Sarah Palin - $4 per gallon of BS

Sarah Palin is blaming President Obama (surprise, surprise!) for the high price of fuel. In her latest Facebook note she attempts to prove her claims by offering Exhibits A, B, and C, making very simplistic connections between domestic oil production and prices at the pump.

In Exhibit A, she condemns the president's moratorium on deepwater drilling as an emotional and political reaction to the Gulf spill. Emotion is something Sarah Palin doesn't comprehend at all. We all watched in horror as the spill progressed, with the oil industry experts scratching their heads, not knowing what to do next. Neither the president nor the experts took her Dutch and Norwegian dike suggestion seriously.



Not everybody believes that God put the oil under American soil and costal waters to be recovered at any cost. In Sarah Palin's book, the environment and wildlife are nothing, profits for Big Oil are everything.

Exhibit B is a laugh. In this one, the governor who took on Big Oil and raised their taxes points to the 2012 budget, where tax incentives for the industry were removed. Well, she believes in tax incentives, but only for some of her chums, as in the case of the $193 million tax credits given to 15 secret oil and gas companies.

Exhibit C blames Obama's anti-drilling regulatory policies for companies giving up on drilling. Shell decided to abandon exploratory drilling on the Chukchi and Beaufort seas after becoming despondent about these regulations over five years (Obama has been president for just over two years!). Sarah Palin doesn't specify what these horrible regulations are, but at the time of the Gulf spill she was all for regulation:

"Government can and must play an appropriate role here. If a company was lax in its prevention practices, it must be held accountable. It is inexcusable for any oil company to not invest in preventative measures. They must be held accountable or the public will forever distrust the industry.

This was the position I took as an oil and gas regulator and as Governor of Alaska when my administration ramped up oversight of the oil industry and created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for potential environmental risks. I took a lot of heat for the stand I took “against the oil industry” (which is how political adversaries labeled my actions). But we took tough action because there was proof of some improper maintenance of oil infrastructure which I believed was unacceptable. We instituted new oversight and held British Petroleum (BP) financially accountable for poor maintenance practices. We also filed a Friend-of-the-Court brief against Exxon’s interests for its decades-old responsibility to compensate Alaskans affected by the Valdez spill, and I took other actions “against” the industry which ultimately helped hold it accountable."

I suspect Obama's regulations have something to do with the environment and vulnerable wildlife habitats, a big no-no for Sarah.

Throughout this note, Sarah Palin implies that oil production has fallen due to Obama's anti-drilling policies. The Financial Times begs to differ:

US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of “unconventional” extraction techniques.

As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

According to the US government’s Energy Information Administration, domestic production of crude oil and related liquids rose 3 per cent last year to an average of 7.51m barrels a day – its highest level since 2002.

The rise enabled a 2 per cent drop in US oil imports to 9.45m b/d, in spite of rising demand as the economy recovered.

Graph from Climate Progress

She closes Exhibit C with something about Harry Reid's cowboys. I must confess she lost me at this point...

Sarah goes on to mention the price of fuel in the UK, showing that she doesn't understand how things work over there.

Fuel tax in the UK is constantly changing and has risen steadily over the last 15 years. Between 1993 and 1999 there was a rapid increase with duties on fuel increasing by 3% above inflation. This was due to a major change in petrol taxation in 1993 when the Conservatives introduced the Fuel Price 'escalator'. This was a way of the government making money and also to help protect the environment by discouraging people from using their cars.

A 0.76p increase on the 1st January 2011 brought the duty rate for the main road fuels up to 58.95p per litre. This coincided with the 2.5% increase in VAT rate, which is now at record high of 20%.


She concludes her note with the usual blah blah blah about energy independence, how America has to depend on the enemies of all things American for their energy needs, etc etc. She calls energy the buiding block of the economy and accuses the president of purposely weakening the building bock and the country.

Sarah Palin's note is confused and confusing, relying on dodgy "facts," just another opportunity to bash Obama and paint herself as an energy "expert." It's business as usual in Palinland, is it not?

