Category Archives: Energy Policy

2012 Primary, Alarmism, Energy Policy, Obama, Pay to Play, Stuck on Stupid, True Talking Points

Chevy Volt Costs Tax Payers $250,000 Per Car, Low Sales, Huge Losses; Elite Media Silent

Leave a comment

But when there was a tiny uptick in Chevy Volt sales in June the elite media was ecstatic.

NewsBusters:

The President is running in large part on the bailout’s $30+ billion loss, uber-failed “success.”  And the Press is acting as his stenographers.  An epitome of this bailout nightmare mess is the electric absurdity that is the Chevrolet Volt.  The Press is at every turn covering up – rather than covering – the serial failures of President Obama’s signature vehicle.

The Press has failed to mention at least five Volt fires, myopically focusing on the one the Obama Administration hand-selected for attention.

The Press has failed to mention that the Volt fire problem remains unsolved.  Is it the battery?  Is it the charging station?  Is it the charging cable?  All of the above?

GM and the Administration don’t know.  And the Press ain’t breaking their necks trying to find out.

In more recent news, the Press has almost as one hailed the June Volt sales increase.

GM’s Volt Sales Up in June

Surprising June Sales for Volt

Chevy Volt Leads US Plug-In Car Sales

Chevy Volt Sales Increases

Volt Records Second-Best Sales Month

The Press has for the most part failed to mention how pathetic this “second-best sales month” actually is.  And even when one Dinosaur does, the unwarranted enthusiasm is palpable.

GM sells 1760 Volts in June, double from 2011

Wow.  Huge number.

The Press also fails to put this pathetic tally in perspective.

The Chevy Cruze is basically a Volt without the dead-weight, flammable 400-lb. electric battery.  Which makes it $17,000, rather than the Volt’s $41,000.

Chevy in June sold 18,983 Cruzes – more than ten times the number of Volts.  And that’s down 1/3 from last June’s 24,648.

But that feeble Volt tally has the Press all revved up.

And speaking of the Volt’s ridiculous $41,000 sticker price:

According to multiple GM executives there is little or no profit being made on each Volt built at a present cost of around $40,000. Furthermore, the $700 million of development that went into the car has to be recouped.

Get that?  GM makes “little or no profit” on the Volt.

So it makes perfect sense that GM would spend millions of dollars advertising it, does it not?  No ideological or campaign intent there, eh President Obama?

Look, I get it, it’s fun.  I just spent $1 million – of your money – advertising free air.  On which my profit margin is just as good as GM’s is on the Volt.

Only my ads didn’t have a song, or a dance.  We just aren’t as cool as the Volt.

I mean, it’s so cool – it can travel back in time to inspire the production of cars before it even existed.

I mean, it’s so cool – it can travel back in time to offer the exact same technology as a car from 1991.  And the exact same electric battery range as a car from 1897.

We’re talking retro-grade cool.

But wait – there’s so much more.

(A)dd $240 million in Energy Department grants doled out to G.M. last summer, $150 million in federal money to the Volt’s Korean battery supplier, up to $1.5 billion in tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives, and some significant portion of the $14 billion loan G.M. got in 2008 for “retooling” its plants, and you’ve got some idea of how much taxpayer cash is built into every Volt.

Speaking of those “tax breaks for purchasers and other consumer incentives” – as of November of last year that tally all by itself was $250,000 per Volt sold.

And that excruciating pain is ongoing.  Again, a Volt sold makes GM no money – but costs We the Taxpayers a $7,500 bribe – I mean “incentive.”  Oh – and President Obama wants to jack that bribe to $10,000 per.

I guess it’s good news after all that Volt sales remain so anemic.

And with GM’s new 60-day return policy, it looks like you can buy a Volt and cash the $7,500 bribe check. Then return the Volt – and keep the $7,500 bribe cash.  How’s that for Taxpayer coin stewardship?

2012 Primary, Energy Policy, Obama, Pay to Play, True Talking Points

Political Ad: This is how Obama defines “a fair shot” (video)

Leave a comment

With so many of thee green energy boondoggles it looks like this: Obama gives big taxpayer money to a fund raiser who is an owner in a “green energy company”. Said owners pay themselves in a big way, give big money to Democrats and go out of business – 15th Green Energy Company Funded By Obama Goes Under (video).

