Energy Set Us Free

For John, BLUF:  The author's point is that the ability to extract energy, and the ability to use that energy to do work, were important to transforming the world economies from being based on slavery and serfdom to being based on the efforts of free men and women.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Samizdata quote of the day

From Samizdata, by Mr Johnathan Pearce (London), 7 August 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

“When did you hear any public figure extol cheap energy as an agent of poverty alleviation? When did you hear any historian describe how coal, and later oil, liberated the mass of humanity from back-breaking drudgery and led to the elimination of slavery?  For 10,000 years, the primary source of energy was human muscle-power, and emperors on every continent found ways to harness and exploit their fellows.  But why bother with slaves when you can use a barrel of sticky black stuff to do the work of a hundred men – and without needing to be fed or housed?  The reason no one says these things (other than Matt Ridley) is to be blunt, that it is unfashionable. The high-status view is that we are brutalising Gaia, that politicians are in hock to Big Oil, and that we all ought to learn to get by with less – a view that is especially easy to take if you spend the lockdown being paid to stay in your garden, and have no desire to go back to commuting.”

– Dan Hannan

I remember reading TS Ashton’s book on the Industrial Revolution many years ago as an undergraduate, and it was emphatic that no serious civilisation lifts out of poverty without an Industrial Revolution.  Even Karl Marx, wrong as he was on so much around economics, gave grudging respect to the IR in his Communist Manifesto.  (Old Soviet propaganda posters would show pictures of rosy-cheeked workers in front of factories belching out smoke.)

Are we charging toward a major effort to limit energy use?  Are we charging toward a world where the production of food is limited?  Are our betters moving us toward a global planet popultion of 3 Billion people, vice the current 7.9 Billion?

As to that last point, one can read about it at A Planet of 3 Billion:  Mapping Humanity's Long History of Ecological Destruction and Finding Our Way to a Resilient Future | A Global Citizen's Guide to Saving the Planet, by Author Dr Chris Tucker.  I don't agree with Dr Tucker and we have exchanged friendly EMails.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Economic Future

For John, BLUF:  The economic future is a lilttle uncertain, and not because of fluxuations in the Stock Market.  Current events could damage the economy as we continue to endure a Pandemic and Russia and China threaten force to regain lost territory.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mornings With Maria

Teases a Recession in 2023

I would have thought the pent up demand and the dearth of workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic would have sustained the economy for several years.

On the other hand, the Federal Reserve is concerned about rampant inflation, and is thus talkiing about a rate increase, perhaps in March.♠  At the same time, China's Chairman Xi, at a G-20, said the US should not increase interest rates.

Of course there is the issue of war and the impact on the petroleum market.  A spike in prices could be detrimental to the world economy.  Russia is a major supplier of petroleum to Europe and if that flow is cut off by a Russian invasion of Ukraine then European nations will bid up the price of oil to heat their homes and power their factories.♥

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  That means it will be more expensive to get a loan, including a home loan.
♥  The decisions of European nations to de-commission nuclear power plants now looks like a mistake in the near- and mid-terms.

More Gas Taxes

For John, BLUF:  I say tax because even if the price is driven up by a slack in supply due to Government action.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

HERE WE GO:  Gas Prices Have Already Spiked Under Biden (And They Could Go Much Higher)

From Trending Politics, by Mr Chris Donaldson, 12 February 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

After four years of stable gas prices under President Donald J. Trump, Americans may have to get used to some pain at the pump.

Former Vice President Joe Biden hasn’t even been in the White House for a month and gas prices are already up a whopping 18 percent with at least one analyst predicting that they could hit $4 per gallon in the near future.

This is, of course, a tax on the poor and the Middle Class.

Will the stimulus offset this taxation?

Hat tip to my Buddy Greg.

