hasan and the 9/11 hijackers was the weapon he had available. If Hasan had had a bigger gun, a dirty bomb, you name it, he would have gladly used it that harrowing day. Now the Obama Administration and the Pentagon are refusing to call this a battle zone! Why? Because Obama has bent over backwards to politically protect Muslims — even those sworn to destroy our nation.
We must right this wrong. But to collect 100,000 signatures, we must raise $250,000 by the end of the month. Will you help us reach this goal? Our success will bring honor to the men and women who suffered at the hands of an enemy of the United States. There is nothing different about this murderous attack than IEDs blowing up our brave troops in Afghanistan. And, lest we forget, when the American naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked by an enemy of our nation, 78 medals were awarded — including 16 Medals of Honor.
This wasn't "work place violence." This wasn't the action of a man angry with his co-workers or going through a bad domestic dispute. This was a premeditated act of aggression on United States' servicemen and women by a man who Army officials confirmed plotted with known anti-American radicals here and in the Middle East. This is a horrible outrage. A disrespectful spit in the face of the 42 people whose blood was spilled by a man who openly admitted his hatred against our nation. It's a shameful slap down of the families — the husbands, wives, fathers, mothers and children of the dead and wounded. I know the radical left hates our military, but this? How much pain can they inflict on the troops' legacies, onto the hearts' of the survivors and the families of these men and women?
My heart aches for the servicemen and women. My blood boils at the outrage. Please join with me today. With your help, The Center will get 100,000 Americans to take action and demand that Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Secretary of the Army, and the members of Congress redress of this deplorable action. We are preparing a full-scale mass media campaign with newspaper ads, mail, television and the internet, and I will spread the news about this project as I speak to American conservatives throughout the nation. Rather , demand their impeachment .
Do not place troops in war zone, use air power.
We are the greatest nation on the planet. We got in this position as a result of great leadership in business & industry , the drive of the people with high values, and the form of government established in the 1700's.
Now the country is on the wrong track in many important areas.
Foreign policy---
For decades we wasted much time and treasure for what. Nothing changes in in these areas, we lost many great Americans and in a few years these countries wii revert back to the way they were. WW 2 was the exception, since then it has been pure waste. All the diplomacy, the UN, and money associated with these activities, total waste.
With technology as it is, we should stay home and use air power & surveillance to control our enemies.
Debt
We must stop printing money and get a budget. We can not do this forever.
We must eliminate waste in every department of gov and eliminate many.
Environment
We must eliminate the EPA, it is hindering our economic development, and significantly slowing business activity.
Energy
Ten thing that should be done.
Below the fold is my humble 10-point plan: Things President Obama could (but won’t) do to reduce domestic gasoline prices by November 2012.
1. Commit to a strategic goal of North American energy security. That includes reasonable and responsible domestic drilling. That includes taking the lead on the Keystone XL Pipeline; we could find a way to make it happen while addressing the legitimate environmental concerns of Nebraskans. It includes a commitment to maintaining the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and opening ANWR.
2. Ditch the anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s or the government’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling; more drilling means more future supply and lower prices. Besides, American oil companies are not owned by a cabal of wealthy executives, but by America’s pension funds, mutual funds and private investment accounts. “They” are “us”.
3. Stop targeting the oil industry for punitive tax treatment. States such as Texas and Louisiana have production tax abatement programs that have successfully encouraged new drilling. If you don’t believe that the threat of increased taxes discourages drilling, just ask Governor Perry or Governor Jindal.
4. Realize that Uncle Sam is in the energy business and is a partner in industry’s success. Oil and gas royalties are the federal government’s #2 source of revenue, after the income tax. Offshore slowdowns hurt not only industry and jobs, but government revenue.
5. Recognize that industry does not need to be led by government; industry needs to be unleashed and encouraged to innovate. The resurgence of the domestic energy sector was rooted in the private sector, not matter how much President Obama and Dr. Chu would like to take credit for it. The growth in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas happened in spite of the federal government, not because of it.
6. Trust that no oil operator wants to be the “next BP”. The BP spill cost that company something on the order of $40 billion. Industry safety and environmental commitment is motivated more out of self-interest and less out of fear of the government. When it comes to federal regulation, the nation would be better served by Sheriff Taylor, not Barney Fife.
7. Return offshore permitting to the pre-Macondo pace. Your overreaction to the BP Spill has cost on the order of 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico. The ridiculous “Worst Case Discharge” calculation as a routine part of offshore permitting is engineering malpractice, in my humble opinion. The professional staff of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is capable of reasoned regulation, but they currently operate in fear of their political masters.
8. Declare hydraulic fracturing & well design to be the regulatory domain of the states, not the EPA. Geology and environment vary widely; Pennsylvania is not Louisiana is not North Dakota is not California. It is insanity to think that one broadly-applied set of rules can be applied to regulate industry without suffocating development.
9. Rescind the recently-enacted royalty rate increase for new onshore Federal oil and gas leases. Secretary Salazar’s stated rationale for increasing the government’s take by a whopping 50% – from 12.5% to 18.75% of gross production – was to equate onshore royalties with the offshore royalty rate. That makes no sense. Higher royalties mean less drilling, poorer economics of production and premature abandonment of wells. Besides, an IHS-CERA Study recently showed that the federal government’s total take of offshore cash flows makes the Gulf of Mexico the second-most punitive fiscal regime in the world, after Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. [Update: In keeping with the First Rule of Holes, rolling back the royalty rate increase may be the first thing the government should do if it is serious about reducing energy prices. - Ed.]
10. Encourage development of a nationwide distribution system of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. Its potential as a transportation fuel has scarcely been tapped.
Bonus #11: Get real about the promise of alternative fuels. Recently you said: “You’ve got a bunch of algae out there; If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright.” Maybe so, but I will stick my neck out and say it ain’t gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime, not on a scale that will impact pump prices.
Energy policy will be a President Obama’s key vulnerability in November. His goal has always been to encourage alternative fuels by raising conventional energy prices. Alternative energy may poll well, but the average voter who fills his tank with $4+ gas on the way to the ballot box will certainly “Hope for Change”.
Borders
This is simple, control it with whatever force required
Terrorist are terrorist
We should not put up with terrorist around the world, determine where they are by various techniques and eliminate them not by ground troops but by air power.
Attacker Nidal Malik Hasan, was an enemy combatant by any definition. He was also an Army Major who had given every indication to his superiors that he wasn't to be trusted. That, in fact, he was growing hostile and plotting against America and our troops. Then, on November 5, 2009, Hasan did what he had told anyone who would listen he was going to do. He launched an assault on the men and women of Fort Hood Army Base in Kileen, Texas. He killed 12 servicemen and women, and one civilian. He wounded 30 more.
The only difference between Nidal Malik Hasan and the 9/11 hijackers was the weapon he had available. If Hasan had had a bigger gun, a dirty bomb, you name it, he would have gladly used it that harrowing day. Now the Obama Administration and the Pentagon are refusing to call this a battle zone! Why? Because Obama has bent over backwards to politically protect Muslims — even those sworn to destroy our nation.
