.jpg)
===
I had lunch yesterday with my Rabbi but we did not discuss religion because he knows I am not ritualistically religious. So we discussed politics.
We are seldom in agreement but we enjoy each other's company, respect each other's view and leave friends while shaking our heads as to how stupid the other is.
Then last night a dear friend and fellow memo reader sent me this video which I found hilarious and totally irreligious so I felt compelled to post it. I hope my Catholic friends will not behead
me: http://www.youtube.com/embed/
My contribution:
A man goes to Confession and tells the priest he made love to 30 women last night. The priest asks him to repeat what the confessor just said to make sure he heard it correctly. The confessor repeats it. the priest then asks are you Catholic and the confessor says no I am Jewish but I just had to tell someone.
===
Pomerantz advises Netanyahu on what to say should he address Congress, the American people and the world - understand there are headwinds gathering momentum!(See 1 below.)
Iran's reach is not only with missiles. Obama is being bamboozled and is too busy to notice and/or does not care because he wants Iran to go nuclear and escape world opinion. You decide. (See 1a below.)
Who is Steve Emerson? Is he a fool, is he part right and, as applies to Muslim neighborhoods, is the use of the word No Zone a no no? Do we know enough hard facts to decide?
Actually no zones is not a new concept. Every city in America has an area where one best not enter. The question is has it spread to such a degree in Europe and elsewhere that it can be considered codified in referring to Muslim populated areas and is this what we can look forward to in the future?(See 1b below.)
===
Sowell, more Random Thoughts. (See 2 below.)
===
America the new swing factor when it comes to energy pricing and no thanks to Obama though he is taking credit. (See 3 below.)
Obama does everything he can to blunt America's energy progress yet takes credit for the price decline. How two faced can you get? (See 3a below.)
===
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
What Netanyahu Should Say to Congress
By Sherwin Pomerantz
On the assumption that our Prime Minister will, in fact, appear before a Joint Session of Congress in Washington later this spring, what should he tell them?
Sad as it may be to admit, there is probably nothing he can say there that will change the mind of President Obama nor have any real effect on the policy of the United States when it comes to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
It seems that everyone in the know assumes, and probably correctly, that Iran will develop its nuclear weapons capability once they have completed the work related to having a reliable delivery system for such weapons. They probably already have all the technology they need to get to that point and if they are lacking anything specific most likely the North Koreans will willingly provide them with the missing pieces of the puzzle.
As for the “talks,” those of who live in this part of the world know all too well that the talks themselves are a weapon which governments here use to buy time. So, even if the talks end in some kind of agreement that will then be praised by the west, by that time the Iranians will have achieved all they need to vis-à-vis nuclear weapons capability. It is disappointing of course to admit this but smarter minds than mine have made the analysis and have come to this conclusion.
But if this is all true why should Bibi bother addressing congress? Does he still have a purpose in going there? I believe he absolutely does.
What he should do is spend the time allotted to him to speak about what the world will be like if Iran has nuclear weapons which can reach us in 10 minutes and the US in less than an hour. In such a world Israel is not simply an ally of the US, it is a neighbor.
He should discuss what the world must do to get ready for such an eventuality and how to react should the Iranians engage in more than simply saber-rattling. He should speak about the nuclear arms race that will be unleashed throughout this region and the impact that will have on an already unstable world where ISIS is now dictating the diplomatic agenda of the west. And he should raise the concern of what happens when Islamist fundamentalists in any country come to power and have their fingers on a nuclear weapons stockpile.
The world needs to be reminded of the fact that while during the Cold War both the US and the USSR had nuclear capability, in principle neither party wanted to use this and understood the retaliatory devastation that would occur if it was used. But in today’s world we are dealing with countries whose leadership is motivated by religious zeal promising entry to paradise when dying for the cause. Under such conditions the west needs to be reminded of the dire consequences of failure and that will be Bibi’s job in Washington, nothing less.
Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon once said: “What we need to do is always lean into the future; when the world changes around you and when it changes against you - what used to be a tail wind is now a head wind - you have to lean into that and figure out what to do because complaining isn't a strategy.” While he was referring to business the words are no less true in politics. Bibi needs to help people understand the head winds.
