U.S. Supreme Court blocks Obama's climate rule for power plants.

U.S. Supreme Court blocks Obama's climate rule for power plants. The Hill.

The Supreme Court has blocked President Obama's landmark climate rule for power plants, dealing a major blow to the president's climate agenda.

In an order released Tuesday night, the court said it is placing a stay on the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants while industry and state lawsuits move forward.

The court granted the request in a 5-4 vote on Tuesday night, saying the rule was on hold until the circuit court reviews it and Supreme Court appeals are exhausted. The court’s four liberal justices dissented from the decision.

The rule — the Clean Power Plan — is the main plank of Obama's climate change agenda. It’s designed to cut carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 32 percent over 2005 levels by 2030 by assigning states individual reduction targets based on their energy mix.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement that the administration disagrees with the order, but “we remain confident that we will prevail” when the rule is argued on its merits.

The stay means Obama will likely leave office with the fate of his premier climate policy undecided. Read the full story here.

Now GMO Fries? U.S.D.A. Approves Genetically Modified Potato.

Now GMO Fries? U.S.D.A. Approves Genetically Modified Potato. (NYTimes).

A potato genetically engineered to reduce the amounts of a potentially harmful ingredient in French fries and potato chips has been approved for commercial planting, the Department of Agriculture announced on Friday.

The potato’s DNA has been altered so that less of a chemical called acrylamide, which is suspected of causing cancer in people, is produced when the potato is fried.

The new potato also resists bruising, a characteristic long sought by potato growers and processors for financial reasons. Potatoes bruised during harvesting, shipping or storage can lose value or become unusable.

The biotech tubers were developed by the J. R. Simplot Company, a privately held company based in Boise, Idaho, which was the initial supplier of frozen French fries to McDonald’s in the 1960s and is still a major supplier. The company’s founder, Mr. Simplot, who died in 2008, became a billionaire.


The potato is one of a new wave of genetically modified crops that aim to provide benefits to consumers, not just to farmers as the widely grown biotech crops like herbicide-tolerant soybeans and corn do. The nonbruising aspect of the potato is similar to that of genetically engineered nonbrowning apples, developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, which are awaiting regulatory approval.Read the full story here.

EPA agency tells Congress: File not found.

EPA agency tells Congress: File not found. TheHill.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the IRS share a problem: officials say they cannot provide the emails a congressional committee has requested because an employee’s hard drive crashed.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy confirmed to the House Oversight Committee Wednesday that her staff is unable to provide lawmakers all of the documents they have requested on the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, because of a 2010 computer crash.

“We’re having trouble getting the data off of it and we’re trying other sources to actually supplement that,” McCarthy said. “We’re challenged in figuring out where those small failures might have occurred and what caused them occur, but we’ve produced a lot of information.”

The revelation came less than two weeks after IRS officials told Congress that Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the controversy over the targeting of conservative tax-exempt groups, also suffered from a hard drive crash that makes it difficult to comply with records requests.Read the full story here.

Video - MSM Ignore Supreme Court Ruling on EPA’s Emissions Regulations.

On Monday, June 23, the Supreme Court ruled that while the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to mandate emissions controls on power-plants, it went too far in claiming the power to regulate smaller emitters. HT: Newsbusters.

Fracking study finds combustible levels of methane in water after EPA gave the all clear.

Fracking study finds combustible levels of methane in water after EPA gave the all clear.(RT).

Steve Lipsky, a resident of Fort Worth, Texas, complained to the Environmental Protection Agency that his family’s water seemed to be bubbling in a way that made it appear similar to a glass of champagne. 

The EPA issued an emergency order and immediately began investigating in December of 2010, warning at least two families that their water supply may be contaminated with flammable methane.

The EPA dropped its investigation, rescinding its emergency order, and then refused to explain its reasoning. Documents later obtained by the Associated Press revealed that the EPA did indeed have evidence against Range Resources, which operated a drill near Lipsky’s home, but decided to drop its investigation when company executives threatened to pull Range Resources out of a national study into hydraulic fracking.

Documents further indicate that the EPA ignored analysis that the contamination was the result of drilling and relied on tests conducted by Range Resources, which found no evidence of contamination.