We must right this wrong. But to collect 100,000 signatures, we must raise $250,000 by the end of the month. Will you help us reach this goal? Our success will bring honor to the men and women who suffered at the hands of an enemy of the United States. There is nothing different about this murderous attack than IEDs blowing up our brave troops in Afghanistan. And, lest we forget, when the American naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked by an enemy of our nation, 78 medals were awarded — including 16 Medals of Honor.
This wasn't "work place violence." This wasn't the action of a man angry with his co-workers or going through a bad domestic dispute. This was a premeditated act of aggression on United States' servicemen and women by a man who Army officials confirmed plotted with known anti-American radicals here and in the Middle East. This is a horrible outrage. A disrespectful spit in the face of the 42 people whose blood was spilled by a man who openly admitted his hatred against our nation. It's a shameful slap down of the families — the husbands, wives, fathers, mothers and children of the dead and wounded. I know the radical left hates our military, but this? How much pain can they inflict on the troops' legacies, onto the hearts' of the survivors and the families of these men and women?
My heart aches for the servicemen and women. My blood boils at the outrage. Please join with me today. With your help, The Center will get 100,000 Americans to take action and demand that Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Secretary of the Army, and the members of Congress redress of this deplorable action. We are preparing a full-scale mass media campaign with newspaper ads, mail, television and the internet, and I will spread the news about this project as I speak to American conservatives throughout the nation. Rather , demand their impeachment .
A Challenge----good luck----Shuttle in Museum
A Challenge To Unite
Rick Tumlinson - Space News (Opinion)
(Tumlinson is an entrepreneur, writer and consultant in the space industry)
It’s been a couple of weeks since the NASA budget came out and fingers are still pointing as to who screwed up where, whose program ate what budget and why, and why is mine being singled out while yours is being kept alive? Meanwhile, in partial answer to that question, congressional staffers and their bosses are madly walking the halls, working to get this or that “must have for our national future in space” local jobs program funded or refunded, and the lobbyists are out in full force, fanning out to make sure their bosses make good money off our dreams.
Those convinced the administration of President Barack Obama is killing the space program as they knew it gather around opposition candidates in hopes they will get back into power, as NASA centers and directors keep their old Constellation, Ares and Orion brochures out and on display, awaiting the good ol’ days when the idea of circumnavigating the Moon a la Apollo 8 some 50 years after it was done the first time was sufficient to keep the job force growing and cash flowing.
Meanwhile, the president still hasn’t laid out a compelling vision or rationale for the changes he made, corrected his mistake of dissing the Moon, set a compelling organizing goal around which the troops from all sides can rally or put a strong general in place to lead the charge. I’m sorry, but a possible visitation of an asteroid sometime in the future for this or that available reason just isn’t good enough.
And wrapping either approach in the illusion that it might on some safely distant day lead to what will inevitably be another set of abandoned flags and footprints on Mars is disingenuous, pathetically uninspiring and not a worthy challenge to a great nation such as ours.
America is at a moment of national self-doubt and transition, facing a possible shift in world leadership and a technological and economic race of global proportions, in some cases led by those who do not share our belief in freedom and liberty. Wimpy won’t do.
Sound familiar? It was the same in 1962. Faced with the rise of the Soviet Union as a world power, a military, scientific and industrial base in need of a positive focus, a generation of children being bombarded by images of fear through the new tech of TV, a president who recognized that a bold initiative, a clear mission within challenging parameters, reachable yet hard, with clear milestones and an unambiguous and symbolically powerful goal, stepped up and dared us to step outward beyond what was safe and do the unimaginable.
We are there again. The threats and problems we face today are the same. And although the tools, the team and the technologies today are different, they not only can achieve the same level of symbolic victory but can surpass it, as we rightly ought to be able to do some 50 years later.
We need someone to step up again, point to the reality of what the people of this nation can do and aim us, challenge us, to do something beyond our reach, do it right and do it faster than we think we can. To do something that acknowledges and builds on our national strengths, captures the spirit of the age and draws together the widest possible constituency of Americans to take on a challenge that is hard yet symbolic, tough yet achievable, and will inspire new generations to emulate a new wave of heroes.
The team we have this time is broader than the last.
We have a space agency desperately in need of purpose, whose employees and capabilities have been wasted for decades on make-work projects and dead-end PowerPoint pioneering placebos designed to do nothing more than keep the billing high. An agency that if challenged and given clear orders and the right job as the leading edge of a new wave of human exploration beyond low Earth orbit could and would rise to the heights of its capabilities.
We have an industrial base — one that if made to take orders rather than being allowed in the vacuum of leadership to create them, if enabled by the elimination of cost-plus contracting to produce and achieve rather than waste and receive, could make something worth the cost rather than making work that costs us our dreams. An industry that if overseen by customers and managers more interested in opening an airlock to space than passing through a rotating door to a comfortable job lobbying for more could produce something worth paying for.
And we have a new generation, raised on the ability to move quickly, communicate instantly, develop, try and discard that which does not work while in the same moment creating that which does. A generation raised on the technologies of the first conquest of space and yet clean of the taint of its subsequent failure to hold the ground it had achieved. A generation that is ready, willing and able to step up and step out, already building its own rocketships, staffed by eager new minds who almost believe it a given they will be living in space in their lifetimes.
It is time to bring these cultures together. By reigniting the exploration role of our government Lewises and Clarks within and enabled by the infrastructure and economic drive of commercial space and the people themselves, this nation can rise to heights unimaginable. Together we can achieve something of proportions that will not just be the stuff of someday stories, but the reality of a new realm of human civilization.
In this moment of what may appear to be lost direction, we must make the decision that any direction we go is based on a shared goal, a shared set of values and a shared vision of the desired outcome. When it comes to human spaceflight, that shared goal must be settlement.
It is time to declare that the goal of the United States in space is the settlement of the solar system, from low Earth orbit to the Moon and Mars.
It is time for all of us, in all of the sectors, segments and societies that make up this grand movement, to agree on this one core and simple goal — the purpose of human space exploration is human space development and settlement. Not just exploration but including exploration, not just technology development but including development, not just jobs but including and creating innumerable jobs, not just national prestige but advancing the ideals of this great nation and making it clear to all that the high ground belongs to the free — because we will be living there.
My words are strong and my rhetoric perhaps over the top for some. But the reality is that this can be done. This is the moment for it to be done. And clear and simple plans already exist to show how it must be done.
So let’s do it.
Luna 2020. Phobos 2025. Mars 2030.
Permanence all the way and forever.
This time we don’t go to play.
This time we go all the way.
This time we go to stay.
Rick Tumlinson - Space News (Opinion)
(Tumlinson is an entrepreneur, writer and consultant in the space industry)
It’s been a couple of weeks since the NASA budget came out and fingers are still pointing as to who screwed up where, whose program ate what budget and why, and why is mine being singled out while yours is being kept alive? Meanwhile, in partial answer to that question, congressional staffers and their bosses are madly walking the halls, working to get this or that “must have for our national future in space” local jobs program funded or refunded, and the lobbyists are out in full force, fanning out to make sure their bosses make good money off our dreams.
Those convinced the administration of President Barack Obama is killing the space program as they knew it gather around opposition candidates in hopes they will get back into power, as NASA centers and directors keep their old Constellation, Ares and Orion brochures out and on display, awaiting the good ol’ days when the idea of circumnavigating the Moon a la Apollo 8 some 50 years after it was done the first time was sufficient to keep the job force growing and cash flowing.