Sarah Palin and Big Oil - an awkward dance

Yesterday the Washington Times had an article about taxing the oil industry in Alaska:

Alaska’s energy production is declining, and Gov. Sean Parnell is hoping to help revive it by cutting taxes on oil and gas production, modifying a tax structure implemented by then-Gov. Sarah Palin.

House Bill 110 passed the House Resources Committee earlier this week by a 7-2 margin, a vote the governor applauded as necessary to strengthen an industry that provides 80 percent of Alaska’s revenue and thousands of jobs in the state.

The bill would cut the basic tax on new oil-field production from 25 percent to 15 percent, grant energy businesses more incentives to hire Alaskans, soften the state’s progressive oil-tax structure and provide other pro-business tax incentives.

The current tax system, Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), was pushed through by Mrs. Palin in 2007. Besides lowering the tax rates, HB 110 also would trim back ACES’ system of raising the tax rate as oil prices rise.

The Seattle Times had an article about the same topic in August 2008:

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

The Alaska tax is imposed on the net profit earned on each barrel of oil pumped from state-owned land, after deducting costs for production and transportation, which are currently estimated at just under $25 a barrel.

The tax is set at its highest rate in Prudhoe Bay, where the state takes 25 percent of the net profit of a barrel when its price is at or below $52. The percentage then escalates as oil prices rise over that benchmark. Alaska gets about $49 of a $120 barrel, not counting other fees.

New York Times, August 30, 2008:

One of her most significant accomplishments as governor was passing a major tax increase on state oil production, angering oil companies but raising billions of dollars in new revenue. She said the oil companies had previously bribed legislators to keep the taxes low. She subsequently championed legislation that would give some of that money back to Alaskans: Soon, every Alaskan will receive a $1,200 check.

I have always been skeptical about anything involving Sarah Palin or the oil industry. They don't stick to the rules.

It appears that Big Oil and Sarah Palin engaged in a very complicated dance, where the steps were not clear to onlookers. Other governors had been openly pro-oil industry and Parnell, as a former lobbyist for the very same industry, is still particularly keen on keeping them happy. Sarah Palin seemed unwilling to join them and put a price tag on her dance card.

Big Oil grumbled but went along with her demands. Sarah then proceeded to champion the causes of her unpopular partners:

• Drilling for oil in the ANWR or, euphemistically, opening up federal lands.
• Starting two lawsuits against the federal government to remove polar bears and white Beluga whales from the endangered species list.

Sarah Palin honoured her side of the bargain, but Big Oil, well known for not playing fair, pulled the rug and started dragging their feet. Production fell and they threatened to leave the Alaska operation in favour of off-shore drilling elsewhere. Big Oil will do anything to protect their profits. She blamed the "extreme enviros" for it.

I wonder if Big Oil will play nicely with Parnell. They know how much the state depends on the oil taxes revenues... my guess is that they will continue to hold Sean Parnell over a barrel.


Please read more about Big Oil on Palingates.

Sarah Palin, still lying about her record regarding the oil industry in Alaska

Sarah Palin, in her attempts to undermine President Obama, continues to make wild claims about her tough stance when she dealt with the oil companies in Alaska before she quit the office of governor.

Sarah Palin told Bill O'Reilly yesterday:

"... as governor of Alaska, what I did in dealing with the oil companies and I’ll betcha 75% of my time was being taken up by energy issues here in this state. I had to set up our Petroleum Systems Integrity Office so that we could be there on the front lines making sure what the oil companies were telling us was legit when they were dealing with their corroded pipes that we find out and other lax maintenance issues. It took us putting that as the highest priority to to protect our resources to protect our environment including not just the physical environment but the human environment here."

Some people (with better credentials and more integrity than Sarah Palin) beg to differ. Mudflats had an excellent article by Richard Fineberg back in February where he blows Palin's claims right out of the water. Fineberg looks at a series of spills and other incidents in Alaska and draws our attention to the performance of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the ineffectiveness of Sarah Palin's much trumpeted Petroleum Systems Integrity Office, highlighting the inaccuracies presented by Sarah Palin in Going Rogue.