Now, another full year later, an independent study conducted by Duke University has determined that combustible levels of methane do exist in wells near Weatherford, Texas and recommends that the EPA re-open its investigation.

 The results, published Friday, seem to validate local residents’ assertions, including Steve Lipsky’s claim that his well water will actually ignite when he holds up a flame.
“I don’t understand why they would let the company that was accused of doing the wrongdoing conduct the tests,” resident Shelly Purdue told Bloomberg News. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Duke researchers found 54.7 milligrams per liter of methane in a random sample of drinking water in December 2012. Curiously, the Range Resources study conducted just a month earlier found a mere 20 milligrams and 4.2 milligrams in mid-2012.

Energy companies use hydraulic fracturing, better known as “fracking,” to drill through think layers of rock to access oil and gas reserves previously considered to be out of reach.
Environmentalists have asserted that this practice is harmful, especially because of the risk it presents to the drinking water consumed by the rest of the general population.
One reason the EPA has been so soft on the industry, critics say, could be because the agency is reluctant to stand in the way of what has quickly become a very profitable business model.

Fracking opponents have criticized President Obama, lawmakers and the EPA for their apparent unwillingness to rein in the influential gas and oil companies. 

Dr. Sheila Bushkin of the Institute for Health and the Environment at University at Albany wrote in a blog post that the issue is much more important than the usual political finger-pointing, though.

“When you listen to the personal experiences of actual residents of Pennsylvania and other states where fracking has gone forward, you will hear stories of dead cows, pets, sick children, poisoned water, and other serious health and environmental problems,” she wrote. “These stories confirm our need for much greater research and evidence-based scientific facts.”

EPA overrides U.S. Congress, 'donates' Wyoming town to Indian tribes

EPA overrides U.S. Congress, 'donates' Wyoming town to Indian tribes. HT: DailyCaller.HT: AlwaysOnWatch.

Have you heard the story of the residents of Riverton, Wyo.? One day they were Wyomingans, the next they were members of the Wind River tribes — after the Environmental Protection Agency declared the town part of the Wind River Indian Reservation, undoing a 1905 law passed by Congress and angering state officials.

The surprise decision was made by officials of the EPA, the Department of Interior, and Department of Justice early last month, and has invoked the ire of Gov. Matt Mead, who has vowed not to honor the agency’s decision and is preparing to fight in court.

“My deep concern is about an administrative agency of the federal government altering a state’s boundary and going against over 100 years of history and law,” Mead said in a statement. “This should be a concern to all citizens because, if the EPA can unilaterally take land away from a state, where will it stop?”   Hmmmm......'Redistribution of wealth'.Read the full story here.

Video - Coming to a neighbourhood near you: A Thousand Dollar fine for your wood-burning stove.

Video - Coming to a neighbourhood near you: A Thousand Dollar fine for your wood- burning stove.HT: Offthegridnews.

The EPA has banned the production and sale of the types of stoves used by about 80 percent of those with such stoves. The regulations limit the amount of “airborne fine-particle matter” to 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air. The current EPA regulations allow for 15 micrograms in the same amount of air space.

Most of the wood stoves currently nestled inside cabins and homes from coast-to-coast don’t meet the new environmental standard. The EPA launched a “Burn Wise” website to help convince the public that the new regulations were needed.Trading in an old stove for a newer stove isn’t allowed.Read the full story here.

Obama 'tool' EPA to be challenged at SCOTUS over climate change.

Obama 'tool' EPA to be challenged at SCOTUS over climate change.(Reuters).By Lawrence Hurley.

WASHINGTON – In a blow to the Obama administration, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s first wave of regulations aimed at tackling climate change.

By agreeing to hear a single question of the many presented by nine different petitioners, the court set up its biggest environmental dispute since 2007.

That question is whether the EPA correctly determined that its decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles necessarily required it also to regulate emissions from stationary sources.

The EPA regulations are among President Barack Obama’s most significant measures to address climate change. The U.S. Senate in 2010 scuttled his effort to pass a federal law that would, among other things, have set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

By agreeing to hear a consolidated challenge from states and business groups, the court could be getting set to limit the reach of its groundbreaking 2007 ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, in which it held on a 5-4 vote that carbon was a pollutant that could potentially be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

The court rejected outright three of the nine petitions that sought Supreme Court review, including one filed by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a Republican, that questioned whether the EPA appropriately weighed climate change science.