Meanwhile, the president still hasn’t laid out a compelling vision or rationale for the changes he made, corrected his mistake of dissing the Moon, set a compelling organizing goal around which the troops from all sides can rally or put a strong general in place to lead the charge. I’m sorry, but a possible visitation of an asteroid sometime in the future for this or that available reason just isn’t good enough.
And wrapping either approach in the illusion that it might on some safely distant day lead to what will inevitably be another set of abandoned flags and footprints on Mars is disingenuous, pathetically uninspiring and not a worthy challenge to a great nation such as ours.
America is at a moment of national self-doubt and transition, facing a possible shift in world leadership and a technological and economic race of global proportions, in some cases led by those who do not share our belief in freedom and liberty. Wimpy won’t do.
Sound familiar? It was the same in 1962. Faced with the rise of the Soviet Union as a world power, a military, scientific and industrial base in need of a positive focus, a generation of children being bombarded by images of fear through the new tech of TV, a president who recognized that a bold initiative, a clear mission within challenging parameters, reachable yet hard, with clear milestones and an unambiguous and symbolically powerful goal, stepped up and dared us to step outward beyond what was safe and do the unimaginable.
We are there again. The threats and problems we face today are the same. And although the tools, the team and the technologies today are different, they not only can achieve the same level of symbolic victory but can surpass it, as we rightly ought to be able to do some 50 years later.
We need someone to step up again, point to the reality of what the people of this nation can do and aim us, challenge us, to do something beyond our reach, do it right and do it faster than we think we can. To do something that acknowledges and builds on our national strengths, captures the spirit of the age and draws together the widest possible constituency of Americans to take on a challenge that is hard yet symbolic, tough yet achievable, and will inspire new generations to emulate a new wave of heroes.
The team we have this time is broader than the last.
We have a space agency desperately in need of purpose, whose employees and capabilities have been wasted for decades on make-work projects and dead-end PowerPoint pioneering placebos designed to do nothing more than keep the billing high. An agency that if challenged and given clear orders and the right job as the leading edge of a new wave of human exploration beyond low Earth orbit could and would rise to the heights of its capabilities.
We have an industrial base — one that if made to take orders rather than being allowed in the vacuum of leadership to create them, if enabled by the elimination of cost-plus contracting to produce and achieve rather than waste and receive, could make something worth the cost rather than making work that costs us our dreams. An industry that if overseen by customers and managers more interested in opening an airlock to space than passing through a rotating door to a comfortable job lobbying for more could produce something worth paying for.
And we have a new generation, raised on the ability to move quickly, communicate instantly, develop, try and discard that which does not work while in the same moment creating that which does. A generation raised on the technologies of the first conquest of space and yet clean of the taint of its subsequent failure to hold the ground it had achieved. A generation that is ready, willing and able to step up and step out, already building its own rocketships, staffed by eager new minds who almost believe it a given they will be living in space in their lifetimes.
It is time to bring these cultures together. By reigniting the exploration role of our government Lewises and Clarks within and enabled by the infrastructure and economic drive of commercial space and the people themselves, this nation can rise to heights unimaginable. Together we can achieve something of proportions that will not just be the stuff of someday stories, but the reality of a new realm of human civilization.
In this moment of what may appear to be lost direction, we must make the decision that any direction we go is based on a shared goal, a shared set of values and a shared vision of the desired outcome. When it comes to human spaceflight, that shared goal must be settlement.
It is time to declare that the goal of the United States in space is the settlement of the solar system, from low Earth orbit to the Moon and Mars.
It is time for all of us, in all of the sectors, segments and societies that make up this grand movement, to agree on this one core and simple goal — the purpose of human space exploration is human space development and settlement. Not just exploration but including exploration, not just technology development but including development, not just jobs but including and creating innumerable jobs, not just national prestige but advancing the ideals of this great nation and making it clear to all that the high ground belongs to the free — because we will be living there.
My words are strong and my rhetoric perhaps over the top for some. But the reality is that this can be done. This is the moment for it to be done. And clear and simple plans already exist to show how it must be done.
So let’s do it.
Luna 2020. Phobos 2025. Mars 2030.
Permanence all the way and forever.
This time we don’t go to play.
This time we go all the way.
This time we go to stay.
Bet they listen to Texas---like they did on Shuttle
Texans tell NASA: Don’t close key research facility at Houston’s JSC
Houston Chronicle's Texas on the Potomac
Texans in the House – Republicans and Democrats alike – are fighting NASA’s plan to close down a test facility at Houston’s Johnson Space Center that’s used to assess the impact of re-entry on spacecraft materials and structures. Twenty-seven House members from Texas – and three colleagues from districts with ties to NASA in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida – made their pitch in a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden. The letter, put together by Rep. Pete Olson, a Republican whose Sugar Land district includes JSC, asks NASA too “reconsider this decision and immediately suspend any further actions to close or take the JSC `arc-jet’ facility offline until we have an opportunity to fully review” the decision.
NASA Scientist Wins Free Space Trip on Rocket
Houston Chronicle's Texas on the Potomac
Texans in the House – Republicans and Democrats alike – are fighting NASA’s plan to close down a test facility at Houston’s Johnson Space Center that’s used to assess the impact of re-entry on spacecraft materials and structures. Twenty-seven House members from Texas – and three colleagues from districts with ties to NASA in Mississippi, Alabama and Florida – made their pitch in a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden. The letter, put together by Rep. Pete Olson, a Republican whose Sugar Land district includes JSC, asks NASA too “reconsider this decision and immediately suspend any further actions to close or take the JSC `arc-jet’ facility offline until we have an opportunity to fully review” the decision.
NASA Scientist Wins Free Space Trip on Rocket
Monday, February 27, 2012
Mars supporters see red
Save Webb, Cut Mars - Then Save Mars, Cut Outer Planets
By Keith Cowing on February 26, 2012 1:07 PM. 13 Comments
Mars, Europa missions battle for scarce NASA funding, SpaceflightNow
"NASA's statements about resuming Mars missions later this decade irked some scientists promoting voyages to the outer planets, who said that if the flagship Mars rover was canceled, the decadal survey explicitly prioritized a Europa mission over other, less-ambitious Mars projects.
A mission to closely observe Europa has been on scientists' wish list for more than a decade."
NASA Raids Outer Planets Budget To Fund Fast Start on Mars Reboot, SpaceNews
"Meanwhile, with the funding changes described in the operating plan, NASA will now be spending only $9 million on outer planets programs in 2012. Those funds will all go toward studies for missions to the planetary science community's highest-priority outer-solar-system destinations: Jupiter's icy moon Europa, the gas giant Uranus and faraway Neptune. A concept study for a mission to Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons, is planned for 2013."
Categories: Space & Planetary Science
By Keith Cowing on February 26, 2012 1:07 PM. 13 Comments
Mars, Europa missions battle for scarce NASA funding, SpaceflightNow
"NASA's statements about resuming Mars missions later this decade irked some scientists promoting voyages to the outer planets, who said that if the flagship Mars rover was canceled, the decadal survey explicitly prioritized a Europa mission over other, less-ambitious Mars projects.
A mission to closely observe Europa has been on scientists' wish list for more than a decade."