Regards  —  Cliff

Stop the Pipeline, etc

For John, BLUF:  Sometime in the past folks laid down markers to show that President Trump was beholden to President Putin.  President Trump missed them, but President Biden is on course.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Earth to Joe Biden:  Canceling Keystone XL Pipeline Is a Gift to China and Russia

From Real Clear Energy, by Writer Daniel Turner, 19 January 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

Joe Biden’s plans to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline is a gift to someone.  The radical green groups for sure: they have opposed the oil link since its inception.  The trucking and railroad industry will benefit, too, because once the pipeline is stopped, then the oil will be transported in and around America by something with wheels.  It’s also a gift to our adversaries:  for who will benefit when America and Canada can’t bring their fossil fuels to market? The competition.  Russia and Venezuela will be thrilled to know their market share will increase thanks to the Biden Administration’s fumble.

What’s fascinating about Keystone is how un-fascinating the project actually really is.  Sure, it’s a marvel of engineering and an extraordinary accomplishment of human and mechanical skills.  The 1,200 mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast carrying crude oil to be refined is a great infrastructure project.  A State Department study commissioned during the Obama Administration (when Joe Biden was Veep, a point which requires emphasis) determined the pipeline would create 3,200 temporary construction jobs directly, 42,000 additional jobs indirectly, and generate over $2 billion in wages.  For the people in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska, the states through which the proposed pipeline will transverse, that’s an enormous opportunity.

Of course, it is bad for the environment and the pipeline traverses sacred lands for local Native American tribes.  As to the first, I am not sure that stopping the pipeline will stop the flow of oil.  What will our Canadian neighbors do?  Stop pumping oil because we (or a voal minority) don't like it?  I am doubtful.

However, this has larger implications.

Back in February 24, 2017, in The American Interest, Mr Walter Russell Mead wrote:

If Trump were the Manchurian candidate that people keep wanting to believe that he is, here are some of the things he’d be doing:

• Limiting fracking as much as he possibly could
• Blocking oil and gas pipelines
• Opening negotiations for major nuclear arms reductions
• Cutting U.S. military spending
• Trying to tamp down tensions with Russia’s ally Iran

These outcomes were inevitable, based upon the way the American Voters cast their ballots in November.  They will get a chance to change their minds in 2022.  Reversiung the inevitable consequences may be harder.  But, we are a Democracy, so our course is not always steady.

Exit Question:  Can Canada sue us over cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Taxed Enough Already

For John, BLUF:  We are being scammed with this regional agreement for a climate tax on gasoline—the Transportation and Climate Initiative.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Baker OKs the TCI

Here is the sub-headline:

Signs up state for higher climate fees

The article is from The [Lowell] Sun, by Reporter Erin Tiernan, 22 December 2020.  The Link, however is from The Boston Broadside.

Here is the lede plus four:

Gov. Charlie Baker signed up Bay State taxpayers for a controversial carbon tax initiative praised by climate activists and blasted by businesses and residents concerned an up to 9-cent hike per gallon of gas could hit their bottom line as the state struggles to rebound from the coronavirus pandemic.

The “trailblazing” multistate Transportation and Climate Initiative sets a goal to reduce motor vehicle pollution by at least 26% and generate over $1.8 billion for climate causes in Massachusetts by 2032, Gov. Charlie Baker said in a statement announcing the partnership on Monday.

The cap- and- invest program will set a cap on vehicle emissions and mandate fuel distributors to buy permits for the carbon dioxide they emit — a cost businesses say will be handed down to the drivers at the gas pump.

“The revenue raised by TCI will come from the residents and businesses of participating states, not the fuel companies where the fee is applied,” the New England Convenience Store Owners and Energy Marketers Association said in a statement.

The program will increase the cost of gas somewhere between 5 cents and “an absolute maximum” of 9 cents per gallon — lower than the 17 cent cap the state floated last year, Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides said Monday.

This will not turn out well.  Not only will it impact individuals, but it will impact our economy.  Stand by to be rammed.