2012 Primary, Alarmism, Econ, Energy Policy, Obama, Pay to Play, True Talking Points

15th Green Energy Company (UPDATE – Make that 36th) Funded by Obama Goes Under

Leave a comment

UPDATE IV – Make that 50… – LINK

UPDATE III – October 18th 2012 – the number is 36 either filing for bankruptcy or about to – LINK

The latest “Solyndra” is Abound Solar.  With so many of these green energy boondoggles it looks like this: Obama gives big taxpayer money to a campaign donor who is an owner in a junk “green energy company”. Said owners pay themselves in a big way, give big money to Democrats and go out of business. “Scheming that the right people got their loan guarantees” – LINK.

Businessweek:

Abound Solar Inc., a U.S. solar manufacturer that was awarded a $400 million U.S. loan guarantee, will suspend operations and file for bankruptcy because its panels were too expensive to compete.

Abound borrowed about $70 million against the guarantee, the Loveland, Colorado-based company said today in a statement. It plans to file for bankruptcy protection in Wilmington, Delaware, next week.

The failure will follow that of Solyndra LLC, which shut down in August after receiving a $535 million loan guarantee from the same U.S. Energy Department program. Abound stopped production in February to focus on reducing costs after a global oversupply and increasing competition from China drove down the price of solar panels by half last year.

Ouch –

U.S. taxpayers may lose $40 million to $60 million on the loan after Abound’s assets are sold and the bankruptcy proceeding closes, Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman, said in a statement today.

For more coverage of green energy boondoggles and corruption see our Alarmism category.

Aside from Finnish car company (and Stimulus money recipient) Fiskar already having troubles, here is the list:

UPDATE – Make that 16 – Amonix Corp near Las Vegas closes doors after 14 months and $20 million in Green Energy grants – LINK

Solyndra
Abound Solar
Energy Conversion Devices
BrightSource
LSP
Evergreen Solar
Ener1
SunPower
Beacon Power
ECOtality
Uni-Solar
Azure Dynamics
Solar Trust

A123 – Being handed to the Chinese after they got our money? – LINK.

UPDATE II – A123 now filing for bankruptcy and selling assets to Johnson Controls – LINK.

President Obama statement praising A123

2012 Primary, Alarmism, Energy Policy, Obama, Pay to Play, True Talking Points

Obama Green Energy Program Cost $9.8 million Per Job…

Leave a comment

After almost a dozen solar companies who got large sums of taxpayer dollars have gone bankrupt after the CEO donors paid themselves and donated back to the party news of this program came as no surprise, but still manages to turn stomachs.

CNS News:

The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs — annual operation and maintenance positions — meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.

At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs — which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).

Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.

As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.

The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve  “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”

2012 Primary, Energy Policy, Obama, True Talking Points

GAO: Recoverable American oil in a single location equal to the entire world oil reserves…

Leave a comment

Via the Ulsterman Report and CNS News:

According to testimony to Congress from Anu K. Mittal, director of the Government Accountability Office’s natural resources and environment office. According to Mittal’s testimony, the United States currently has domestic oil reserves that equal that of all other oil reserves in the world. Let that statement sink in. And also know that Director Mittal is referencing oil reserves for just one location – oil shale in the Green River Formation. She is not even including all the other oil producing regions within the United States. The newly discovered Green River Formation itself has enough potential reserves to equal those of the rest of known reserves throughout the entire world:

“The Green River Formation–an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming–contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale,”Anu K. Mittal, the GAO’s director of natural resources and environment said in written testimony submitted to the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
“USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions,” Mittal testified.

“The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.” – LINK with video

So much for Obama repeatedly saying that we only have 1 or 2% of what we use. He knows better.

2012 Primary, Alarmism, Econ, Energy Policy, Obama, True Talking Points

EPA Official on Video: We Are “Crucifying” Oil And Gas Companies…

Leave a comment

Via Heritage:

A video surfaced on Wednesday showing a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency comparing his agency’s philosophy with respect to regulation of oil and gas companies to brutal tactics employed by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its foes into submission.

EPA’s “philosophy of enforcement,” said EPA’s Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, is “kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean: they’d go into little Turkish towns somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they’d run into, and they’d crucify them.”

Senator James Inhofe is calling for an investigation:

More:

CNS News – LINK.

The Blaze – Hit them hard, make examples of them – LINK.