The legal question, crafted by the court itself from those raised in the six petitions it agreed to review, indicates the court does not plan to revisit the underlying reasoning behind Massachusetts v. EPA but will weigh whether the EPA went further than allowed under the act.

The American Petroleum Institute, a lobbying group that along with manufacturing interests filed one of the petitions, said the fact that EPA regulations for cars automatically triggered further regulation of other sources of greenhouse gas emissions was an "overstep" of the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act.

"The EPA is seeking to regulate U.S. manufacturing in a way that Congress never planned and never intended," said Harry Ng, American Petroleum Institute vice president and general counsel.

Whatever the court eventually decides, the EPA's ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions from power plants and other stationary sources is not under threat, environmental lawyers say.

Even if the court ruled for petitioners, most power plants and refineries would still be required to install best available control technology to limit greenhouse gases, said Sean Donahue, a lawyer representing environmental groups at Donahue and Goldberg.Read the full story here.

Federal judge denies order to stop EPA Disturbing 'Human Experiments' in Chapel Hill.

Federal judge denies order to stop EPA Disturbing 'Human Experiments' in Chapel Hill.(WNCT). By Charlotte Huffman

A federal judge has denied a request to stop EPA studies that critics call “illegal human experimentation.”

“This is wrong. This is crazy,” said Steve Milloy, public health advocate for The American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center.

Milloy filed a temporary restraining order to have the on-going trials at UNC stopped and has called for an investigation into the EPA.

Tuesday, in federal court in the eastern district of Virginia, Judge Anthony Trenga denied the request, saying he lacked the jurisdiction needed to make a decision.

Milloy has also filed a lawsuit against the EPA and says the EPA exposed at least 300 patients to lethal toxins without their knowledge in experiments that began roughly six years ago.

“They led me to believe that it was harmless and that they were looking out for my health,” Landon Huffman, who participated in the trials, previously told NBC-17.

The lawsuit alleges the EPA piped concentrated high levels of substances like fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and diesel exhaust into the lungs of unhealthy people to see what would happen.

The EPA has repeatedly said that the toxins used can cause cancer and lead to death.

“EPA has got to be stopped from doing this. We can't have a federal agency testing these really toxic substances on sick people. That's just unheard of,” Milloy said.

The EPA maintains all studies are evaluated for safety. Milloy isn't convinced and says he will continue to press on.

“If we can't stop the EPA, then who can? Can the agency just ... expose people to this toxic substance and lie to them about it and nobody can do anything? Does it take an act of congress to stop the EPA? What are the courts for?”

While it is apparent that no one can enforce the EPA’s obligation to follow the human testing rules, Milloy says individual plaintiffs may sue in order to recover damages.

The problem, Milloy says, is the patients do not know they are currently or have previously been involved in harmful experiments. And due to confidentiality agreements, the patient’s names cannot be released.

The EPA advertises the trials in question under the name “Captain.”

A spokeswoman for the North Carolina Medical Board denied NBC-17’s requests for an on-camera interview on the basis that NCMB complaints and investigations are confidential.

NBC-17 obtained letters written by NCMB Executive Director David Henderson showing the NCMB has opened an investigation into Dr. Andrew Ghio and Dr. Wayne Cascio.

Ghio and Cascio are licensed by the NCMB and are involved in the EPA trials.

Ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sen. James Inhoffe (R-Wis.) has sent a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, Democratic chairman of the Committee, requesting an immediate hearing to look into the EPA.Hmmmm........Flashback : Nazi Germany - Diesel Gas Chambers: Ideal for Torture -- Absurd for Murder. Read the full story here.

Related: The EPA’s Disturbing Human Experiments

EPA waives fee requests for friendly groups, denies conservative groups - Another Obama White House scandal?

EPA waives fee requests for friendly groups, denies conservative groups - Another Obama White House scandal?(WE).

Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Conservative Enterprise Institute.

CEI reviewed Freedom of Information Act requests sent between January 2012 and this spring from several environmental groups friendly to the EPA’s mission, and several conservative groups, to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy for media and watchdog groups. Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups disseminating information for public benefit.

“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said CEI fellow Chris Horner.