1a) Who Killed Alberto Nisman?
By MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY
It’s hard to know who had most to gain—and the least to lose—from the death of Argentine federal prosecutor Alberto Nisman. I’d say it’s Iran.
Nisman was scheduled to testify last week to the Argentine Congress about his investigation into the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center that killed 85. In 2006 he indicted seven Iranians and one Lebanese-born member of Hezbollah for the crime. None have been captured, though the Lebanese suspect was killed in 2008 in Syria.
Earlier this month Nisman filed a criminal complaint in an Argentine court, alleging that President Cristina Kirchner and Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman had crafted a secret agreement with Iran to let the terrorists off the hook in exchange for Iranian oil largess and Iranian purchases of Argentine grain.
Nisman claimed he had a solid case against la presidenta and her alleged co-conspirators, and he released a summary of a 300-page report on his investigation. He promised to reveal more at the hearing.
But his objective was never to bring down the president. He sought justice for the bombing victims, and on Jan. 14 he spoke of a new plan to secure it on the Argentine television program “A Dos Voces.” “It’s close to coming out,” Nisman said, “and I say close because I’ve already made the decision, and we are making final revisions. There is a way for the Iranians to be extradited . . . [so] that [they] face trial in the Republic of Argentina.”
Less than a week later the prosecutor turned up dead. His body was found the night before the Jan. 19 hearing in the bathroom of his Buenos Aires apartment with a single .22-caliber bullet through the head.
It took almost no time for President Kirchner’s secretary of security, Sergio Berni, to arrive at the apartment and declare the cause of death an apparent suicide.
There has since been only confusion. First came word that the service door to the apartment was locked from the inside; then a locksmith called to the scene contradicted that. First there were only two ways into the apartment. Then investigators announced there is a third, and that recent footprints were found in that narrow corridor. First it was suggested that the test for gunpowder on Nisman’s hands was important. When the test for gunpowder was negative, it was dismissed as unimportant because, well, that can happen with small bullets. Countless questions remain, including why his bodyguards reportedly were not on watch in front of his door and why the journalist who broke the news that he was found in a pool of blood fled the country over the weekend.
The lead investigator in the case has not issued a final ruling, and those who knew Nisman say the suicide theory stretches credulity. He had spent 14 years on the bombing case and was about to march into Congress with two years of judicially approved wiretaps that he believed would expose a game of footsie between Mrs. Kirchner and Tehran.
Nisman was in good spirits about the matter, as indicated in his TV appearance. He was divorced, but by all accounts close to his teenage daughters. It seems unlikely that he would have pulled the trigger without leaving them so much as a farewell note. His ex-wife, who is an Argentine judge, says she does not believe he committed suicide.
Argentines smell a rat, not the least because the kirchneristas have earned a reputation for corruption and coercion, and this looks like a mob hit. Late last week even Mrs. Kirchner seemed to realize that the suicide narrative wouldn’t fly. After remaining silent for days, she announced her own theory: Nisman was murdered by rogue members of the Argentine intelligence service who are trying to bring her down.
These enemies, she said, concocted the story that she and Mr. Timerman had made a deal to receive oil and sell grain in exchange for providing impunity to the terrorists. The secretary of the presidency backed her up. Nisman “could not have written this nonsense,” he said. “It is totally clear he had nothing to do with it, but there were people around him who had a different agenda.”
Of course the way to learn whether Nisman was driven to kill himself, or whether he was killed by disloyal spies who used him, would be to air every detail of his report. If she really wants to get to the bottom of things Mrs. Kirchner will name and support a new, independent prosecutor. But that might get her into trouble with Iran.
If Nisman was murdered, it involved a level of sophistication not normally associated with Argentina but not uncommon for Iran. Tehran has more than 40 years of experience knocking off meddlesome individuals abroad and is now trying to allay global distrust as it bamboozles Barack Obama about its nuclear-weapons program. Nisman’s search for truth may have put a target on his back
1b). Islam in Europe Now a No-Go Subject
“No-go zones” have turned into a you don’t want to go there topic.