Regards  —  Cliff

Electric Cars Will Require Investment

For John, BLUF:  One wonders if the Eco-friendly have costed out their ideas?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Musk:  Electric Cars Will Require a Lot More Electric Power Than We Currently Have

From PJ Media, by Mr Bryan Preston, 1 December 2020.

Here is the lede plus several:

Tesla CEO Elon Musk says we’ll need more electricity to power cars like his.  A lot more.

Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said on Tuesday that electricity consumption will double if the world’s car fleets are electrified, increasing the need to expand nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind energy generating sources.

Increasing the availability of sustainable energy is a major challenge as cars move from combustion engines to battery-driven electric motors, a shift which will take two decades, Musk said in a talk hosted by Berlin-based publisher Axel Springer.

There’s no unicorn energy source or free lunch.  Currently, electric cars are primarily powered by coal, natural gas, and nuclear.  Those are the sources we use to generate electricity, after all, according to the Energy Information Agency.  Renewables are growing but still account for less than 20% of U.S. electricity.

There’s no free lunch when it comes to renewable energy sources, which may not even be all that renewable.  Wind and sun are free, but the means of generating power from them are not.

I, for one, like the use of nuclear power.  While it requires care in setting up, it is a reliable and consistent source of power, and it is relatively ecofriendly.

As for the rush toward electric cars, I am hoping that we have a more indepth conversation about the future, and consider the long term, the unintended, consequences.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Russians Are Coming

For John, BLUF:  The word out on the street is that President Trump is unhappy with an Intelligence Community report, given to the House Intelligence Oversight Committee, that Russia is working to reelect President Trump.  Russian interference in a US Election wouldn't surprise me.  Why should 2020 be difference from other Presidential elections back to when Lenin walked the earth?  But, why should this be different from other products from the IC, subject to varying interpretations?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Putin Can’t Be Rooting For Trump.  Why Russia Needs A Democrat Win

From Forbes, by Energy Historian Ellen R. Wald, 21 February 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

The latest reports may insist that Russian president Vladimir Putin wants President Trump to win the 2020 election, but that’s just not logical.  Practically, Putin needs a Democrat to win.  The same goes for Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and his son Mohammed.  In fact, all of the countries that depend on oil production to power their economies desperately need a Democrat to win in November.

OPEC, Russia and their other partners have failed. Prices remain persistently low, and this is largely because the United States is producing record amounts of oil (and gas).  The US now produces more than 12 million barrels per day.  More than 10 percent of global oil production comes from the US and projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecast that production will grow to 14 million barrels per day by 2022.

But, if a Democratic candidate becomes president next year, this could all change.  Various Democratic candidates have pledged to ban hydraulic fracturing, end offshore oil production, ban drilling on federal lands, institute carbon taxes and even prosecute oil executives.  Practically speaking, Democratic candidates have said they would put up one obstacle after another to impede and halt U.S. oil production.

This makes sense.  While President Trump may be President Putin's puppet, nothing he actually does supports this idea. 

Cui bono?  The Latin for "who benefits".  It doesn't look like anyone except America benefits from the actions of President Trump.

One wonders if this "Russian involvement" is an invention of the Hillary Clinton Campaign and is still virulent four years later.

Regards  —  Cliff

Cooking With Gas

For John, BLUF:  In my mind the expression Cooking with Gas emerges from my childhood, when it signified that one was now on the right path to success.  Apparently no longer.  That said, this might make the people of North Andover happy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

No more fire in the kitchen:  Cities are banning natural gas in homes to save the planet

From USA Today, by Ma Elizabeth Weise, 10 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus six:

Fix global warming or cook dinner on a gas stove?

That’s the choice for people in 13 cities and one county in California that have enacted new zoning codes encouraging or requiring all-electric new construction.

The codes, most of them passed since June, are meant to keep builders from running natural gas lines to new homes and apartments, with an eye toward creating fewer legacy gas hookups as the nation shifts to carbon-neutral energy sources.