NASA Raids Outer Planets Budget To Fund Fast Start on Mars Reboot, SpaceNews
"Meanwhile, with the funding changes described in the operating plan, NASA will now be spending only $9 million on outer planets programs in 2012. Those funds will all go toward studies for missions to the planetary science community's highest-priority outer-solar-system destinations: Jupiter's icy moon Europa, the gas giant Uranus and faraway Neptune. A concept study for a mission to Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons, is planned for 2013."
Categories: Space & Planetary Science
Better for earth's environment for USA to produce more.
USA has better environmental controls over energy production than rest of world. Obama by his actions causing more world pollution. Bho screws up, hurts world environment even when he thinks he is helping by limiting USA oil production!!
We (USA) have the Power---bring troops home--save money
We ( USA) have the power---bring troops home-- save money
Lots of people of various religions hate America for whatever reasons. We can never make them like us. If we unilaterally disarm we are just inviting them to take over America. It will never change, no matter what we do. Therefore we must cease wasting money on UN, foreign aid, diplomacy , etc. We must simply use our great capability in airpower and surveillance to prevent the people from bothering us. We should minimize our military exposure. We should stop fooling ourselves, we are never going to correct the problems of the world, even if we had plenty of money, and we don't so we should stop our foolish attempts. Look at history, it totally supports the above. Furthermore we can't afford the present policy -- been going on for decades.
Lots of people of various religions hate America for whatever reasons. We can never make them like us. If we unilaterally disarm we are just inviting them to take over America. It will never change, no matter what we do. Therefore we must cease wasting money on UN, foreign aid, diplomacy , etc. We must simply use our great capability in airpower and surveillance to prevent the people from bothering us. We should minimize our military exposure. We should stop fooling ourselves, we are never going to correct the problems of the world, even if we had plenty of money, and we don't so we should stop our foolish attempts. Look at history, it totally supports the above. Furthermore we can't afford the present policy -- been going on for decades.
Bho oil lie----credit Gerri Willis
2 percent oil reserves ----use 20 percent of world oil.
If you factor in all sources, USA has 7 to 15 times the 2 percent reserve -- enough for 240 years.
Presently adm won't let us drill in anwar, offshore, use shale in Colorado, or build refeneries, build nuclear plants , expand natural gas utilization on motor vehicles.
Face it the man is a liar. The show segment was entitled obama oil lie.
If you factor in all sources, USA has 7 to 15 times the 2 percent reserve -- enough for 240 years.
Presently adm won't let us drill in anwar, offshore, use shale in Colorado, or build refeneries, build nuclear plants , expand natural gas utilization on motor vehicles.
Face it the man is a liar. The show segment was entitled obama oil lie.
Game playing by insincere , hypocritical liars
bho
For all the above energy sources---really for none of the above.
Fossil derived fuel. 86 percent
Green. < 1 percent
With all the effort on green derived energy, why isn't percentage greater. TECHNOLOGY ISN'T THERE. Simple as that.
This country needs more coal, oil, oil from shale, natural gas. It is a great source of energy. This administration should encourage the production and use of more coal, oil, oil from shale, natural gas, but the adm is anti fossil fuel and the fact they are pushing green energy illustrates they don't have a clue--86 percent of energy is fossil fuel derived, green is less than 1 percent. The reason why green is not greater is because the technology will not support it. Can't tell me the the renown physicist dr. Chu does not understand this, he is just " playing a game" which means he is insincere just like Bho.
Nuclear will have to fill the gap. Chu supposedly supports nuclear but not much is happening--more game playing.
about an hour ago ·
For all the above energy sources---really for none of the above.
Fossil derived fuel. 86 percent
Green. < 1 percent
With all the effort on green derived energy, why isn't percentage greater. TECHNOLOGY ISN'T THERE. Simple as that.
This country needs more coal, oil, oil from shale, natural gas. It is a great source of energy. This administration should encourage the production and use of more coal, oil, oil from shale, natural gas, but the adm is anti fossil fuel and the fact they are pushing green energy illustrates they don't have a clue--86 percent of energy is fossil fuel derived, green is less than 1 percent. The reason why green is not greater is because the technology will not support it. Can't tell me the the renown physicist dr. Chu does not understand this, he is just " playing a game" which means he is insincere just like Bho.
Nuclear will have to fill the gap. Chu supposedly supports nuclear but not much is happening--more game playing.
about an hour ago ·
Show them (musulim terrorist) a scene from Hiroshima -- Chu is a renown Physicist, makes you wonder how renown is defined.
For the musulim terriost we need to show them scene from the aircraft that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. We have the power and should use it and stop playing games and stop the unnecessary death & injury to our troops.
Even a idiot or the dumbest of the dumb can figure out that without a technological breakthrough green can not supply the needed energy--86 percent of energy used is FF, less than 1 percent is green.
Chu supports nuclear energy, speak out on that, show us some progress. Bho doesn't want to-- Chu --why don't you resign or speak out about how with present technology green will not work.
You are such a brilliant person, let us see some evidence of it.
Even a idiot or the dumbest of the dumb can figure out that without a technological breakthrough green can not supply the needed energy--86 percent of energy used is FF, less than 1 percent is green.
Chu supports nuclear energy, speak out on that, show us some progress. Bho doesn't want to-- Chu --why don't you resign or speak out about how with present technology green will not work.
You are such a brilliant person, let us see some evidence of it.
Stop the Stupid Games--We Have the Power
Use our air power as appropriate. Bring troops home. Stop wasting money on diplomats and associated travel. Put these people to work in oil drilling. Get the idiots out of DC.
Spread the word. Wake up America.
Spread the word. Wake up America.
Bho puts future economic development in jeopardy with anti Fossil Fuel Approach
Bho putting future economic recovery in jeopardy by anti FF approach. Look at his anti fossil fuel initiatives. Look at EPA anti FF rules. Look at wastes on unfeasible green approaches. America, for good of country---make change in Nov. spread the word---get involved.
On the Early Retirement of Shuttle
On the Early Retirement of the Space Shuttle
File image.
by George W. Jeffs
for Launchspace
Bethesda MD (SPX) May 17, 2011
A Symbol: An in-space ballerina and hypersonic flying marvel, the Space Shuttle Orbiter is almost impossible for others to duplicate and continues to generate international admiration and respect for U.S. technical capabilities.
Full Potential Not Yet Realized: The multi-functional Orbiter has performed “as designed” on all assignments including reentry and a key role in the International Space Station (ISS) assembly. Like any new manned system, as crews and engineers become more familiar (like a helicopter) performance “in the box” improves and extending-the-box opportunities are identified. So far the Orbiter has operated generally within the box.
Too Young For Retirement: Each remaining Orbiter has many missions and years of life remaining. The Orbiter was designed for a one hundred mission life with a factor of four (i.e. 400 flight potential). It has experienced low flight rates and has not been structurally overloaded (maximum loads occur during the boost phase and high wind shear situations have been avoided through pre-flight meteorological observations) and receives a complete examination and any necessary refurbishment between each flight.
The System is Safe for Continued Man Flights: No critical failures have originated from within the triply redundant Orbiter itself but like any spacecraft designed for light-weight, it is vulnerable to abuse (e.g. SRB O rings, ET insulation debris); these are now known and addressable problems. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME)s were my principal safety concern through the development years but their flight record has been excellent and it may be that the integrity of recovered, refurbished rocket engines is as good as or even better than new ones. Some rocket engine incipient failures may lie undetected in ocean graves.