Prior to the election it had been revealed that BP had been trying to save money for years by cutting corners on oil pipeline maintenance on the North Slope. This was very serious: leaks and spills from corroded pipelines were all too common and harmed the environment plus led to production slowdowns. So one of my first priorities was to establish the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office (PSIO). With the creation of the PSIO, Alaska became the first state to require industry operators to document their compliance with maintenance and quality assurance standards, and to share that information with the state. Unfortunately, the next year the House Finance subcommittee gutted more than a third of the PSIO budget. I fought to get it restored and finally succeeded.

The preceding excerpt -- one of Palin's few curtsies to environmental considerations in her autobiography -- is a mixture of fact, wishful thinking and empty rhetoric. Demonstrating her characteristic failure to follow through, Palin abruptly ended this snippet without telling readers what - if anything - the new agency accomplished during its two years under her tenure. The Alaska spill sequence that silently shadowed her Lower-48 book tour in late 2009 clearly suggest that the oversight procedures Palin claims to have established to insure safe production and transport of Alaska petroleum were either not in place or not working as intended.

Review of state documents reveals further evidence that Palin's new unit has not been able to fulfill the tasks or deal with the problems that Palin outlined in the passage above. According to the executive order establishing the PSIO in April 2007, the new agency's first major assignments were to conduct a gap analysis to identify redundancies and holes in the government monitoring process, and to "evaluate industry oversight of . . . facilities, equipment, infrastructure, and activities." When Palin left office two years later, the gap analysis had yet to be completed and there was no sign of a PSIO evaluation of industry management oversight programs.

Sarah Palin was economical with the truth in Going Rogue and continues to lie on her Facebook page and in interviews with her Fox News colleagues.

Jason Leopold, an investigative reporter, examines and documents how BP deals with safety concerns in their Alaska operations in an extensive article on Truthout. (This article was crossposted by Shannyn Moore on Mudflats as well)

This passage from the article doesn't sit very well with Palin's claims:

Two BP management officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss internal matters, said budget cuts were largely the reason equipment was not upgraded or repaired, and indicated that much of it has yet to be addressed. BP's Alaska budget for 2010 is $1 billion, compared with $1.1 billion in 2009 and $1.3 billion in 2008.

Moreover, according to two BP Alaska officials, projects related to "safety and integrity" have been cut by 30 percent this year and BP’s senior managers receive bonuses for not using funds from BP’s designated maintenance budget, a company wide policy implemented by Hayward. Documents show that Hayward also implemented a cost-cutting directive following the oil spills in 2006 in Prudhoe Bay.

Let's look at what Sarah Palin wrote in Going Rogue one more time:

Prior to the election it had been revealed that BP had been trying to save money for years by cutting corners on oil pipeline maintenance on the North Slope. This was very serious: leaks and spills from corroded pipelines were all too common and harmed the environment plus led to production slowdowns. So one of my first priorities was to establish the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office (PSIO). With the creation of the PSIO, Alaska became the first state to require industry operators to document their compliance with maintenance and quality assurance standards, and to share that information with the state. Unfortunately, the next year the House Finance subcommittee gutted more than a third of the PSIO budget. I fought to get it restored and finally succeeded.

Then at what she said to Bill O'Reilly:

"... as governor of Alaska, what I did in dealing with the oil companies and I’ll betcha 75% of my time was being taken up by energy issues here in this state. I had to set up our Petroleum Systems Integrity Office so that we could be there on the front lines making sure what the oil companies were telling us was legit when they were dealing with their corroded pipes that we find out and other lax maintenance issues. It took us putting that as the highest priority to to protect our resources to protect our environment including not just the physical environment but the human environment here."

I do hope these two well documented articles, which contradict Sarah Palin's statements, are picked up by the MSM and somebody points out that she keeps harping on a dodgy note, exposing her to a wider audience for the phony she is.

UPDATE

Bill O'Reilly said on Fox that Sarah Palin also "doesn't know how to stop that leak":

+++

In addition, the "Washington Post" already wrote on Monday that the Obama administration does indeed accept foreign offers, which contradicts Palin's accusations:

"We'll let BP decide on what expertise they do need," State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19. "We are keeping an eye on what supplies we do need. And as we see that our supplies are running low, it may be at that point in time to accept offers from particular governments."

That time has come.