For proponents, it's a change that must be made to fight climate change. For natural gas companies, it's a threat to their existence.  And for some cooks who love to prepare food with flame, it's an unthinkable loss.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change.

“There’s no pathway to stabilizing the climate without phasing gas out of our homes and buildings.  This is a must-do for the climate and a livable planet,” said Rachel Golden of the Sierra Club’s building electrification campaign.

These new building codes come as local governments work to speed the transition from natural gas and other fossil fuels and toward the use of electricity from renewables, said Robert Jackson, a professor of energy and the environment at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

We have not gotten to the stage where households are being forced to convert away from gas for cooking, but it does mean developers are being incentivized to switch to electric.

I wish the article had talked to the question of alternative electricity generation being brought on line to meet the deficit as gas goes away.  Is anyone doing any forward planning?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Russians Are Here

For John, BLUF:  As Saint Paul told the Thessalonians, "but test everything; hold fast what is good." (1 Thess 5:21)  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Russian trolls’ post-election task: Disrupt Florida and other U.S. energy pipelines

From McClatchy, by Mr Greg Gordon (ggordon@mcclatchydc.com), 1 May 2018.

Here are the first four paragraphs:

A television crew from Russia’s largest state-backed network swooped into downtown Miami two days before New Year’s Eve, 2016, on a curious mission.

RT, the network formerly known as Russia Today, was there to provide global news coverage of one of five unremarkable rallies across Florida that day aimed at turning the public against the nearly completed, $3 billion Sabal Trail Pipeline designed to carry natural gas to the state from Alabama.

What the demonstrators didn’t know was that so-called Russian internet trolls had been busy for two weeks encouraging people to turn out for the protests with posts on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. They used phony, American-sounding identities -- names such as Steven Cook and Amalie Baldwin.

Russia’s hidden hand in the Florida pipeline protests was extensive, according to sources familiar with the operations. At least eight Russian accounts, most tied to the troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency, sent at least 16 social media messages excoriating the Sabal Trail pipeline or retweeting messages from one of its most prominent opponents, a frequent guest on RT. The tweets were sent to a total of more than 40,000 followers as well as anyone else who saw them via hashtags.

Law Prof Glenn Hard Reynolds suggests:

SO I GUESS THIS MEANS WE NEED A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN COLLUSION WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT.

Fair is fair.

The Professor follows up with:

It’s a problem in Canada, too. Hug a fracker — and be very suspicious of people opposing domestic energy production, because apparently Russian agents are everywhere.

One thing to note is that Russia doesn't wish to reduce US energy production to save the environment, but rather reduce the economic impact on Russia of increased US oil production.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sino-Russian Complications

For John, BLUF:  In case you thought everything was rosy in Russia, this items suggests not so fast.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Russia’s Unhappy Energy Marriage with China

Here is the sub-headline:

With all the quiet chaos beneath the surface in Moscow, Beijing seems poised to benefit.

From the Blog The Diplomat, by Mr Nicholas Trickett, 30 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

As Putin has become the longest-serving Russian leader since Stalin, the country’s economic and political stagnation is drawing more and more comparisons to the Leonid Brezhnev era.  Putin’s political system cannot survive the stresses imposed by major reforms needed to improve the economy, creating a deepening dependency on foreign policy in all its forms to secure legitimacy and, more importantly, money.  By all appearances, his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, is tightening his control of the state and policy.  This dynamic poses problems for the Kremlin’s most important relationship with a non-Western power.

Talk of Putin and Xi’s close personal relationship is largely a matter of PR messaging at a time when Russia needs China.  Positive pronouncements do little to hide the difficulty both sides have in reaching real economic agreements in particular.  Recent developments in the two countries’ energy ties and shifting personal power among those in and close to the Kremlin suggest that relations with China will continue to be warmer than ever on the surface, but ever more difficult to manage as the domestic political divergence between the two grows.