For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Waterkeeper Alliance, Greenpeace, Southern Environmental Law Center and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities.”
Similarly, requests from conservative groups Judicial Watch and National Center for Public Policy Research were approved half the time, and all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied. “Their practice is to take care of their friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information,” said Horner.

Freedom of Information Act requests from CEI forced the EPA to release emails under the the “Richard Windsor” alias former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson used to conduct government business. 

CEI has also filed FOIA requests for emails, text messages and instant messages from Jackson and EPA nominee Gina McCarthy. Horner said he believes the EPA has denied CEI’s requests because his think tank is the most active group seeking to hold the agency accountable. “This is a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly,” he said. “The left hand of big government reaches out to give a boost to its far-left hand at every turn. Argue against more of the same, however, and prepare to be treated as if you have fewer rights.”Hmmm......'Definition of 'totalitarian regime'. "Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority."Read the full story here.

Twelve States ask SCOTUS to challenge EPA on climate regulation.

Twelve States ask SCOTUS to challenge EPA on climate regulation.HT: Wattsupwiththat.By Anthony Watts.Twelve States (Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota) today filed a petition to have the Supreme Court review the D.C. Circuit’s decision not to strike down EPA’s climate regulations.

The States argue that the Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act was designed in 1970, in order to fight smog. The law’s tools and mechanisms are totally inappropriate for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which are much more prevalent than the pollutants that cause smog.

(full petition follows)

The States allege that EPA has overstepped its legal authority as the Agency tries to square the circle of fighting global warming with a law that was written at a time when people were scared of global cooling.

The full petition is here: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/States-GHG-petition.pdf

U.S. green energy program loophole enables U.S. company to earn millions of Dollars without even selling oil.

U.S. green energy program loophole enables U.S. company to earn millions of Dollars without even selling oil.(Oilprice). By. James Burgess.
A cargo train filled with biofuels crossed the border between the US and Canada 24 times between the 15th of June and the 28th of June 2010; not once did it unload its cargo, yet it still earned millions of dollars.
CBC News of Canada was the first to pick up on this story on the 3rd of December 2012, and began their own investigation into the possible explanations behind this odd behaviour.
CN Rail, the operator of the train, stated their innocence in the matter as they had only “received shipping directions from the customer, which, under law, it has an obligation to meet. CN discharged its obligations with respect to those movements in strict compliance with its obligations as a common carrier, and was compensated accordingly.” Even so, they still managed to earn C$2.6 million in shipping fees.
During their investigation CBC managed to obtain an internal email which stated that the cars of the train were all reconfigured between each trip but that the cargo was never actually unloaded, because “each move per car across the border is revenue generated”, the sale of the cargo itself was inconsequential.
The cargo of the train was owned by Bioversal Trading Inc., or its US partner Verdero, depending on what stage of the trip it was at. The companies “made several million dollars importing and exporting the fuel to exploit a loophole in a U.S. green energy program.” Each time the loaded train crossed the border the cargo earned its owner a certain amount of Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs), which were awarded by the US EPA to “promote and track production and importation of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.” The RINs were supposed to be retired each time the shipment passed the border, but due to a glitch not all of them were. This enabled Bioversal to accumulate over 12 million RINs from the 24 trips, worth between 50 cents and $1 each, which they can then sell on to oil companies that haven’t met the EPA’s renewable fuel requirements.Both the Canada Border Services Agency and the US EPA have launched investigations into the possibility of fraud, although the companies claim that the practice was totally legal.Read the full story here.

Video - Krauthammer slams Obama for ‘illegal and unconstitutional’ regulatory overreach.

Krauthammer also commented on the legality of the regulatory environment, one of which he said reflected an “arrogance.”
“And lastly, you get the arrogance of it,” he continued, “the administration essentially enacting legislation on its own through regulation, the way it did the DREAM Act and the way it did in stripping away the work requirement in a reform of welfare.”
“So all of these things happened unilaterally. A lot of them, I think, are actually illegal and unconstitutional. But even if they are constitutional, they are incredibly destructive of small business.” Read the full story here.

The EPA and December 7th - "A date that will live in infamy."

The EPA and December 7th - "A date that will live in infamy."(WUWT).Originally published in The Washington Times.
December 7, 2009 is a date that will live in infamy. Not only in memory of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the day the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

The 52-page EPA Endangerment Finding can be summarized simply. The agency concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases emitted by US industry and vehicles were causing dangerous global warming. The EPA stated that these gases “…threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The agency relied on studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, and the National Research Council.