A few days after the terrorist attacks in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the Hyper Cacher grocery store, terrorism expert Steve Emerson appeared on the Fox News Channel’s Justice with Judge Jeanine hosted by Jeanine Pirro to discuss Islamic extremism in Europe. During his appearance, Emerson spoke about Muslim “no-go zones” throughout Europe where countries like France, Germany, Sweden, and Britain have ceded sovereignty and non-Muslims are not permitted to enter. Emerson also stated that Birmingham, Britain’s second largest city, is “totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don’t go.”
All hell would break loose and Emerson would issue an apology for his comments while FNC issued several apologies after repeating Emerson’s statements. Despite the apology, the mayor of Paris has declared she will sue Fox News. In a snarky piece written in the Atlantic by David A. Graham titled “Why the Muslim ‘No-Go-Zone’ Myth Won’t Die?” Graham writes:
Have you heard about the areas of Europe, or perhaps even of the United States, that are run by jihadists and which non-Muslims can’t even enter? Don’t get too worried if you haven’t: They don’t exist.
Needless to say the Left hasn’t been this happy since Barack Obama’s first election victory. Speaking of President Obama, his British BFF David Cameron referred to Emerson as “a complete idiot.” Cameron is one to talk. This is the same man who once characterized Israel’s blockade of Gaza as “a prison camp.” Never mind that Egypt was also participating in this blockade as well. Apparently, Cameron also thinks the Hamas-run government bears no responsibility for the sorry state of affairs in Gaza either.
Criticize Steve Emerson all you want. Emerson may have been wrong in this instance, but he did warn the world months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, “Al Qaeda is ... planning new attacks on the US.... [It has] learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings.” No, Steve Emerson is not a complete idiot. Far from it. In exposing threats from Islamic extremists, Emerson has subjected himself to numerous death threats by jihadists and, for the past two decades, has taken extraordinary protective measures in his day-to-day living. I can attest to the heavy security measures deployed when I went to see him speak at a Brookline synagogue more than a decade ago. Emerson’s bravery cannot be called into question, which is more than what I can say for David Cameron.
Besides, if David Cameron considers Steve Emerson to be a complete idiot for talking about the existence of Muslim no-go zones then why, as Robert Spencer has noted, have the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic also used the term “no-go zone”?
So something the New York Times noted in 2002 and Newsweek in 2005, and that the New Republic reported was still a problem in January 2015, is now something Fox News has to apologize for discussing?
Actually, the New York Times used the term “no go zone” as recently as September 2014 in an article discussing European anti-Semitism.
Yet FNC apologized and it wasn’t alone in issuing apologies. CNN’s Anderson Cooper also issued an apology for using the term “no-go zones” on the air as well. Will the New York Times, Newsweek, and New Republic be issuing apologies next? If so, will Cameron also call them complete idiots?
It may be wrong to say that large parts of Europe are under Muslim control where law enforcement and non-Muslims at large are forbidden from traversing. But only a complete idiot would deny there isn’t a desire among a critical mass of Muslims to impose Sharia law or, at the very minimum, behave in a violent manner towards non-Muslims.
In 2011, the group Islam4UK led by Ahmed Choudary began putting up posters around the UK bearing an ominous warning:
YOU ARE ENTERING A SHARIAH CONTROLLED ZONE
ISLAMIC RULES ENFORCED
The sign also indicated that in these zones alcohol, gambling, drugs, smoking, porn, prostitution, music and concerts were forbidden. At the time Choudary stated, “We want to run the area as a Sharia-controlled zone and really to put the seeds down for an Islamic Emirate in the long term.”
If the name Ahmed Choudary sounds familiar, it should. Following the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, Choudary penned an op-ed in USA Todaypraising the attacks:
Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, “Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.”
However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.
Choudary was interviewed last November on 60 Minutes Overtime as was his colleague Abu Ramaysah. Take a look what Ramaysah told correspondent Clarissa Ward:
Ultimately, I want to see every single woman in this country covered from head to toe. I want to the see the hand of the thief cut. I want to see adulterers stoned to death. I want to see Sharia law in Europe. And I want to see it in America as well.