In the past week, the United States submitted its second request to the European Union for any specialized equipment to contain the oil now seeping onto the Gulf of Mexico's marshes and beaches, and it accepted Canada's offer of 9,842 feet of boom. The government is soliciting additional boom and skimmers from nearly two dozen countries and international organizations.

In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway.

UPDATE

Sarah Lied to Bill-O! - Gov. Murkowski began Arctic Pipeline Technology Team, NOT Sarah!

We received an interesting document from an alert Alaskan with a long memory: Andree McLeod, who's a Republican and a very resilient watchdog of local politics. Sarah Palin keeps saying she had to set up the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office as if it was a novel idea and completely her own. Here are the screenshots of a press release dated April, 2006:

Lying again, Sarah?

Sarah Palin's oily finger points back at herself - Why BP decided to drill offshore - UPDATE

Sarah Palin said in her Facebook note 'Extreme Enviros: Drill, Baby, Drill in ANWR - Now Do You Get It?' (link)

''Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country's energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas.

If "extreme environmentalists" were not successful in prohibiting land based oil drilling in the United States, then companies like BP would not have to resort to looking for oil in the deep oceans. "

These are excerpts from an article on the Seattle Times, dated August 10, 2008:

Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration.

Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry.

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

The Alaska tax is imposed on the net profit earned on each barrel of oil pumped from state-owned land, after deducting costs for production and transportation, which are currently estimated at just under $25 a barrel.

The tax is set at its highest rate in Prudhoe Bay, where the state takes 25 percent of the net profit of a barrel when its price is at or below $52.

The percentage then escalates as oil prices rise over that benchmark. Alaska gets about $49 of a $120 barrel, not counting other fees.

ConocoPhillips said that in total, once royalty payments and other taxes are added in, the state captures about 75 percent of the value of a barrel.

BP Alaska, which runs Prudhoe Bay, said earlier this year that it had delayed the development in the western region of the North Slope as a result of the tax. ConocoPhillips cited the same reason for scrapping a $300 million refinery project.

"What the tax has done is take away all the upside," said Doug Suttles, president of BP Alaska. The U.K.-based oil company paid more than $500 million in taxes to Alaska last quarter — far more than it earned in profits from Alaskan oil, according to Suttles.

Investment dollars are flowing instead to places that have a better return, like the massive deep-water projects offshore in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, where ConocoPhillips said the government take equals less than 50 percent of the barrel.

It's clear that BP didn't go to the Gulf of Mexico because the "extreme enviros" locked up the land with their protests and lawsuits.

Let's rephrase Sarah Palins's Facebook note to reflect the truth:

"If my administration were not successful in raising taxes on land based oil drilling in Alaska, then companies like BP would not have to resort to looking for oil in the deep oceans. "

That's better!

Another interesting point is that Sarah Palin's increased royalty tax imposed is simply a redistribution of wealth from the lower 48. Who ended up paying the added tax that Alaskans enjoyed in the annual APF Alaskan Permanent Fund distribution? Motorists and consumers in the lower 48 and around the globe. Sarah's a Tea Bagger in name only... only when it suits her.


So that there are no misunderstandings about Sarah Palin's position on offshore drilling, let's hear from the lady herself:



More Drill Baby, Drill:



This is the person who unleashed Sarah Palin on the rest of the world:



(H/T to austintxx for the last two videos)

Oh, well...

(H/T to EyeOnYou and sdilmoak)

EyeOnYou has some disturbing pictures of birds affected by the oil spill. You'll need a strong stomach to view them.

+++

Please join this facebook group:

1,000,000 People Who Want to Plug the BP Oil Spill with Sarah Palin

+++

Here is another great facebook group:

DRILL BABY DRILL IN LAKE LUCILLE, ALASKA

+++

UPDATE:

The website www.neworleans.com posted a copy of BP's regional oil spill response plan for the Gulf of Mexico (almost 600 pages):

Download this plan HERE.

From the article:

2) Spokespersons were advised never to assure the public that an ecosystem would be back to normal after the worst case scenario, which we are now living through. "No statements shall be made concerning any of the following: promises that property, ecology, or anything else will be restored to normal." Even in BP CEO Tony Hayward's new television commercial his assurance is an ambiguous, "We will make this right," which does not specifically address preserving or restoring America's Wetlands.