President Putin is facing some headwinds and all is not smooth sailing for him, as this author points out.

Regards  —  Cliff

Royal Duty Shell Sees Low Oil Prices For Some Time

For John, BLUF:  Between "smart" Barack Obama and "dumb" Sarah Palin, I tend to favor Sarah.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Say, Whatever Happened To 'We Can't Drill Our Way To Lower Prices'?

This is a 28 July 2017 Editorial From Investor's Business Daily.

Who was it who said "Drill, Baby, Drill"?

Not directly mentioned is how oil and gas production are a foreign policy tool.  Our ability to produce lessens the threat to our friends and allies of a Russian effort to blackmail with energy delivery curtailments.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Energy Diplomacy

For John, BLUF:  Those who say President Trump is in Russia's pocket are either not paying attention or are willing to say anything for political advantage or work for CNN.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

What’s Bigger Than The Trump-Putin Meet?  This Is

This is Reporter Andrew Malcolm, from Hot Air, posted this morning, 7 July 2017.

Here is the paragraph that explains the headline:

In Warsaw, as Ed Morrissey points out, Trump offered leaders from Poland and numerous other European countries long-term LNG deals to diversify their supplies and avoid creating undesirable political leverage with a certain large country to the East that has not hesitated to cut off natural gas supplies for political reasons.

Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds sums it up nicely.

If Trump were really in Putin’s pocket, he’d be putting the kibosh on this, probably citing bogus environmental concerns.

And with a little snark.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Oil Glut Coming?

For John, BLUF:  If you encounter low prices at the pump, thank fracking.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Oil Prices Steady but Products Glut Looms

The sub-headline is "Growth data from China and U.S. buoys crude market".  This is from The Wall Street Journal and Reporter Miriam Malek.

The lede plus four:

Oil prices were steady on Monday, supported by favorable growth data reported by the U.S. and China, but a looming glut of oil products could put pressure on the market, analysts said.

The global benchmark, Brent, was trading up 0.1% at $47.66 a barrel.  Its U.S. counterpart, West Texas Intermediate, was trading down 0.02% at $45.94 a barrel.

Over the weekend, oil prices were boosted by data that showed China’s second-quarter gross domestic product grew 6.7%, higher than what analysts had expected.  In the U.S., retail sales and industrial production rose in June, suggesting a pickup in the economies of both countries, which bodes well for oil demand growth.

Also over the weekend, an attempted coup in Turkey fueled fears that the flow of oil through Turkish straights could be hindered.  The route is crucial for shipping and trading.  This had helped buoy prices over the weekend, but the route is currently operating as usual and prices are unaffected.

But there are signs that an increasing glut of refined products could begin to weigh on crude prices.  The oversupplied products markets, especially gasoline, means refiners will pull back on crude purchases, especially as the autumn maintenance season is only two months away, the New-York-based bank Morgan Stanley said.

Regards  —  Cliff

Energy Prices Down

For John, BLUF:  "Drill, Baby, Drill."  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mr Michael Walsh, writing in The PJ Tatler, gives us "The Revenge of Sarah Palin"

In sum:

The price of a gallon of regular gasoline on Monday was $2.13 nationwide, and below $2 in 18 states.

Remember when gas was $4 a gallon?

Turns out that President Obama was wrong, if you can imagine it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

How Edwin Drake Saved the Whales, And Changed New England Waterfronts

TRIGGER WARNING:  Nice things said about fossil fuels.
For John, BLUF:  Before we condemn fossil fuels, we should think about the good it has provided.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I am ripping this off from a Facebook post by Mr Rob Eno, who is enroute to the Drake Oil Well Museum, in Northwest Pennsylvania.

The number of things fossil fuels have saved and stopped is truly amazing.  Coal helped stop slavery by mechanizing work, and oil saved the whales.  Don't believe me, look it up.