I believe our patrols are a means to an end.
In view of Choudary and Ramaysah’s aims and objectives in conjunction with Choudary’s praise of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, he and those who wish to impose Sharia law in Britain and elsewhere in Europe must be taken every bit as seriously as the people who perpetrated the Charlie Hebdo attacks.
It is true that these posters Choudary disseminated were not legally sanctioned and Scotland Yard worked with local councils to take them down. Nevertheless, this hasn’t prevented self-appointed Muslim Patrols from trying to enforce Sharia law on the streets of London. Similar patrols havealso surfaced in Germany.
In October 2013, an American student from Florida named Francesco Houyne was severely beaten and had a beer bottle smashed into his faceby one of these London patrols for drinking alcohol. Two months later, a Muslim Patrol threatened a couple holding hands in public telling them, “Let go of each other’s hands. This is a Muslim area!” and then blocked their car when they tried to get away. On both occasions the people responsible for the incidents were arrested and charged.
It would be difficult for British authorities to overlook violent incidents which take place in public. However, when things take place behind closed doors in Muslim majority neighborhoods, the authorities have looked the other way. as was the case in the Rotherham child sex scandal in which 1,400 girls were sexually abused over a 16-year period by a group of predominantly Muslim men of Pakistani origin (or “Asian” origin, as the Brits like to say). Police and the local council were aware of the abuse, but did nothing out of fear of being called racist. Indeed, a researcher who alerted authorities to the abuse back in 2001 was sent on an “ethnicity and diversity” sensitivity course and admonished for making reference to their “Asian” heritage. As far as British police and public officials were concerned, the sexual abuse of girls by Muslim men was, well, a no-go zone.
This problem isn’t confined to Britain. Consider what Pakistani-born Canadian Muslim journalist Natasha Fatah wrote in December 2010 following a trip to Malmo, Sweden, with her husband:
Malmo was supposed to be a symbol of Sweden’s multiculturalism. But it is in danger of turning into an Islamist ghetto, with a hard core of those who favour an Islamic state.
Fatah went on to write that synagogues have been vandalized and Jews have been publicly accosted on the streets, but that local authorities have done little to stop the problem and as a result Jews are leaving Sweden. So here is a Muslim who recognizes the danger of turning Sweden into an Islamic state. Would David Cameron call her a complete idiot too?
So where does this leave the term “no-go zone”? The term was coined by Daniel Pipes back in 2006. But by 2013, following visits to Muslim neighborhoods throughout Europe, Pipes reassessed his view:
I found that those areas “are not full-fledged no-go zones” — meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No warlords dominate; sharia is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.
So how does Pipes think these enclaves should now be described? He suggests “semi-autonomous sectors.” Honestly, it doesn’t matter what term Pipes uses to describe Muslims who seek to impose Sharia on the rest of the population. Islamists and their left-wing apologists in the media believe Islam is beyond criticism. They want Islam to be a no-go subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)- Random Thoughts
By Thomas Sowell
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Who says President Obama doesn't promote bipartisanship? His complicity in Iran's moving toward nuclear bombs has alarmed some top Senate Democrats enough to get them to join Republicans in opposition to the Obama administration's potentially suicidal foreign policy.
Before the current measles outbreak, measles was once almost wiped out in the United States. But an article in a medical journal more than a decade ago had many parents afraid to have their children vaccinated, for fear that the vaccine causes autism. After scientific studies refuted that claim, the medical journal repudiated the article, and the doctor who wrote it had his license revoked.
If not a single policeman killed a single black individual anywhere in the United States for this entire year, that would not reduce the number of black homicide victims by one percent. When the mobs of protesters declare "Black lives matter," does that mean ALL black lives matter -- or only the less than one percent of black lives lost in conflicts with police?
In politics, never assume that because something is insane, it will not be done. The Holocaust was as insane as it was a moral horror. But it was done. Even after the tide of war turned against Germany and it faced invasion and devastation, Hitler continued to pour scarce resources into the mass killing of people who were no threat.