Real Usability Through “Landing With Dignity”: Turnaround man hours are costly for the Orbiter, not the least demanding being the heat shield preparation and changes are continually being made to improve the situation. Even so, this relatively light-weight, first generation radiant heat shield is itself reusable and obviates having to pay for a new vehicle and other ancillary costs such as ocean recovery for every flight. Note: In depth reviews of “flown” Apollo command modules concluded that second flights of the hardware would be too costly at that time.
New Space Initiatives Depend On The Orbiter For Identification and Pursuit: The on-orbit assembly option for a deep space manned system became more viable upon completion of the International Space Station (ISS) using the Orbiter. An “Orbiter” segment of a deep space system would be used in assembly activities, on-orbit transfers, tug functions and most importantly for the crew Earth-to-orbit and orbit-to-Earth transfer. Reliance on an Orbiter for re-entry would eliminate configuration constraints on size and shape and the weight of items such as parachutes, heat shields and landing impact structure and the energy needed to transport this otherwise useless added weight throughout the entire deep space mission. This approach essentially would trade-off these advantages against the development of an additional propulsion module for return from deep space to high/low Earth orbit. The present Orbiter would be a key mechanism in the early development of such an on-orbit assembled system.
The Shuttle Continues to Be An Intriguing Candidate For “Commercialization”: The system is presently operational. Its payload-to-orbit delivery and other capabilities are well documented. Its risks are known and assessable for payload insurance and crew-safety considerations and industrial elements are already doing much of the work in many areas. Bailing, leasing and/or other type of agreement for use of government equipment (Orbiters, pads, control centers, etc.) is probably feasible in some arrangement. Needed is an industry, NASA-government, Congressional meeting of the minds on all related elements including government flight requirements, (e.g. ISS servicing) and commercial pricing policies. If such a government hand-off to industry could be affected it would, of course, keep the Shuttle Program available for another decade or two should presently unforeseen government needs arise (even today it would be most helpful to have Apollo supply and rescue vehicles that serviced Skylab available for use on the ISS).
U. S. Taxpayers Have Not Yet Realized Their Full Return-on-Investment (ROI) From the Shuttle System:
+ It really works; it is not just a briefing chart promise.
+ It has much life remaining and could be the key to the identification and development of new systems.
+ It is man-rated and safe–probably as safe as any manned system will be-no others will get over one hundred flights down the learning curve.
+ The infrastructure is in place and operational and has provided industry through extensive, hands-on participation with the depth of training necessary to assume total system accountability.
+ To replace the Orbiter capabilities will take decades and billions.
Decommissioning the Space Shuttle should be postponed indefinitely.
George W. Jeffs is the former President of Space and Energy Operations [including Shuttle Orbiter, Integration and Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs)] at Rockwell International. He is also the former President of the Space Division, North American Aviation-Rockwell International [including Apollo Command and Service Modules and the Space Shuttle Orbiter]. He is also a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot with multiengine and instrument ratings.
Share This Article With Planet Earth
del.icio.us Digg Reddit
YahooMyWeb Google Facebook
Related Links
Launchspace
Space Analysis and Space OpEds
Search All Our Sites – Powered By Google
Building a Heavenly Palace in outer space
Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Apr 29, 2011
China’s permanent space station, the Heavenly Palace, is to be launched into orbit within a decade. According to Chinese media reports, the 60-ton craft will include a central module and two laboratories, for a crew of three. So, it’s really more like a country cottage than a palace. This all-Chinese project was unveiled earlier this week in the capital, Beijing. To the public at home, the … read more
File image.
by George W. Jeffs
for Launchspace
Bethesda MD (SPX) May 17, 2011
A Symbol: An in-space ballerina and hypersonic flying marvel, the Space Shuttle Orbiter is almost impossible for others to duplicate and continues to generate international admiration and respect for U.S. technical capabilities.
Full Potential Not Yet Realized: The multi-functional Orbiter has performed “as designed” on all assignments including reentry and a key role in the International Space Station (ISS) assembly. Like any new manned system, as crews and engineers become more familiar (like a helicopter) performance “in the box” improves and extending-the-box opportunities are identified. So far the Orbiter has operated generally within the box.
Too Young For Retirement: Each remaining Orbiter has many missions and years of life remaining. The Orbiter was designed for a one hundred mission life with a factor of four (i.e. 400 flight potential). It has experienced low flight rates and has not been structurally overloaded (maximum loads occur during the boost phase and high wind shear situations have been avoided through pre-flight meteorological observations) and receives a complete examination and any necessary refurbishment between each flight.
The System is Safe for Continued Man Flights: No critical failures have originated from within the triply redundant Orbiter itself but like any spacecraft designed for light-weight, it is vulnerable to abuse (e.g. SRB O rings, ET insulation debris); these are now known and addressable problems. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME)s were my principal safety concern through the development years but their flight record has been excellent and it may be that the integrity of recovered, refurbished rocket engines is as good as or even better than new ones. Some rocket engine incipient failures may lie undetected in ocean graves.
Real Usability Through “Landing With Dignity”: Turnaround man hours are costly for the Orbiter, not the least demanding being the heat shield preparation and changes are continually being made to improve the situation. Even so, this relatively light-weight, first generation radiant heat shield is itself reusable and obviates having to pay for a new vehicle and other ancillary costs such as ocean recovery for every flight. Note: In depth reviews of “flown” Apollo command modules concluded that second flights of the hardware would be too costly at that time.
New Space Initiatives Depend On The Orbiter For Identification and Pursuit: The on-orbit assembly option for a deep space manned system became more viable upon completion of the International Space Station (ISS) using the Orbiter. An “Orbiter” segment of a deep space system would be used in assembly activities, on-orbit transfers, tug functions and most importantly for the crew Earth-to-orbit and orbit-to-Earth transfer. Reliance on an Orbiter for re-entry would eliminate configuration constraints on size and shape and the weight of items such as parachutes, heat shields and landing impact structure and the energy needed to transport this otherwise useless added weight throughout the entire deep space mission. This approach essentially would trade-off these advantages against the development of an additional propulsion module for return from deep space to high/low Earth orbit. The present Orbiter would be a key mechanism in the early development of such an on-orbit assembled system.
The Shuttle Continues to Be An Intriguing Candidate For “Commercialization”: The system is presently operational. Its payload-to-orbit delivery and other capabilities are well documented. Its risks are known and assessable for payload insurance and crew-safety considerations and industrial elements are already doing much of the work in many areas. Bailing, leasing and/or other type of agreement for use of government equipment (Orbiters, pads, control centers, etc.) is probably feasible in some arrangement. Needed is an industry, NASA-government, Congressional meeting of the minds on all related elements including government flight requirements, (e.g. ISS servicing) and commercial pricing policies. If such a government hand-off to industry could be affected it would, of course, keep the Shuttle Program available for another decade or two should presently unforeseen government needs arise (even today it would be most helpful to have Apollo supply and rescue vehicles that serviced Skylab available for use on the ISS).
U. S. Taxpayers Have Not Yet Realized Their Full Return-on-Investment (ROI) From the Shuttle System:
+ It really works; it is not just a briefing chart promise.