I guess that I think those who are all opposed to fossil fuels should acknowledge that they changed the world for the better.  Yes, their time may have passed, but do we wish to go back to the 1700s, from a social, political and economic perspective?  Not me.  I think our Founding Fathers put us on a good path and we should continue.

UPDATE:  In today's Boston Globe is an appropriate Bizarro cartoon, by Dan Piraro.  The picture shows one caveman standing, talking to another with a chisel and stone hammer, making a wheel.  The standing man says "Before we open that whole can of worms, shouldn't we figure out a way to harness the sun's energy?"

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  When I was a little tyke the Drake Oil Well was a big deal and even rated its own Landmark Book.

T-2, TØ

Greening of Energy

For John, BLUF:  Every solution has the seeds of a new problem.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From National Review we have an article by Mr Bob Zubrin: "Germany’s Green-Power Program Crushes the Poor".  Here is the money quote that The InstaPundit picked:

According to EU data, Germany’s average residential electricity rate is 29.8 cents per kilowatt hour.  This is approximately double the 14.2 cents and 15.9 cents per kWh paid by residents of Germany’s neighbors Poland and France, respectively, and almost two and a half times the U.S. average of 12 cents per kWh.  Germany’s industrial electricity rate of 16 cents per kWh is also much higher than France’s 9.6 cents or Poland’s 8.3 cents.  The average German per capita electricity consumption is 0.8 kilowatts.  At a composite rate of 24 cents per kWh, this works out to a yearly bill of $1,700 per person, experienced either directly in utility bills or indirectly through increased costs of goods and services.  The median household income in Germany is $33,000, so if we assume an average of two people per household, the electricity cost would amount to more than 10 percent of available income. And that is for the median-income household.  The amount of electricity that people need does not scale in proportion to their paychecks.  For the rich, $1,700 per year in electric bills might be a pittance, or at most a nuisance.  But for the poor who are just scraping by, such a burden is simply brutal.

Or, as InstaPundit says:

"Green” programs are merely another way for the rich and near-rich to wage war on the poor and the middle class.

That may be a bit of an overstatement.  On the other hand, it would be interesting to see a social audit of efforts toward "green" energy.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Harnessing the Sea for Electricity

For John, BLUF:  Engineering innovation to solve problems.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Quartz has an item by Contributor Cassie Werber on an alternative energy project to be installed in the Welsh city of Swansea.  The headline is "A run-down Welsh city plans to power its homes by harnessing the tides".♠

This is the key paragraph:

The plan is to construct the first power station in the world based on a man-made tidal lagoon.  A seawall of dredged sand, armored with rock, would enclose 11.5 square kilometers of sea.  One stretch of wall contains 16 turbines, eight meters♥ in rotor diameter.  Gates allowing water to flow through the turbines are opened once a disparity has been achieved between the height of the water inside the lagoon and outside it–or four times a day, once in each direction for high and low tide.

I wonder what the impact is on aquatic life?  No solution comes without new problems.  That said, this seems like a good step forward, and in many ways like our own electricity generation off the Merrimack River here in Lowell.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  If you see an advertisement on your screen when you click the link, scroll down.
♥  For the non-French amongst us, that would be 26 and a quarter feet.

France's Approach to Nuclear Power

For John, BLUF:  George may be right about that Architect thing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I was following a discussion on line that included a mention of the French Aircraft Carrier, the nuclear powered Charles DeGaulle.  A comment was made about the French use of nuclear power and one participant wrote:

as a partial aside that might be of interest....several years ago in France I had dinner with a French Minister responsible for housing employees associated with the nuclear power plants-inter alia.

We started discussing US nuke plants and the French approach.  As most may know, France is about 90% nuke generated power and they havn't had a major issue since the plant inceptions in the 50's.