When someone tries to lay a guilt trip on you for being successful, remember that your guilt is some politician's license to take what you worked for and give it to someone else who is more likely to vote for the politician who plays Santa Claus with your money.
So long as public schools are treated as places that exist to provide guaranteed jobs to members of the teachers' unions, do not be surprised to see American students continuing to score lower on international tests than students in countries that spend a lot less per pupil than we do.
Would you go to a funeral if you knew that your presence would be unwelcome and would just add to the pain of the mourners? Probably not. But New York's mayor Bill de Blasio went to both funerals for the two New York City policemen recently murdered -- and gave speeches. That epitomized what a truly despicable human being he is, even by the low standards of politicians.
Demographic "diversity" is a notion often defended with fervor but seldom with facts.
Few things are more irritating, or more phony, than statements from various organizations about their "privacy policy." What that really means is their invasion of privacy policies -- how much information about you that your bank, hospital or Internet service is going to pass on to other people without your permission.
Somewhere Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes says that the purpose of an education should be to produce a mind that cannot be humbugged. But today our educational system, from kindergarten to the universities, is engaged in the mass production of fashionable humbug -- propaganda rather than education.
Some people see discrimination when schools punish black students more often than white students. But schools punish white students more often than Asian students. Lenders turn down black applicants for loans more often than white applicants -- but they turn down whites more often than Asians. Most statistics on such things omit Asians, rather than spoil a politically correct story.
President Obama may have gained something politically or ideologically by recognizing Cuba, but just what did the United States gain? Like so much that has been done by this administration, the diplomatic recognition of Cuba demonstrates how safe it is to be our enemy, while our policies toward Ukraine and Israel demonstrate how risky it is to be our ally.
Despite radical feminist organizations' frequent bursts of outrage, these same radical feminists' response to the mass capture of school girls by Islamic terrorists in Nigeria, and turning those girls into sex slaves, has been strangely muted. Is this because there is no political mileage or lawsuit settlements to be achieved by expressing outrage at such unconscionable raw savagery in Nigeria?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)-- Who Will Rule the Oil Market?
By DANIEL YERGIN
Credit Daniel Zender
WASHINGTON — A HISTORIC change of roles is at the heart of the clamor and turmoil over the collapse of oil prices, which have plummeted by 50 percent since September. For decades, Saudi Arabia, backed by the Persian Gulf emirates, was described as the “swing producer.” With its immense production capacity, it could raise or lower its output to help the global market adjust to shortages or surpluses.
But on Nov. 27, at the OPEC meeting in Vienna, Saudi Arabia effectively resigned from that role and OPEC handed over all responsibility for oil prices to the market, which the Saudi oil minister, Ali Al-Naimi, predicted would “stabilize itself eventually.” OPEC’s decision was hardly unanimous. Venezuela and Iran, their economies in deep trouble, lobbied hard for production cutbacks, to no avail. Afterward, Iran accused Saudi Arabia of waging an “oil war” and being part of a “plot” against it.
By leaving oil prices to the market, Saudi Arabia and the emirates also passed the responsibility as de facto swing producer to a country that hardly expected it — the United States. This approach is expected to continue with the accession of the new Saudi king, Salman, following the death on Friday of King Abdullah. And it means that changes in American production will now, along with that of Persian Gulf producers, also have a major influence on global oil prices.
America was once, by far, the world’s largest oil producer and exporter, and its swing producer. The Texas Railroad Commission determined “allowable” levels of production for Texas, the Saudi Arabia of the day. But by 1970, United States oil production had reached its high point of 9.6 million barrels per day and began to decline.
The United States began to import more and more oil. By 2008, its own oil production was down almost 50 percent from the high point. Oil prices reached $147 a barrel, and fears that the world’s oil production had peaked and that we were beginning to run out of oil had become pervasive.
Quietly, though, an unconventional oil and gas revolution was beginning to pick up speed in the United States. It yoked together two technologies: hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. The impact was measured first in the rapidly growing production of shale gas, which now makes up about half of total American gas. This “shale gale” catapulted the United States ahead of Russia to become the world’s No. 1 gas producer.
