You are
responsible for President Obama's re-election," I told 150 folks from the
oil and gas industry --most of whom were conservative Republicans. I spoke to
them on October 15 in San Angelo, TX. A reporter covering the event wrote that
I "stunned the crowd by telling them they were largely responsible for
getting the president re-elected, and asking them if they knew how they had
helped." He continued: "The room was very quiet for several moments
as Noon waited to see if anyone would volunteer an answer."
We know President
Obama has been waging a war on coal--with tens of thousands of jobs lost due to
his attacks since he was elected in 2008, but why has the oil and gas industry
escaped the harsh regulations that have virtually shut down both coal mining
and coal-fueled power plants? After all, we know his environmentalist
base--with whom he is philosophically aligned--hates them equally.
The reporter
added: "Finally someone suggested it was job creation that Noon was
alluding to."
The oil and gas
industry has added millions of jobs to the U.S. economy in the past six years
and represents the bright spot in the jobs numbers. Imagine where the
unemployment numbers would be if the oil and gas industry had been treated as
poorly as coal.
While President
Obama hasn't had an outright war on oil and gas, he surely hasn't helped--and
his surrogates have been out fighting on his behalf.
According to a
recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), oil production on
state and private lands is up 61 percent and is down 6 percent on federal
lands. The CRS found that it takes 41 percent longer to process an application
for permit to drill in 2011 than it did in 2006. Getting a permit on federal
lands takes an average of 194 days compared to a few days to a month on state
lands. The Obama administration approved the fewest drilling permits since
2002. Additionally, it has sold the lowest amount of oil-and-gas leases since
1988. As a result, U.S. oil production on federal lands has fallen to a
five-year low. And, these numbers don't include the tens of thousands of jobs
that would have been created if the Keystone pipeline had been approved six
years ago.
With an eye
always on politics, President Obama can't afford the negative job numbers a war
on all fossil fuels would cause. Less concerned about the political fallout,
using a death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach, his allies have been fighting oil
and gas--as they've done with coal.
Bill Bissett,
President of the Kentucky Coal Association, told me: "Make no mistake, the
oil and gas industry now finds itself in the same political crosshairs from the
Obama Administration and their allies that coal did in the President's first
term. From Sierra Club's new-found animosity to natural gas, as evidenced by
its Beyond Natural Gas campaign, to the President's inability to take any
action related to the Keystone pipeline, the uncertainty and inevitable economic
damage caused by an adverse federal government is now striking yet another
fossil fuel."
Environmental
extremist groups repeatedly oppose the Keystone pipeline and lock themselves to
the White House gates to prove their point. They believe fracking should be a
crime and want it banned--which would shut down 96 percent of all oil and gas
drilling in America.
Because the
average American understands that "drill here, drill now" results in
lower prices at the pump--as we are seeing right now, I believe they use
"fracking" as a canard when the real target is drilling. Capitalizing
on the public's lack of awareness about the safe and proven technology of
hydraulic fracturing--or "fracking"--anti-fossil fuel activists have
been able to give "fracking" their own definition that essentially
covers everything from permitting to production to delivery.
A year ago,
Environment America released the Fracking by the Numbers report that offers
this:
Defining
"Fracking"
In this report,
when we refer to the impacts of "fracking," we include impacts
resulting from all of the activities needed to bring a shale gas or oil well
into production using high-volume hydraulic fracturing (fracturing operations
that use at least 100,000 gallons of water), to operate that well, and to
deliver the gas or oil produced from that well to market. The oil and gas
industry often uses a more restrictive definition of "fracking" that
includes only the actual moment in the extraction process when rock is
fractured--a definition that obscures the broad changes to environmental,
health and community conditions that result from the use of fracking in oil and
gas extraction.
Many cities and
counties--mostly liberal communities with little or no drilling potential--have
passed anti-fracking legislation, resolutions and/or moratoriums. They then
claim success and build momentum as an argument for others to follow suit.
Colorado had two
anti-oil-and-gas initiatives on November's ballot, but the supporters agreed to
pull them when it became clear the measures would drive Republicans to the
polls and hurt troubled re-election chances for Senator Mark Udall and Governor
John Hickenlooper.