That ruling is bizarre. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smoke or smog. The rising visible plumes from the smokestacks of a power plant are not CO2. That’s condensing water vapor. We can’t see carbon dioxide.

The EPA ruling failed to include nature’s largest greenhouse gas, water vapor. Scientists estimate that 75 percent to 90 percent of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor and clouds. As any eighth-grade chemistry student learns, burning hydrocarbon fuel produces both carbon dioxide and water vapor. When natural gas (methane) is burned, two water vapor molecules are produced for each carbon dioxide molecule. Since water vapor is a greenhouse gas produced by human industry, the EPA should declare water a pollutant by its own logic.

Rather than being a pollutant, CO2 is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food, a compound essential for plant photosynthesis. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 cause plants to grow faster and larger. Wheat, orange trees, pine trees, hardwood trees, prairie grasses, and even poison ivy thrive in higher levels of CO2.

Plants grow larger root systems, produce more seeds and vegetables, and bloom larger flowers with more CO2. Tree wood density increases. Plants grow better in poor soil and drought conditions with higher levels of atmospheric CO2. In fact, if we wanted to put one compound into the atmosphere that would be great for the biosphere, carbon dioxide is that compound. Yet, almost every university and company now tracks the size of its “carbon footprint” and tries to reduce carbon emissions.

But isn’t it true that too much of anything can be bad for the environment? Yes in the case of real pollutants such as carbon monoxide or lead, but carbon dioxide is a harmless compound that is common in nature. The 2007 IPCC Carbon Cycle Model estimated that the atmosphere contained 750 billion tons of carbon in the form of CO2 with an additional 38,000 billion tons of carbon dissolved in the oceans. Mankind adds a comparably small 6 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year.

The current atmospheric level of 394 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide is actually somewhat on the low side. Dr. William Happer of Princeton University points out that atmospheric CO2 reached several thousand ppm in past ages. Geological evidence shows that life flourished during those past times of high CO2.

Over 190 nations are currently gathered in Doha, Qatar, attempting to negotiate a global treaty to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. Future generations will regard the early 20th century as an age of climate foolishness.Hmmmm......."You will Obey and drive my electric cars?"

Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.

Another 'Obamination': EPA-mandated "green" fuel likely to damage auto engines.

Another 'Obamination': EPA-mandated "green" fuel likely to damage auto engines.(TheHill).Even Government Motors is complaining about the ongoing eco-lunacy of the Obama EPA.

AAA urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to halt sales of gasoline with higher ethanol concentrations Friday, contending the fuel blend causes engine damage not covered under most auto warranties.
EPA says that cars made in the model year 2001 and later can handle E15, the fuel blend made up of 15 percent ethanol and 85 percent petroleum...
General Motors vehicles model years 2012 and newer, as well as 2013 model-year Ford vehicles, permit use of E15. Still, GM spokeswoman Sharon Basel said the automaker agrees with AAA [and] said EPA was being "irresponsible" by permitting the use of E15 without evaluating the fuel's effects on the entire car.
"We have the same opinion, the same view as what AAA has so eloquently put in their release," Basel told The Hill on Friday.
AAA noted BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen do not cover damage from E15 under their warranties. Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo have said E15 damage might void warranties, according to AAA.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said that leaves a majority of motorists vulnerable, and like AAA, called for the National Academy of Sciences to study E15.“Concerns about E15 are not diminishing, they are increasing. That is telling. When an organization like AAA, a nationally trusted source for motorists, calls out the EPA, you would think the Administration would listen,” he said in a Friday statement.Read the full story here.

"CHANGE' - 6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--Average 68 per Day.

"CHANGE' - 6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--Average 68 per Day.(CNS).By Penny Starr.It’s Friday morning, and so far today, the Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website. In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices – an average of 68 a day. The website allows visitors to find and comment on proposed regulations and related documents published by the U.S. federal government. "Help improve Federal regulations by submitting your comments," the website says. The thousands of entries run the gamut from meeting notifications to fee schedules to actual rules and proposed rule changes. In recent days, for example, the EPA posted a proposed rule involving volatile organic compound emissions from architectural coatings: “We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act),” the proposed rule states. “We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.”Read the full story here.