Then around 2010, the same technologies started to be seriously applied to the search for oil. The results were phenomenal. By the end of 2014, oil production in the United States was 80 percent higher than it had been in 2008. The increase of 4.1 million barrels per day was greater than the output of every single OPEC country but Saudi Arabia.
Today, American output is almost back to where it was in 1970. On top of that was a million-barrel-a-day gain since 2008 from the Canadian oil sands. The chimera of “energy independence” began to look more tangible, at least for North America.
This revolution also turned out to be a big boost for the American economy, creating jobs, improving the country’s competitive position and drawing in over a $100 billion of new investment. Only rarely has the global oil market seen production increases on this scale this fast. The last time was in the early 1980s, when new supplies from Mexico, the North Sea and Alaska created an oil surplus that led to a price crash.
This time, several things postponed a price collapse. One was the growing consumption in the developing world, led by China. Another was turmoil in Libya, South Sudan and other countries that reduced supply. Over a million barrels per day were also taken off the market by sanctions imposed on Iran. Without that big surge of shale oil from the United States, it is highly likely that those sanctions would have failed. Prices would have spiked, countries seeking cheaper oil would have broken ranks — and Iran might not be at the nuclear negotiating table today.
By the middle of last summer, however, circumstances changed. World economic growth was slowing. Europe was on its back. Since 2004, China’s rapidly rising demand for oil had been the defining factor for the global oil market. But China’s economy was slowing, too, and that meant slowing growth in oil demand. At the same time, Libya managed to quadruple its oil output, at least for a time. That was the trigger for the beginning of the price decline.
It was assumed that OPEC would step in and cut production to boost the price. Trillions of dollars of investment have been made over the last several years on that premise.
But Saudi Arabia and the other gulf countries declined to do so. If they reduced production, they reasoned, they would lose market share permanently. As they saw it, they would be cutting back on their “low cost oil” to make room for “high cost oil,” and then would have to make more cuts to accommodate more high cost oil.
They were looking at competition not only from American shale oil but also from Canadian oil sands and new supplies from Russia, the Arctic, Brazil, Central Asia, Africa and growing volumes of offshore oil around the world.
But, most immediately, they were looking at two neighbors. They did not want to give up markets to Iraq, a country they see as an Iranian satellite, and whose output is increasing. And they certainly did not want to make way for Iran, which they thought might come to a nuclear deal with the United States and its allies, bringing that missing Iranian oil back into the market.
The depth of the price fall may be much more than even some of the gulf producers anticipated. Around the world, oil companies are cutting budgets, paring costs, slowing down projects and postponing new ones. Some may end up being canceled.
Saudi Arabia is hoping that lower oil prices will stimulate economic growth and demand for oil. In the meantime, with their large holdings of foreign reserves, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates can afford to wait.
That is not true for many of the other oil exporters. Venezuela is highly vulnerable to turmoil and even financial collapse. Russia is coping not only with lower prices for oil, which provides over 40 percent of government revenues, but with Ukraine-related sanctions, and seems headed into a deep recession.
Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa and the continent’s most populous nation, is also at risk. The oil sector represents 95 percent of export earnings and 75 percent of government revenues. And its revenues are falling as it needs more money to fight the Boko Haram Islamist insurgency.
Over all, the fall in oil prices could mean a $1.5 to $2 trillion transfer from oil-exporting countries to oil-importing countries. Japan will be a big beneficiary. So will China. American consumers will benefit, too, though it will also mean that fewer oil wells will be drilled here, more rigs will be laid up and increasing numbers of workers will be let go.
American shale oil has become the decisive new factor in the world oil market in a way that could not have been imagined five years ago. It has proved to be a truly disruptive technology. But will that impact continue in a world of low prices?
AC
Oil is now below $50 a barrel, a price too low for a good deal of the new shale oil development to make economic sense. Yet output is likely to continue to rise by another 500,000 barrels per day in the first half of 2015 because of sheer momentum and commitments already made.
Come the middle of the year, however, growth will flatten out. Producers will work hard to improve efficiency and lower costs, but in 2016, at these prices, American output could decline. Production elsewhere in the world will also be flattening.