2012 Primary, Econ, Energy Policy, Obama, True Talking Points

Gas Prices Grow More Under Obama than Carter

Leave a comment

US News & World Report:

Marking the similarities between President Barack Obama’s time in office and former president Jimmy Carter’s is nothing new. But as of Monday, Obama has hit one more Carter benchmark – both saw gas prices double in their first term of office. [See Where Gas Prices are Spiking the Most]

In fact, while just barely, Obama has seen an even higher gas price increase than Carter dealt with under his administration.

Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.

2012 Primary, Budget, Corporatism, Energy Policy, Obama, Pay to Play

Another Department of Energy funded solar energy company goes bankrupt…

Leave a comment

It is the same story over and over and over… a contributor or bundler for Obama asks for a loan from the taxpayers. He gets the loan, starts or gets involved with a solar panel company, they pay themselves big money, give money to the Obama campaign or a campaign group – and then go out of business.

The story isn’t always exactly like this, but generally this is how it has worked.

Breitbart News:

On Monday, yet another Department of Energy funded solar energy company –the world’s largest solar power plant—filed for bankruptcy. Reuters reports:

Solar Trust of America LLC, which holds the development rights for the world’s largest solar power project, on Monday filed for bankruptcy protection after its majority owner began insolvency proceedings in Germany.

The Oakland-based company has held rights for the 1,000-megawatt Blythe Solar Power Project in the Southern California desert, which last April won $2.1 billion of conditional loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy. It is unclear how the bankruptcy will affect that project.

The Reuters story states that the company won the loan, but as the Washington Post reported that the company turned down the loan in late September of 2011. The CEO of Solar Trust, Uwe T. Schmidt thought that the loan was “too risky”. The Obama administration was willing to loan more than two billion taxpayer dollars to a company who was unwilling to take that kind of risk. The company’s bankruptcy filings indicate they employed only nine people.

This $2.1 billion loan guarantee would have been equivalent to more than three Solyndra sized loans. Solar Trust is one of the companies Peter Schweizer mentioned in his book Throw Them All Out who were offered or received large Department of Energy loans or grants and also have ties to President Obama. Schweizer notes in his book that Citigroup Global Partners and Deutsche Bank have invested $6 billion in this project.

Until recently, the vice chair of Citigroup Global Partners was Louis Susman who sat on the National Finance Committee for Obama’s campaign in 2008. In return, Susman left Citigroup to become President Obama’s ambassador to Britain.Another partner in this project is Chevron, who favored candidate Obamaover his 2008 rival Senator McCain in campaign donations.

In addition to the offer of financial benefits this politically tied company received, Solar Trust also received regulatory benefits. The Bylthe Solar Power Project is located on federal land. While the Obama administration is decreasing development of proven energy sources like oil on federal lands, they actually fast tracked thisproject’s permitting process:

Solar Trust partnered with Chevron (NYSE: CVX) to develop the Blythe project, which is located on federal land. It and eight other projects were selected by the Bureau of Land Management for a fast-track program that reduced the time it took to get land permits.

Read more HERE.

2012 Primary, Dirty Tricks, Energy Policy, Jobs, Obama, True Talking Points

President Obama Stops Atlantic Coast Oil Drilling for Five Years

Leave a comment

Thousands of jobs lost and now we are more dependent on the Saudi King he likes to bow to so much.

Via Breitbart News:

Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:

The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell notes that a planned lease sale, which the administration cancelled last year, will now be put off until at least 2018. As you might expect, Republicans were not impressed with the decision:

“The president’s actions have closed an entire new area to drilling on his watch and cheats Virginians out of thousands of jobs,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee. The announcement “continues the president’s election-year political ploy of giving speeches and talking about drilling after having spent the first three years in office blocking, delaying and driving up the cost of producing energy in America,” he said.

Read more HERE.

Corporatism, Energy Policy, Pay to Play, True Talking Points

Corporatism in Action: Why an oil company backs Jerry Brown’s tax plan

Leave a comment

By our good friend Chuck DeVore:

Why would Occidental Petroleum, America’s fourth-largest oil company, donate $250,000 to a tax-hiking ballot initiative in California?

California’s expansive state government has found itself chronically short of funds as much due to a 31 percent boost in state spending from 2003-07 as to the economic slowdown. As a consequence, it may seem that tax-increase proposals have outnumbered jobs created in recent years.

Many big corporations backed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $24 billion tax increase in 2009, reasoning that the taxes proposed beat the alternative: hiking taxes on business or the state’s oil industry.