+ It has much life remaining and could be the key to the identification and development of new systems.
+ It is man-rated and safe–probably as safe as any manned system will be-no others will get over one hundred flights down the learning curve.
+ The infrastructure is in place and operational and has provided industry through extensive, hands-on participation with the depth of training necessary to assume total system accountability.
+ To replace the Orbiter capabilities will take decades and billions.
Decommissioning the Space Shuttle should be postponed indefinitely.
George W. Jeffs is the former President of Space and Energy Operations [including Shuttle Orbiter, Integration and Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs)] at Rockwell International. He is also the former President of the Space Division, North American Aviation-Rockwell International [including Apollo Command and Service Modules and the Space Shuttle Orbiter]. He is also a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot with multiengine and instrument ratings.
Share This Article With Planet Earth
del.icio.us Digg Reddit
YahooMyWeb Google Facebook
Related Links
Launchspace
Space Analysis and Space OpEds
Search All Our Sites – Powered By Google
Building a Heavenly Palace in outer space
Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Apr 29, 2011
China’s permanent space station, the Heavenly Palace, is to be launched into orbit within a decade. According to Chinese media reports, the 60-ton craft will include a central module and two laboratories, for a crew of three. So, it’s really more like a country cottage than a palace. This all-Chinese project was unveiled earlier this week in the capital, Beijing. To the public at home, the … read more
When are we going to start----it always takes years to reap benefits, drilling , etc
When are we going to get started on:
1. Drilling in more areas
2. Using more coal
3. Using shale
4. Developing & using natural gas
5. Building more refineries
6. Eliminate EPA rules inhibiting fossil fuel derived fuel usage
7. Tax credits for natural gas on vehicles.
8. Get cheap Iraq oil per trump for saving them
1. Drilling in more areas
2. Using more coal
3. Using shale
4. Developing & using natural gas
5. Building more refineries
6. Eliminate EPA rules inhibiting fossil fuel derived fuel usage
7. Tax credits for natural gas on vehicles.
8. Get cheap Iraq oil per trump for saving them
We (USA) have the POWER---Stop endangering our troops, stop diplomatic WASTE.
The USA should not be putting troops in jeopardy around the world. We have the capability via air power to teach those who need a lesson without endangering our troops. This diplomatic crap is a big waste, USA should get out of UN. Reduce our foreign aid to 1000 dollars per country, eliminate all diplomats and diplomatic travel, save money. Lord knows we need to do that.
As Rush just said--bring the troops home and get the HELL out of there.
As Rush just said--bring the troops home and get the HELL out of there.
Chu strongly opposes fossil fuel---86 percent of energy from FF ---less than 1 percent from green---TALK ABOUT DUMB.
> HOME > GREEN
Obama's Choice to Head U.S. Department of Energy Is a Big Proponent of Biofuels
By SCOTT DOGGETT December 11, 2008
Comments (0)
By John O'Dell and Scott Doggett
Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to head the Energy Department, has been a strong advocate of alternative fuels and a vociferous opponent of fossil fuels -- foreign oil in particular -- for years.
Most recently, the scientific interests of the 60-year-old Nobel laureate and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have centered on energy and finding ways to replace fossil fuels with other energy sources such as biofuels from plants.
But Chu seems to be at odds with Obama on the role of corn-based ethanol in America's future. The domestic ethanol industry had a huge friend in Obama for most of the past year, while Chu has never been a friend to corn-ethanol producers.
On a segment on PBS' The News Hour last year, Chu said "corn, at best, is a transition crop, but very quickly we want to transition away from corn to a grass that requires far less land for the amount of fuel, far less fertilizer, far less water."
Chu sees tremendous promise in other biofuels, particularly biofuels that would propel automobiles. In an interview with an Australian radio personality last year, he said transportation fuel is the most valuable form of energy we have -- even when that fuel is electricity.
"If you had an electric plug-in hybrid, how much would it cost to plug that car in and run around for 100 miles? It's something at the level of one-quarter the cost of filling up with gasoline," he said, which makes electric-powered cars sound much more economical than gas-powered.
But, he said, "electricity is pretty expensive compared to natural gas. If you heat your home with electricity versus natural gas ... well, you shouldn't be heating your home with electricity because there's a factor of two or three difference.
"And so you go down this pecking order and you realize that putting energy into a gas tank is very costly, and in fact the United States in 2005 spent roughly $250 billion importing fossil fuel into the United States. Let me put that into perspective: We had a deficit of $750 billion, it's a huge deficit, and if you compare that to the deficit it's one-third. So the need to get an alternate supply of transportation fuel is very pressing."
That's where biofuels come in.
"Somewhere between one-third of all gasoline to all of all gasoline can be replaced by biomass grown in the United States on excess land. This does not mean mowing down forests and pristine forests," he said. "This is excess agricultural capacity, and so that's what gets everybody excited."
One of Chu's more interesting ideas is development of an "artificial plant" that would mimic nature and convert water to hydrogen and oxygen naturally while scrubbing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
He floated the idea in a speech he gave in September 2007 at a Meeting of the Minds session in Oakland.
The event's organizer, San Francisco-based Urban Age Institute, has provided Green Car Advisor with a 57-minute video of Chu's speech, which focused on alternative transportation fuels, and the question-and-answer session with the audience that followed.
The artificial plant idea comes up in a segment that starts 30 minutes and 35 seconds into the video (for those of you who don't want to listen to the rest - although we suggest you do).
In his speech, Chu also expresses hopes for development of cellulosic ethanol and powerful batteries that can handle the deep discharge cycles demanded of an electric vehicle battery pack.
He starts his Meeting of the Minds speech with a short and depressing look at our dwindling water supplies, and seems to say, 9 minutes and 51 seconds into his talk, that he's not a big fan of hydrogen as a transportation fuel unless we can use nuclear energy or other carbon-neutral energy sources to break the hydrogen atoms out of water, a process that requires a tremendous amount of electricity.
The natural gas and coal that we now use to produce most of the nation's electricity, he says, "have a very high carbon emission, in fact, it would be higher than burning gasoline."
Scott Doggett: is an AutoObserver.com Associate Editor.
You might also like:
Dreams Count, Size Doesn't
China Appears Poised To Dump Support For EVs
Doors Open This Week On New-Look Tokyo Motor Show
Rear-Seat Passengers Say No to Seatbelts
2012 Honda CR-V Concept Reveals Sculpted Update
LinkWithin
LEAVE A COMMENT
Click here to comment on this entry.
COMMENTARY MENU
VIDEO
FILTER BY AUTHOR:
JEREMY ANWYL
MICHELLE KREBS
JOHN O'DELL
LACEY PLACHE
PAUL SEREDYNSKI
BILL VISNIC
GUEST AUTHORS
Featured Video
EDITORS
Editor-in-Chief of AutoObserver.com and
Senior Analyst of Edmunds.com
Michelle Krebs
Email|Twitter
Analyst and Senior Editor
Bill Visnic
Email|Twitter
Senior Editor
Paul Seredynski
Email
Senior Editor of AutoObserver.com
John O'Dell
Email
Associate Editor of AutoObserver.com
Scott Doggett
Email
Obama's Choice to Head U.S. Department of Energy Is a Big Proponent of Biofuels
By SCOTT DOGGETT December 11, 2008
Comments (0)
By John O'Dell and Scott Doggett
Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to head the Energy Department, has been a strong advocate of alternative fuels and a vociferous opponent of fossil fuels -- foreign oil in particular -- for years.