But by then, the world economy might be doing better, stimulating oil demand. Prices could start rising again. If the gulf producers have their way, prices will not go back to $100 a barrel. Even at prices well below $100, American shale oil producers will find ways to drive down costs and output will start rising again. And the world’s new swing producer will find itself back in the swing of things.
3a)
Obama’s Trans-Alaska Oil Assault
He’s slowly starving the current pipeline so it will have to shut down.
A portion of the Trans-Alaska pipeline near Fairbanks, Alaska. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Washington’s energy debate has been focused on President Obama ’s endless opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, but maybe that was only a warm-up. His new fossil fuel shutdown target is Alaska.
President Obama announced Sunday that he’ll use his executive authority to designate 12 million acres in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as wilderness, walling it off from resource development. This abrogates a 1980 deal in which Congress specifically set aside some of this acreage for future oil and gas exploration. It’s also a slap at the new Republican Congress, where Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski has been corralling bipartisan support for more Arctic drilling.
The ANWR blockade also seems to be part of a larger strategy to starve the existing Trans-Alaska pipeline, the 800-mile system that carries oil south from state lands in Prudhoe Bay. ANWR occupies the land east of that pipeline. The Interior Department this week will release a five-year offshore drilling plan that puts vast parts of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas—the area to the north of the pipeline—out of bounds for drilling. This follows an Administration move in 2010 to close down nearly half of the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA)—the area west of the pipeline.
Federal agencies have also been playing rope-a-dope with companies attempting to drill on the few lands that are still available. ConocoPhillips has been waiting years for permits to access a lease it purchased in NPRA—and the Administration is this week expected to make that process even harder. Shell has spent $6 billion on plans to drill in the Chukchi and Beaufort, only to be stymied by regulators.
The Arctic Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to hold at least 27 billion barrels of oil. ANWR is thought to have at least 10 billion more, while NPRA—designated in 1976 as a strategic petroleum stockpile—is considered equally rich. Yet not one drop of oil is flowing from these areas, and Mr. Obama seems intent on ensuring that none does.
The political prize here is the death of the Alaska oil pipeline, which in its heyday pushed some 2.2 million barrels of oil south a day, but has seen volume slow to 500,000 barrels a day as the state’s existing oil fields decline. The drop in oil prices has increased financial pressure on Arctic drillers, and any lower flow threatens the viability of the pipeline.
This is what environmentalists want because they know that if the pipeline shuts down, it must by law be dismantled. Since the pipeline is the only way to get large quantities of Alaskan oil south, shutting it down means closing to exploration one of the world’s greatest repositories of hydrocarbons.
The pity is that in his ANWR announcement Mr. Obama didn’t express as much concern for Alaskans as he did caribou. An estimated one-third of Alaskan jobs are oil-related, and the oil industry accounts for some 85% of state revenue. Shutting the pipeline would be a terrible blow to the state. New Gov. Bill Walker has said he may accelerate oil and gas permitting on state lands to compensate. Yet the vast majority of the state’s untapped reserves are below federal lands that Mr. Obama is now blocking.
The ANWR land grab is another classic of executive overreach. Congress in 1980 passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, a grand compromise that put vast tracts under protection, in return for a clause declaring “no more” wilderness designations in Alaska unless approved by Congress. Yet the Interior Department plans to use the President’s recommendation of a new ANWR wilderness designation as a license to lock up the land.
The decision also ignores the environmental protection that is possible in light of new drilling technology. Most of the refuge is already protected as wilderness, yet Mr. Obama’s order includes the 0.01% of barren, coastal wasteland that was up for drilling discussion. Innovations like directional drilling would allow the industry to tap those vast reserves with minimal surface impact.
In his State of the Union address, Mr. Obama again claimed credit for falling gas prices, but the truth is that every advance in oil and gas drilling has come without his help or despite his opposition. Mr. Obama may figure he can get away with this now that oil prices have fallen and the need for new oil supplies seems less urgent. His power play is nonetheless a blow to U.S. energy security, and an especially nasty blow to tens of thousands of Alaskans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