California has the third-largest proven U.S. oil reserves, with the highest gas tax and the fifth-highest overall tax on the oil industry. But, taking more from California’s oil producers is a perennial favorite as it satisfies two important constituencies: environmentalists and consumers of government services.

Squeezing tax revenue out of oil isn’t that simple, however. California crude is heavy and sulfur-laden, making it more costly to refine and thus discounting its value by about 10 percent. A California oil “extraction tax” would act to destroy oil reserves by making locally produced oil more costly to recover, inadvertently boosting foreign oil, which California can’t tax. As a result, the value of Occidental’s California oil reserves drop to the extent taxed.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. What you tax, you get less of.

With this in mind, Occidental’s $250,000 contribution to Gov. Jerry Brown’s $9 billion tax hike initiative for the November ballot looks less like civic-minded corporate charity and more like a prudent investment. Especially since higher oil taxes would reduce the value of Occidental’s California oil reserves by hundreds of millions of dollars.
But there’s another rationale for Occidental’s assistance to the governor.

Last October, Occidental Petroleum’s CEO cited the snail’s pace of drilling-permit approvals in California as the reason for a slowdown in Occidental’s oil and natural-gas production. California granted 14 drilling permits out of 199 applications received through October 2011, a 7 percent rate. In 2009, 37 of 52 were granted, 71 percent.

Read more HERE.

2012 Primary, Alarmism, Civility, Culture War, Dirty Tricks, Education, Energy Policy, School Indoctrination, True Talking Points, Unhinged

Orange County Register: As climate case melts, zealots resort to fraud

Leave a comment

OC Register:

Respected scientist admits using false identity to obtain documents from a skeptic group.

Peter Gleick, a global warming true believer and purported scientific ethics expert, has admitted soliciting, receiving then distributing confidential fundraising and budget documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses, all to discredit Heartland, a free-market think tank that disputes global warming alarmism.

We await determinations of whether violations of state or federal laws on wire fraud and identity theft, and perhaps other offenses, occurred. Illinois-based Heartland has called in the FBI.

Mr. Gleick admitted the scheme in which he posed as a Heartland board member to obtain confidential files and sent them to global warming blogs as if they had been leaked by an insider. He denies, however, forging an accompanying “confidential strategy memo.” Heartland says the memo is not genuine, and there are indications it may have been created on the West Coast, where Mr. Gleick is president and founder of the Pacific Institute in Oakland.

Mr. Gleick requested a leave of absence from the institute after posting his confession online, in which he said, “My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded and coordinated – to attack climate science.”

Unfortunately, we are accustomed to global warming zealots making a sham of ethics as well as tarnishing science. Thanks partly to leaks of climate researchers’ emails in recent years, the global warming movement has been revealed to be a cloistered club of insiders, who bully dissenting scientists, plot to keep contrary views from being published and manipulate data.

That’s why Mr. Gleick’s antics don’t surprise us. For example, Greenpeace reportedly stole garbage from Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which also debunks global warming alarmism. The pilfered refuse showed up in media reports intended to “reveal a secret cabal I orchestrated from my basement,” Mr. Horner wrote in his book, “Red Hot Lies.”

Global warmists contend that Heartland and other critics secretly are funded by Big Oil and other fossil fuel interests. The irony is that the stolen Heartland documents reveal the small think tank’s budget of $6 million pales compared with the $26 billion in Obama administration stimulus funds pumped into global-warming friendly causes, plus the hundreds of millions spent annually by warmist-friendly groups like Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club.

As real life increasingly refutes the theory of global warming doom, warmists have become more shrill and desperate. Mr. Gleick’s tattered reputation is but the latest result of a movement fraught with credibility problems. Perhaps more damaging is the uncooperative climate. Despite soaring carbon dioxide emissions for 10 to 15 years, temperatures remain essentially flat or, perhaps, have even declined, depending on which standard is used.

2012 Primary, Econ, Energy Policy, Jobs, Obama, True Talking Points

Obama Administration to Congress: We’re not interested in lowering gas prices – UPDATED

Leave a comment

Secretary Chu: The Energy Department is not working to get gas prices down.

It is amazing when they let the truth out. President Obama’s Energy Secretary Stephen Chu gave an honest answer when he gave a direct answer to a direct question in testimony to Congress:

Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.

He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.

High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.