3) Corexit oil dispersant toxicity has not been tested on ecosystems, according to the Oil Spill Response Plan. "Ecotoxilogical effects: No toxicity studies have been conducted on this product." It is contradictory that the question and answer section discusses the choice of a dispersant with: "Have environmental tradeoffs of dispersant use indicated that use should be considered? Note: This is one of the more difficult questions" and "Has the overflight to assure that endangered species are not in the application area been conducted?" Brown pelicans and sea turtles would have been the answer to the latter.

+++

UPDATE 2 (by Patrick):

I have looked for more information about the dispersant used in the Gulf of Mexico, and found some very disturbing information.

One of the dispersants being used is Corexit 9500, also called Corexit EC9500A.

"Themoneytimes" reports:

At present BP is using Corexit 9500. which features high in terms of toxicity and low in terms of efficacy in comparison to 18 other EPA-approved dispersants.

"Based on the information that is available today, BP continues to believe that Corexit was the best and most appropriate choice at the time when the incident occurred, and that Corexit remains the best option for subsea application," BP said.

The EPA, had, in a directive issued Thursday, ordered BP to find a less toxic but equally effective chemical than Corexit 9500.

The instructions also demanded that the replacement should be effected within 72 hours.

The availability of this substitute had to be abundant given the enormous need.

Another dispersant used is Corexit 9527 (also called Corexit EC9527A).

Wikipedia also has a good overview about these two chemicals which are used now in the Gulf of Mexico.

The main ingridient of Corexit 9527 is 2-BUTOXY ETHANOL.

The New Jersey Department of Health published a fact sheet about 2-Butoxy-Ethanol (PDF).

Under "Health Hazard Information", the department notes:

"Acute Health Effects"

The following acute (short-term) health effects may occur
immediately or shortly after exposure to 2-Butoxy Ethanol:

*Contact can irritate the skin and eyes with possible eye
damage.
*Inhaling 2-Butoxy Ethanol can irritate the nose and throat
causing coughing and wheezing.
*2-Butoxy Ethanol can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
and abdominal pain.
* Exposure can cause headache, dizziness, confusion,
lightheadedness, and passing out.
Chronic Health Effects

The following chronic (long-term) health effects can occur at
some time after exposure to 2-Butoxy Ethanol and can last
for months or years:

"Cancer Hazard"

* 2-Butoxy Ethanol may be a CARCINOGEN in humans
since it has been shown to cause liver cancer in animals.
* Many scientists believe there is no safe level of exposure to
a carcinogen."

Scientists believe that the use of these dispersants will lead to a horrible environmental disaster - the UK Independent reports:

"It's the biggest environmental disaster of our time and it's not even over yet," said the marine toxicologist Dr Susan Shaw, director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute based in Maine. She has been diving among the damage and is horrified by the contamination caused by BP's continued use of dispersants. "They've been used at such a high volume that it's unprecedented. The worst of these – Corexit 9527 – is the one they've been using most. That ruptures red blood cells and causes fish to bleed. With 800,000 gallons of this, we can only imagine the death that will be caused."

According to Dr Shaw, plankton and smaller shrimps coated in these toxic chemicals will be eaten by larger fish, passing the deadly mix up the food chain. "This is dismantling the food web, piece by piece," she said. "We'll see dead bodies soon. Sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, whales: the impact on predators will be seen in a short time because the food web will be impacted from the bottom up."

The largest of the clouds, confirmed by a University of South Florida research ship last week, has gone deeper than the spill itself, defying BP's assurances that all oil would rise to the surface. It is now headed north-east of the rig, towards the DeSoto Canyon. This underwater trench could channel the noxious soup along the Florida coast, impacting on fisheries and coating 100-year-old coral forests. Tests on the toxicity of another chemical cloud, some 10 miles long and heading south-west of the site, are also being done by scientists from the University of Georgia.

Marine biologists say the timing of this underwater contamination could not be more catastrophic. "This is when all the animals are reproducing and hatching, so the damage at this depth will be much worse," said Dr Larry McKinney, director of the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies in Texas. "We're not talking about adults on the surface; it will impact on the young – and potentially a generational life cycle."