"The Missing Link" in oil price - Oil and Refineries.

"The Missing Link" in oil price - Oil and Refineries.(OPN).By SteveAustin.The debate is raging in full swing: the dearth of new refineries in the US. Many are surprised to see the continued increase in oil prices despite the surge in domestic oil production. Could refineries be the missing element in the equation, they wonder. 'Why not just build new refineries and scale down the price of oil,' our readers continue to ask us. Yes, it's a fact- no new refinery has been built in the US in the past three decades. The last refinery constructed in the US at Garyville, Louisiana was way back in 1976. So, the question is reiterated as the point is so obvious: new refineries. But then, there aren't any easy three reasons, nor is the dimension only four.
First though, let's take a look at the prevailing price of oil. According to a AAA fuel gauge report, the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.62 - more than 13 cents from the previous week and 24 cents more than a month ago. After the fall in May and June, gasoline prices have increased gradually for the last seven weeks, adding pain to the already pained consumer. Is this because of dwindling oil reserves? Well, of late domestic oil production has increased by fourteen percent in the last 12 months. According to government sources, the oil production in the country hit the highest 'quarterly level' in almost a decade (for the first three months of this year). And, US produces 55 percent of the oil consumed in the country, mainly due to production spikes in Texas and North Dakota.

Clearly there is oil, so shouldn't the oil price decrease? After all, the more the commodity, often, lesser is the prices. Put it that way, the present oil prices do sound ominous. It's not as if higher demand has hiked the oil prices. On the contrary, demand for oil has been decreasing with fuel efficient cars and ethanol blended gasoline. This July, crude oil demand in the U.S. dipped to its lowest in four years on the back of average economic growth in the country, according to the American Petroleum Institute. The demand for gasoline fell 3.8 percent this July with consumption down 1.1 percent. After the peak in 2007, demand for gasoline has been sluggish. That is, despite increase in the price of crude, demand for gasoline is at record low. So, the speculation does gain force - are lack of refineries hampering the fall in the price of oil? North Dakota produces more than 600,000 barrel/month but has only one refinery in Mandan. An element of bafflement does linger to see the country producing substantial oil and yet importing refined products. 

There is colossal gap in the realm of production and refining capacity in the country. The refineries are churning at full capacity which makes them profitable, but on the downside there is no room for mistake. They have to deal with variable demand on one hand and higher costs of inputs on the other. Recently, Sunoco Inc. announced closure of its largest refinery leading to fears of fuel shortage and higher oil prices in the US. Fortunately, a deal with the Carlyle Group saved the day for Sunoco Inc. and the oil industry. But, the problems in the refining sector are far from over. Two refineries owned by Sunoco Inc. did close in the last eight months, which means a loss of nearly half the gasoline and other refined products in the East coast. 

Although a continuation of the import story, the scene is slightly different in the Midwest. The refineries here are enjoying higher profits, credit to generous supplies from Canada and domestic oil. Imports from Canada reached 1.76 million barrels a day in the first quarter of 2012, an increase of almost 22 percent from last year (Source: EIA). Unsurprisingly, Canada is the largest supplier of crude to the US followed by Saudi Arabia.
Recently the Port Arthur refinery underwent expansion to almost double its daily capacity. So, why do refineries expand rather than build new ones? It's easier because of the environmental regulations. The apparent lack of logic in not having refineries does get answered when you take the environment under consideration. 

Refineries gobble up water, not to mention vast tracts of land, and contribute loads of CO2 to the air, as well. So, environmental regulation tends to be hard for anyone interested in refineries. The EPA regulations are also strict on the sulfur content Light crude is easier to process, has lower sulfur content so it's easier to get the environmental nod. Heavy sour crude, on the other side, has more sulfur and is more difficult to process. Sunoco Inc. is said to have lost $ 1 billion in the last three years, attempting to upgrade in accordance with the stricter EPA regulation.
Will the picture change? Everyone wants refineries, just is someone else's backyard. The new EPA regulation for new refineries scheduled to be released this November has been deferred because of the Presidential elections. How is it going to pan out? Mitt Romney is all for more drilling. He wants to drill "virtually every part of U.S. lands and waters" but is silent on his take on refineries. For his part, Obama is for 'energy independence' but with his strict environmental laws, no refinery is going to come up anytime soon. The situation is precarious. The demand isn't expected to rise anytime soon. EIA has lowered the forecast of oil consumption in 2012 and 2013.
Any destruction due to accidents (like the recent fires), weather conditions, and maintenance would affect the supply with immediate effect. For instance, the recent fire in the Chevron refinery at Richmond, California disrupted almost 16% of the supply in the region. Abundant reserves, yet prone to import fluctuations- which country would want to continue in this position?
If the refineries aren't taken care of, the dream of cheaper crude would continue to be a dream. That would be sad with the present domestic resources. Read the full story here. 