Most recently, the scientific interests of the 60-year-old Nobel laureate and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have centered on energy and finding ways to replace fossil fuels with other energy sources such as biofuels from plants.
But Chu seems to be at odds with Obama on the role of corn-based ethanol in America's future. The domestic ethanol industry had a huge friend in Obama for most of the past year, while Chu has never been a friend to corn-ethanol producers.
On a segment on PBS' The News Hour last year, Chu said "corn, at best, is a transition crop, but very quickly we want to transition away from corn to a grass that requires far less land for the amount of fuel, far less fertilizer, far less water."
Chu sees tremendous promise in other biofuels, particularly biofuels that would propel automobiles. In an interview with an Australian radio personality last year, he said transportation fuel is the most valuable form of energy we have -- even when that fuel is electricity.
"If you had an electric plug-in hybrid, how much would it cost to plug that car in and run around for 100 miles? It's something at the level of one-quarter the cost of filling up with gasoline," he said, which makes electric-powered cars sound much more economical than gas-powered.
But, he said, "electricity is pretty expensive compared to natural gas. If you heat your home with electricity versus natural gas ... well, you shouldn't be heating your home with electricity because there's a factor of two or three difference.
"And so you go down this pecking order and you realize that putting energy into a gas tank is very costly, and in fact the United States in 2005 spent roughly $250 billion importing fossil fuel into the United States. Let me put that into perspective: We had a deficit of $750 billion, it's a huge deficit, and if you compare that to the deficit it's one-third. So the need to get an alternate supply of transportation fuel is very pressing."
That's where biofuels come in.
"Somewhere between one-third of all gasoline to all of all gasoline can be replaced by biomass grown in the United States on excess land. This does not mean mowing down forests and pristine forests," he said. "This is excess agricultural capacity, and so that's what gets everybody excited."
One of Chu's more interesting ideas is development of an "artificial plant" that would mimic nature and convert water to hydrogen and oxygen naturally while scrubbing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
He floated the idea in a speech he gave in September 2007 at a Meeting of the Minds session in Oakland.
The event's organizer, San Francisco-based Urban Age Institute, has provided Green Car Advisor with a 57-minute video of Chu's speech, which focused on alternative transportation fuels, and the question-and-answer session with the audience that followed.
The artificial plant idea comes up in a segment that starts 30 minutes and 35 seconds into the video (for those of you who don't want to listen to the rest - although we suggest you do).
In his speech, Chu also expresses hopes for development of cellulosic ethanol and powerful batteries that can handle the deep discharge cycles demanded of an electric vehicle battery pack.
He starts his Meeting of the Minds speech with a short and depressing look at our dwindling water supplies, and seems to say, 9 minutes and 51 seconds into his talk, that he's not a big fan of hydrogen as a transportation fuel unless we can use nuclear energy or other carbon-neutral energy sources to break the hydrogen atoms out of water, a process that requires a tremendous amount of electricity.
The natural gas and coal that we now use to produce most of the nation's electricity, he says, "have a very high carbon emission, in fact, it would be higher than burning gasoline."
Scott Doggett: is an AutoObserver.com Associate Editor.
You might also like:
Dreams Count, Size Doesn't
China Appears Poised To Dump Support For EVs
Doors Open This Week On New-Look Tokyo Motor Show
Rear-Seat Passengers Say No to Seatbelts
2012 Honda CR-V Concept Reveals Sculpted Update
LinkWithin
LEAVE A COMMENT
Click here to comment on this entry.
COMMENTARY MENU
VIDEO
FILTER BY AUTHOR:
JEREMY ANWYL
MICHELLE KREBS
JOHN O'DELL
LACEY PLACHE
PAUL SEREDYNSKI
BILL VISNIC
GUEST AUTHORS
Featured Video
EDITORS
Editor-in-Chief of AutoObserver.com and
Senior Analyst of Edmunds.com
Michelle Krebs
Email|Twitter
Analyst and Senior Editor
Bill Visnic
Email|Twitter
Senior Editor
Paul Seredynski
Senior Editor of AutoObserver.com
John O'Dell
Associate Editor of AutoObserver.com
Scott Doggett
10 ways bho could reduce gas prices---Chu shooting for higher gas like europe--won't build new refeneries
10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gasoline Prices Now
I'll hold my breath.
Posted by Steve Maley (Diary)
Saturday, February 25th at 2:00PM EST
120 Comments
Tulsa World headline:
Obama: No magic bullet to lower gas prices
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says there is no easy answer to the problem of rising energy prices, dismissing Republican plans to address the problem as little more than gimmicks.
“We know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight,” Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. …
Obama said Republicans have one answer to the oil pinch: Drill.
“You know that’s not a plan, especially since we’re already drilling,” Obama said, echoing his remarks earlier in the week. “It’s a bumper sticker.”
Speaking of bumper stickers, remember “Yes We Can”, Mr. President? No one understands the concept better than the oil and gas industry. The main thing holding domestic energy companies back from making a stronger commitment to future domestic supplies is uncertainty. Capital hates uncertainty, avoids it like the plague. Your rhetoric may appease your doctrinaire base, but it makes domestic energy producers hold back, fearful that you will punish their success, or that you will change the rules on them in the middle of the game.
Erasing uncertainty is the #1 thing you can do as a national leader if you truly desire to lower gasoline prices. Not only could it change the psychology of energy investing, there is still time for companies to change their 2012 investment plans.
Below the fold is my humble 10-point plan: Things President Obama could (but won’t) do to reduce domestic gasoline prices by November 2012.
1. Commit to a strategic goal of North American energy security. That includes reasonable and responsible domestic drilling. That includes taking the lead on the Keystone XL Pipeline; we could find a way to make it happen while addressing the legitimate environmental concerns of Nebraskans. It includes a commitment to maintaining the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and opening ANWR.
2. Ditch the anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s or the government’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling; more drilling means more future supply and lower prices. Besides, American oil companies are not owned by a cabal of wealthy executives, but by America’s pension funds, mutual funds and private investment accounts. “They” are “us”.
3. Stop targeting the oil industry for punitive tax treatment. States such as Texas and Louisiana have production tax abatement programs that have successfully encouraged new drilling. If you don’t believe that the threat of increased taxes discourages drilling, just ask Governor Perry or Governor Jindal.
4. Realize that Uncle Sam is in the energy business and is a partner in industry’s success. Oil and gas royalties are the federal government’s #2 source of revenue, after the income tax. Offshore slowdowns hurt not only industry and jobs, but government revenue.
5. Recognize that industry does not need to be led by government; industry needs to be unleashed and encouraged to innovate. The resurgence of the domestic energy sector was rooted in the private sector, not matter how much President Obama and Dr. Chu would like to take credit for it. The growth in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas happened in spite of the federal government, not because of it.
6. Trust that no oil operator wants to be the “next BP”. The BP spill cost that company something on the order of $40 billion. Industry safety and environmental commitment is motivated more out of self-interest and less out of fear of the government. When it comes to federal regulation, the nation would be better served by Sheriff Taylor, not Barney Fife.