“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”

 

Mark Levin plays some more of Secretary Chu’s testimony where he makes it clear that the Obama Administration intends to drive up prices by limiting future supply:

2012 Primary, Energy Policy, Lies, Obama, True Talking Points

IBD: Obama’s Double Talk on Sky-High Gas Prices

Leave a comment

Related: IBD: Five Biggest Whoppers In Obama’s Energy Speech – UPDATED!

IBD:

When gas prices hit $4 a gallon in 2008, candidate Barack Obama said it was due to previous failed energy policies. Now that prices are heading still higher, President Obama calls it progress.

Already, pump prices are higher than they’ve been in previous years, suggesting they will top $4 soon and possibly reach an unprecedented $5 this summer.

President Obama is starting to notice the political implications. So he sent Robert Gibbs — now a top campaign adviser — out to tell the public not to worry.

“Just on Friday, the Department of the Interior issued permits that will expand our exploration in the Arctic,” Gibbs said Sunday. “Our domestic oil production is at an eight-year high, and our use of foreign oil is at a 16-year low. So we’re making progress.”

“Progress” isn’t exactly how Obama described the country’s energy picture in 2008, when gas prices were closing in on $4 a gallon. Then, it was a clear sign of “Washington’s failure to lead on energy,” which was “turning the middle-class squeeze into a devastating vise-grip for millions of Americans.”

Read more HERE.

 

2012 Primary, Budget, Education, Energy Policy, Obama, True Talking Points, Unions

Forbes: Government Education Spending Up 7 Times & Nothing To Show For It

Leave a comment

Forbes:

Solyndra’s in the classroom.

Accordingly, the “investment in education” that Obama wants more (and more, and more) of is actually “federal-government-directed investment in education”. When considering whether we really want more of this, it is important to remember that it was “federal-government-directed investment in energy” that gave us Solyndra, Ener1, and Beacon Power, and that it was “federal-government-directed investment in housing” that has cost taxpayers more than $150 billion in losses (thus far) at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So, how would we know if increased government “investment” in education was producing a return? We would see a steady rise in the ratio of GDP to “nonresidential produced assets” over time. Our GDP is produced by a combination of physical capital and human capital. Accordingly, if the economic value of our human capital were rising, the impact would show up in the numbers as increasing productivity of physical capital.

Now, here is the bad news. While total real ($2010) government spending on education increased almost 13-fold from 1951 to 2009, the measured GDP return on physical capital actually declined slightly, from 47.7% to 44.1%. This could not have happened if we were getting an appreciable economic return on our huge “investment” in education.

What follows is a “first approximation analysis”. The numbers could be done with more precision, but they are good enough to give us an idea of what the nation has been getting (actually, not getting) for its massive “investments” in education.

Assuming that about 25% of our total population is in school at any one time, average real (2010 dollars) government spending per student rose from $1,763 in 1951 to $12,209 in 2009. This is an increase of about 7 times. Assuming an average of 13 years of education per student (some go to college, some drop out of high school), this means that during this 58-year time period, we increased our real “investment” in the human capital represented by each student from $22,913 to $158,717.

More:

Also, imagine if, instead of being given a 2009 education for $158,717, an average student were given a 1967-style education for about $58,000, and $100,000 in capital with which to start his working life. This would be sufficient to start any number of small businesses. Alternatively, if put in an IRA earning a real return of 6%, the $100,000 would grow to about $1.8 million over 50 years.

The huge government “investments” made in education over the past 50 years have produced little more than “Solyndras in the classroom”. They have enriched teachers unions and other rent-seekers, but have added little or nothing to the economic prospects of students. America does not need more such “investment”.

Read more HERE.

 

2012 Primary, Energy Policy, Obama, True Talking Points

IBD: Five Biggest Whoppers In Obama’s Energy Speech – UPDATED!

Leave a comment

Who did not see this piece coming form a mile away:

IBD:

Energy: The White House billed President Obama’s energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.

Obama’s main message to struggling motorists was: It’s not my fault, so stop whining. The speech only got worse from there, recycling excuses and myths that Obama’s peddled for years. But there were some standout whoppers that deserve debunking. The five biggest:

“We’re focused on production.”

Fact: While production is up under Obama, this has nothing to do with his policies, but is the result of permits and private industry efforts that began long before Obama occupied the White House.

Obama has chosen almost always to limit production. He canceled leases on federal lands in Utah, suspended them in Montana, delayed them in Colorado and Utah, and canceled lease sales off the Virginia coast.