He said there is a fundamental difference between how the French and US went about nuclear power that has made all the difference—The French approached it as an engineering issue and the US as a legal issue.  Since power grids transferred the energy across the entire nation, the French government sponsored/managed them vice the provinces.

The French system is a standardized model generation facility with upgrades as developed. Everything is uniform and all employees go through a govt managed education and certification program. Their record is near spotless.

"The French approached it as an engineering issue and the US as a legal issue".  Of course we approach a lot of things as a legal issue.  We are a nation of laws, as opposed to a nation of bureaucrats, but there is something to be said for giving the Engineers the lead in these kinds of things.  The French do have a great safety record with regard to nuclear power.  But, is it the engineers, the lawyers or the bureaucrats?

Regards  —  Cliff

It Isn't Just the Oil

For John, BLUF:  Increased US domestic oil production reduces reliance on Middle East oil.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

On City Life this morning, the Producer, Mr John McDonough, opined that the only reason we are in the Middle East is oil.  I don't agree with this assertion, but I didn't have a nice fancy label to use for my theory.  Then I read an EMail.

My idea is that Iran hates us (the Great Satan), and we embargo them, and yet they continue to try and ship oil for sale overseas.  Nations like Iran, Iraq and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have oil to sell and they well sell it, because they are Rentier States.  As Wikipedia puts it,

In political science and international relations theory, a rentier state is a state which derives all or a substantial portion of its national revenues from the rent of indigenous resources to external clients.  This theory was first postulated by Hossein Mahdavy in 1970.  It was also in this article that the concept of external rent was first introduced.

Well, rent here is a technical term.  The point is they are selling to us and that is how they make their money.  If it wasn't for the natural resources, or the harbor or airfield we want for military purposes, they would be trading dates and camels amongst themselves and no one would care.

We did Kuwait because we didn't want Iraq becoming too powerful and starting wars on others.  After all, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are customers for our arms sales.  It wasn't about the oil, it was about regional hegemony, which we had found, previously, to be a bad thing.  Like with Germany and Japan in the late 1930s and early 1940s, or the Soviet Union after WWII.

There is another factor, which probably doesn't get much play in this part of the nation, but there are those who believe strongly that those who bless Israel will be blessed (Gen 12:3), and visa-versa.  They point to England as an example of this in action.♠  The thing is, these folks turn out to vote in disproportionally large numbers.  Politicians know this.  President Obama may be cool to Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, but the 535 Members of Congress understand this, even if they hate it.  It may not be a big deal for the Coasties (unless the election is close), but it is a big deal in the hinterlands.  Read Deer Hunting With Jesus—only $9.99 on the Kindle.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I think this is a shaky historical example, but the principle may well hold.

Where is Oil Going?

For John, BLUF:  For the time being the price of oil favors the American consumer and the American Foreign Policy makers.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Bloomberg News yesterday had an article, "Oil Falls to Lowest in Almost Six Years on Global Glut".  The article talks, on the one hand, about OPEC Secretary-General Abdalla El-Badri talking about how low prices could drive out investors and then oil might rebound to $200 a barrel, up from the current price for West Texas Intermediate for March delivery of $45.15.

As an aside, our snow storm, Juno, was mentioned, "A blizzard that may dump 2 feet of snow from New York to Boston bolstered diesel, often traded as a proxy for heating oil."

A surprising thing is:

U.S. inventories climbed to the highest level for December since 1930, the American Petroleum Institute reported Jan. 23.  Supplies increased 7.4 percent from a year earlier to 383.5 million barrels in December, the Washington-based API said in a monthly report.  Production accelerated 16 percent to 9.12 million barrels a day, the highest level for any month since February 1986, according to the industry group.

1930.  December of 1930 would be The Great Depression, which kicked off with Black Tuesday (October 29, 1929) and was worldwide by 1930.

I am not saying this is a sign of the Apocalypse, but it is an indication that fracking has upset the world oil markets to some degree and changed power relationships across the globe.

Regards  —  Cliff