Mora County, New
Mexico has been bold enough to pass a ban on all drilling for hydrocarbons, not
just fracking--a move that's resulted in two lawsuits and fiscal liabilities
against the little county.
Now, with out of
state money pouring in as it did in Mora County, Santa Barbara, California,
County residents will be voting on November 4 on Measure P--which is, according
to Dr. James Boles, University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) Professor
Emeritus, Earth Sciences: "a poorly designed measure that would shut down
energy production in Santa Barbara County."
Ballotpedia calls
Measure P the "Santa Barbara County Fracking Ban Initiative." Yet, in
a letter to the editor (LTE), the Santa Barbara Region Chamber of Commerce
"urges its members to vote 'no' on Measure P on the November 2014
ballot." The first of five arguments the Chamber presents in support of
its "no" position states: "The ballot measure is written in a
way that is likely to mislead voters. Its title says that it is a ban on
'fracking.' This is misleading for two reasons: there is no fracking in Santa
Barbara County and, in addition, the ballot measure also prohibits many other
forms of oil and gas extraction. A voter would have to read the entirety of the
lengthy and complicated measure to understand that its impact is far greater
than suggested by the title." The LTE continues: "An impartial analysis
prepared by Santa Barbara County found that 100 percent of the active oil and
gas wells currently use one or more of the production techniques prohibited by
Measure P."
A leaked email
soliciting UCSB students for "Summer Jobs to Ban Fracking" states:
"We're working this summer to convince Governor Jerry Brown to ban
fracking before it's too late. ...This summer we are hiring staff to talk to
30,000 Santa Barbara County residents to build the support we need to win. We
are hiring for full time positions only (40 hrs/wk), M-F." The email is
from Heather Goold, Director for The Fund for Public Interest--a group
connected, according to a new U.S. Senate report: The Chain of Environmental
Command: How a Club of Billionaires and Their Foundations Control the
Environmental Movement and Obama's EPA, to Bill McKibben's 350.org and Tom
Steyer (who recently met with Santa Barbara activists).
In a recent op-ed
published in the Santa Barbara News, Andy Caldwell, Coalition of Labor,
Agriculture and Business executive director and radio talk show host, asks:
"Who is funding the hiring of UCSB students to work on an anti-oil
campaign as paid staff?" He continues: "What looks and sounds like a
movement is actually a coordinate campaign funded and directed in secret by phenomenally
rich people with an agenda. It works in the opposite manner of a legitimate
grass roots movement. The non-profits are in essence hired to carry out
specific tasks as part of an overall campaign strategy. The Senate report
indicates that 'the grants awarded specify how the recipients must use the
funds. This allows the Billionaire's club to engage in a defined transaction so
they know in advance what services to expect for their money. As such,
environmental groups that heavily rely on foundation funds to comprise a
substantial portion of their budgets begin to look much more like private
contractors buying and selling a service rather than benevolent non-profits
seeking to carry out charitable acts.'"
"These
attacks are no longer about the environment." Ed Hazard, president of the
California chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners, says:
"They have morphed into an effort to fundamentally change the political,
financial, and economic foundations of the United States and other nations. These
are anti-private property rights and anti-capitalism efforts."
If Measure P
passes on November 4--giving the environmentalists another win and the economy
another loss, well-paid jobs in the oil industry will go away and surrounding
communities will suffer (similar to the impact felt in coal).
A vote against
Measure P sends a signal bigger than Santa Barbara. In the war on fossil fuels,
it shows we are fighting back. It supports America's economic potential and
energy security while tamping down the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that are
the popular tools of Obama's moneyed allies.
Once P is
defeated, we have two years to be sure the next White House occupant
understands that energy makes America great.
I wish to thank Marita for allowing me to publish her work. (A version of this content was originally
published on Breitbart.com) The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director
for Energy Makes America Great Inc.
and the companion educational organization, the Citizens' Alliance for
Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the
public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and
the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the
environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the
organizations' combined efforts serve as America's voice for energy
No comments:
Post a Comment