His administration also has been slow-walking permits in the Gulf of Mexico, approving far fewer while stretching out review times, according to the Greater New Orleans Gulf Permit Index. The Energy Dept. says Gulf oil output will be down 17% by the end of 2013, compared with the start of 2011. Swift Energy President Bruce Vincent is right to say Obama has “done nothing but restrict access and delay permitting.”

“The U.S. consumes more than a fifth of the world’s oil. But we only have 2% of the world’s oil reserves.”

Fact: Obama constantly refers to this statistic to buttress his claim that “we can’t drill our way to lower gas prices.” The argument goes that since the U.S. supply is limited, it won’t ever make a difference to world prices.

It’s bogus. New exploration and drilling technologies have uncovered vast amounts of recoverable oil.

In fact, the U.S. has a mind-boggling 1.4 trillion barrels of oil, enough to “fuel the present needs in the U.S. for around 250 years,” according to the Institute for Energy Research. The problem is the government has put most of this supply off limits.

“Because of the investments we’ve made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled.”

Fact: Production of renewable energy — biomass, wind, solar and the like — climbed just 12% between 2008 and 2011, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

“We need to double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.”

Fact: Renewable energy simply won’t play an important role in the country’s energy picture anytime soon, accounting for just 13% of U.S. energy production by 2035, according to the EIA.

“There are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices.”

Fact: Obama could drive down oil prices right now simply by announcing a more aggressive effort to boost domestic supplies. When President Bush lifted a moratorium in 2008, oil prices immediately fell $9 a barrel.

Obama said in his speech that Americans aren’t stupid. He’s right about that, which is why most are giving his energy policy a thumbs down.

Tapper: Why Is Obama Asking “Indignant” About Higher Gas Prices When He Campaigned On It

Obama statements from 2008:

[youtube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3d_CJoO0OA]

[youtube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPyFbNWffHE]

Barack Obama 2008 ad on Gas Prices [Editor’s Note – and yes he did take money from oil companies, specifically BP… the oil spill company who got all those safety waivers]

Obama saying he wants $4.00 a gallon gas

Obama In 2008 Supported a Gas Pipeline From Canada

2012 Primary, Corporatism, Energy Policy, Obama, Pay to Play, True Talking Points

Taxpayer dollars flow to firms with top Obama donors

Leave a comment

Welcome to Chicago, but in DC it is so much more of the same and YOU are paying the bill.

Washington Post:

Sanjay Wagle was a venture capitalist and Barack Obama fundraiser in 2008, rallying support through a group he headed known as Clean Tech for Obama.

Shortly after Obama’s election, he left his California firm to join the Energy Department, just as the administration embarked on a massive program to stimulate the economy with federal investments in clean-technology firms.

Following an enduring Washington tradition, Wagle shifted from the private sector, where his firm hoped to profit from federal investments, to an insider’s seat in the administration’s $80 billion clean-energy investment program.

He was one of several players in venture capital, which was providing financial backing to start-up clean-tech companies, who moved into the Energy Department at a time when the agency was seeking outside expertise in the field. At the same time, their industry had a huge stake in decisions about which companies would receive government loans, grants and support.

During the next three years, the department provided $2.4 billion in public funding to clean-energy companies in which Wagle’s former firm, Vantage Point Venture Partners, had invested, a Washington Post analysis found. Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

Obama’s program to invest federal funds in start-up companies — and the failure of some of those companies — is becoming a rallying cry for opponents in the presidential race. Mitt Romney has promised to focus on Obama’s “record” as a “venture capitalist.” And in ads and speeches, conservative groups and the Republican candidates are zeroing in on the administration’s decision to extend $535 million to the now-shuttered solar firm Solyndra and billions of dollars more to clean-tech start-ups backed by the president’s political allies.

White House officials stress that staffers and advisers with venture capital ties did not make funding decisions related to these companies. But e-mails released in a congressional probe of Obama’s clean-tech program show that staff and advisers with links to venture firms informally advocated for some of those companies.

David Gold, a venture capitalist and critic of Obama’s investments in clean tech, said that even if staffers had been removed from the final decision-making, they had the kind of inside access to exert subtle influence.

“To believe those quiet conversations don’t happen in the hallways — about a project being in a certain congressman’s district or being associated with a significant presidential donor, is naive,” said Gold, who once worked at the Office of Management and Budget. “When you’re putting this kind of pressure on an organization to make decisions on very big dollars, there’s increased likelihood that political connections will influence things.”

Read more HERE.