"REVENGE" - Fearing Romney victory, EPA plans post election anti-coal regulation.

"REVENGE" - Fearing Romney victory, EPA plans post election anti-coal regulation.(WE).President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has devoted an unprecedented number of bureaucrats to finalizing new anti-coal regulations that are set to be released at the end of November, according to a source inside the EPA. More than 50 EPA staff are now crashing to finish greenhouse gas emission standards that would essentially ban all construction of new coal-fired power plants. Never before have so many EPA resources been devoted to a single regulation.
The independent and non-partisan Manhattan Institute estimates that the EPA’s greenhouse gas coal regulation will cost the U.S. economy $700 billion.
The rush is a major sign of panic by environmentalists inside the Obama administration. If Obama wins, the EPA would have another four full years to implement their anti-fossil fuel agenda. But if Romney wins, regulators will have a very narrow window to enact a select few costly regulations that would then be very hard for a President Romney to undo. 
Reached for comment, Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said:

President Obama won’t tell the voters of the Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania the truth about his plans to shut down the coal industry. Even after he loses on Tuesday, it appears that the President will still try to continue his efforts to kill their jobs and drive up their energy prices. Mitt Romney is committed to reversing the damage caused by the Obama Administration’s disastrous liberal agenda as soon as he takes office.

Hmmmm.......Obama: “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them,” Read the full story here.

Sacramento Diesel $6/Gallon - Why California's Gas Price Nightmare Could Last For Weeks.

Sacramento Diesel $6/Gallon - Why California's Gas Price Nightmare Could Last For Weeks.(BI).California drivers may have to wait until November to see any relief at the pump, analysts say.
The state's gas prices surged 17 cents last night and have spiked 36 cents in the past week.
A confluence of factors have caused Golden State gas prices to jump, including refinery outages and pipeline disruptions.
But the most persistent driver has been the government's mandate that summer blend gasoline be sold through Oct. 31, AAA analyst Avery Ash told us by phone.
Wholesalers have begun petitioning the EPA for waivers to switch to winter blends for some early relief, he said.
Without that relief, prices could top the state's 2008 record of $4.61 early next week.
GasBuddy.com's Gregg Laskoski told us prices could average between $4.70 and $4.85 per gallon.
California consumers will likely cut back on things like movies and dining out to make up the difference, he said.
Diesel prices have not been affected, he added.????????
Independently owned gas stations are going to be hit hardest, since many must buy unbranded gasoline on spot markets, he said. Wholesaler Valero has already stopped selling on spot markets, DowJones reported.
CostCo has already shuttered some of its stations.
"If I'm an independent station, am I going to purchase significantly higher wholesale costs and taking a loss on those sales, or sell at a price my consumers are not willing to pay? That's why some say 'we're not selling'."Read the full story here.More here.

Video - The Boy Who Cried Warming.

The Boy Who Cried Warming.HT: WhatsUpWithThat.

From the producer:

I wanted to reach out and inform you that the film was recently completed and virtually launched on our website, August 24th, 2012.
Every Global Warming prediction, has proven to be science fiction. Uncover the truth as we expose the shepherds of Climate Change in this new controversial documentary.
Introducing first time filmmakers Pete Garcia II (director), Jesse Jones (writer), Deyvis Martinez (dp), Will Rich (sound) in their debut feature length
film. Independently funded, this indie documentary in not associated with any corporate sponsorship or funding whatsoever. No hidden agendas, just the COLD
truth. Support our grassroots campaign through word of mouth.Help spread the word!

Read the full story here: http://www.theboywhocriedwarming.com/