7. Return offshore permitting to the pre-Macondo pace. Your overreaction to the BP Spill has cost on the order of 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico. The ridiculous “Worst Case Discharge” calculation as a routine part of offshore permitting is engineering malpractice, in my humble opinion. The professional staff of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is capable of reasoned regulation, but they currently operate in fear of their political masters.
8. Declare hydraulic fracturing & well design to be the regulatory domain of the states, not the EPA. Geology and environment vary widely; Pennsylvania is not Louisiana is not North Dakota is not California. It is insanity to think that one broadly-applied set of rules can be applied to regulate industry without suffocating development.
9. Rescind the recently-enacted royalty rate increase for new onshore Federal oil and gas leases. Secretary Salazar’s stated rationale for increasing the government’s take by a whopping 50% – from 12.5% to 18.75% of gross production – was to equate onshore royalties with the offshore royalty rate. That makes no sense. Higher royalties mean less drilling, poorer economics of production and premature abandonment of wells. Besides, an IHS-CERA Study recently showed that the federal government’s total take of offshore cash flows makes the Gulf of Mexico the second-most punitive fiscal regime in the world, after Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. [Update: In keeping with the First Rule of Holes, rolling back the royalty rate increase may be the first thing the government should do if it is serious about reducing energy prices. - Ed.]
10. Encourage development of a nationwide distribution system of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. Its potential as a transportation fuel has scarcely been tapped.
Bonus #11: Get real about the promise of alternative fuels. Recently you said: “You’ve got a bunch of algae out there; If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright.” Maybe so, but I will stick my neck out and say it ain’t gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime, not on a scale that will impact pump prices.
Energy policy will be a President Obama’s key vulnerability in November. His goal has always been to encourage alternative fuels by raising conventional energy prices. Alternative energy may poll well, but the average voter who fills his tank with $4+ gas on the way to the ballot box will certainly “Hope for Change”.
Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.
Sponsored Content
Category: Andy Griffith, Andy Taylor, Aunt Bea, BSEE, Energy, Floyd the Barber, gasoline, Howard Sprague, IDC, Obama, Otis
I'll hold my breath.
Posted by Steve Maley (Diary)
Saturday, February 25th at 2:00PM EST
120 Comments
Tulsa World headline:
Obama: No magic bullet to lower gas prices
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says there is no easy answer to the problem of rising energy prices, dismissing Republican plans to address the problem as little more than gimmicks.
“We know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight,” Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address. …
Obama said Republicans have one answer to the oil pinch: Drill.
“You know that’s not a plan, especially since we’re already drilling,” Obama said, echoing his remarks earlier in the week. “It’s a bumper sticker.”
Speaking of bumper stickers, remember “Yes We Can”, Mr. President? No one understands the concept better than the oil and gas industry. The main thing holding domestic energy companies back from making a stronger commitment to future domestic supplies is uncertainty. Capital hates uncertainty, avoids it like the plague. Your rhetoric may appease your doctrinaire base, but it makes domestic energy producers hold back, fearful that you will punish their success, or that you will change the rules on them in the middle of the game.
Erasing uncertainty is the #1 thing you can do as a national leader if you truly desire to lower gasoline prices. Not only could it change the psychology of energy investing, there is still time for companies to change their 2012 investment plans.
Below the fold is my humble 10-point plan: Things President Obama could (but won’t) do to reduce domestic gasoline prices by November 2012.
1. Commit to a strategic goal of North American energy security. That includes reasonable and responsible domestic drilling. That includes taking the lead on the Keystone XL Pipeline; we could find a way to make it happen while addressing the legitimate environmental concerns of Nebraskans. It includes a commitment to maintaining the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and opening ANWR.
2. Ditch the anti-industry, anti-capitalist rhetoric. It is not the President’s or the government’s place to decide when an industry’s profitability is “high enough”. High oil company profits fund more drilling; more drilling means more future supply and lower prices. Besides, American oil companies are not owned by a cabal of wealthy executives, but by America’s pension funds, mutual funds and private investment accounts. “They” are “us”.
3. Stop targeting the oil industry for punitive tax treatment. States such as Texas and Louisiana have production tax abatement programs that have successfully encouraged new drilling. If you don’t believe that the threat of increased taxes discourages drilling, just ask Governor Perry or Governor Jindal.
4. Realize that Uncle Sam is in the energy business and is a partner in industry’s success. Oil and gas royalties are the federal government’s #2 source of revenue, after the income tax. Offshore slowdowns hurt not only industry and jobs, but government revenue.
5. Recognize that industry does not need to be led by government; industry needs to be unleashed and encouraged to innovate. The resurgence of the domestic energy sector was rooted in the private sector, not matter how much President Obama and Dr. Chu would like to take credit for it. The growth in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas happened in spite of the federal government, not because of it.
6. Trust that no oil operator wants to be the “next BP”. The BP spill cost that company something on the order of $40 billion. Industry safety and environmental commitment is motivated more out of self-interest and less out of fear of the government. When it comes to federal regulation, the nation would be better served by Sheriff Taylor, not Barney Fife.
7. Return offshore permitting to the pre-Macondo pace. Your overreaction to the BP Spill has cost on the order of 500,000 barrels per day of domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico. The ridiculous “Worst Case Discharge” calculation as a routine part of offshore permitting is engineering malpractice, in my humble opinion. The professional staff of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement is capable of reasoned regulation, but they currently operate in fear of their political masters.
8. Declare hydraulic fracturing & well design to be the regulatory domain of the states, not the EPA. Geology and environment vary widely; Pennsylvania is not Louisiana is not North Dakota is not California. It is insanity to think that one broadly-applied set of rules can be applied to regulate industry without suffocating development.
9. Rescind the recently-enacted royalty rate increase for new onshore Federal oil and gas leases. Secretary Salazar’s stated rationale for increasing the government’s take by a whopping 50% – from 12.5% to 18.75% of gross production – was to equate onshore royalties with the offshore royalty rate. That makes no sense. Higher royalties mean less drilling, poorer economics of production and premature abandonment of wells. Besides, an IHS-CERA Study recently showed that the federal government’s total take of offshore cash flows makes the Gulf of Mexico the second-most punitive fiscal regime in the world, after Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. [Update: In keeping with the First Rule of Holes, rolling back the royalty rate increase may be the first thing the government should do if it is serious about reducing energy prices. - Ed.]
10. Encourage development of a nationwide distribution system of natural gas as a transportation fuel. Natural gas is clean, abundant and nearly 100% domestic. Its potential as a transportation fuel has scarcely been tapped.
Bonus #11: Get real about the promise of alternative fuels. Recently you said: “You’ve got a bunch of algae out there; If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright.” Maybe so, but I will stick my neck out and say it ain’t gonna happen, at least not in my lifetime, not on a scale that will impact pump prices.
Energy policy will be a President Obama’s key vulnerability in November. His goal has always been to encourage alternative fuels by raising conventional energy prices. Alternative energy may poll well, but the average voter who fills his tank with $4+ gas on the way to the ballot box will certainly “Hope for Change”.
Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.
Sponsored Content
Category: Andy Griffith, Andy Taylor, Aunt Bea, BSEE, Energy, Floyd the Barber, gasoline, Howard Sprague, IDC, Obama, Otis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)