According to ProPublica, during the Exxon Valdez oil disaster, an earlier version of Corexit lead to severe problems amongst clean-up workers:

According to a 2005 National Academy of Sciences report, the dispersants and the oil they leave behind can kill fish eggs. A study of oil dispersal in Coos Bay, Ore. found that PAH accumulated in mussels, the Academy’s paper noted. Another study examining fish health after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989 found that PAHs affected the developing hearts of Pacific herring and pink salmon embryos. The research suggests the dispersal of the oil that’s leaking in the Gulf could affect the seafood industry there.

“One of the most difficult decisions that oil spill responders and natural resource managers face during a spill is evaluating the trade-offs associated with dispersant use,” said the Academy report, titled Oil Spill Dispersants, Efficacy and Effects. “There is insufficient understanding of the fate of dispersed oil in aquatic ecosystems.”

A version of Corexit was widely used after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill and, according to a literature review performed by the group the Alaska Community Action on Toxics, was later linked with health impacts in people including respiratory, nervous system, liver, kidney and blood disorders. But the Academy report makes clear that the dispersants used today are less toxic than those used a decade ago.

“There is a certain amount of toxicity,” said Robin Rorick, director of marine and security operations at the American Petroleum Institute. “We view dispersant use as a tool in a toolbox. It’s a function of conducting a net environmental benefit analysis and determining the best bang for your buck.”

However, can we really trust what the producers of Corexit tell us?

The US-company Nalco with offices in Illinois and Texas has already made huge profits with the product through the Gulf spill. Two weeks ago Nalco announced that they sold already dispersants worth $ 40 million through the sale of the dispersants for the Gulf spill.

On their website they are not shy to report about the use of their valuable product in the Gulf of Mexico in detail. Look what they have to say:

"Data published by Environment Canada, that country’s main environmental agency, showed common household dish soap as having a substantially higher rainbow trout toxicity than COREXIT 9500. Put another way, COREXIT 9500 is the more than 27 times safer than dish soap."

You really would need to be brain-amputed to believe this spin.

Reader's picture from the New York Times:


Description: “I’ve been watching Corexit being used for three weeks, trying to get someone to care. They flew nonstop this weekend, stopping only at dark. This morning there was one C130 take off at 9:30 am this morning, then nothing. Currently they are not flying. My office overlooks the Stennis Airport runway and the flight path goes over my house. The Corexit is stored within 200 feet of my office. No one is using protective gear.” Stennis Airport, Miss.

Credit: Jennifer Aitken

+++

I also found an excellent video which is a documentary about the hazards that clean-up workers face in an oil spill disaster - with the Exxon Valdez oil spill as an example. I hope that old mistakes will not be repeated in this new clean-up operation which is about to start at the Gulf of Mexico:

Sarah Palin and the green people

Sarah Palin seems to be even more unhinged lately and her tweets are hilarious:




Sarah's "Drill Baby, Drill!" mantra goes back a long way - watch how she promoted offshore drilling in 2008:



Sarah Palin doesn't understand the green movement at all. Does Sarah think drilling offshore is bad and drilling onshore is good? The greenies are not in favour of oil. They believe that what's best for the planet is investing in renewable, clean energy.

Now do you get it, Sarah?

Sarah Palin doesn't believe in coincidences - Who are the "15 new oil & gas explorers" who received $ 193 million from the State of AK in July 2009?

Sarah Palin doesn't believe in coincidences. She wrote these words in Going Rogue and repeated them in her speech at College of the Ozarks in Missouri.

Starting from the premise that there are no coincidences in Sarah Palin's world, let's have a good look at the following "coincidences", researched by our good friend EyeOnYou, helped by AustinTxx.

After her trip to New York state in June 2009, Sarah Palin stopped in Dallas and Giddings, Texas.

She tweeted extensively while there:

Info on today's announcement re: deal reached by TransCanada & ExxonMobil thru AGIA. Historic deal & day in AK & US energy history.
12:00 PM Jun 11th from web

Here's link to presser & photos re: TC/Exxon partnership. http://tinyurl.com/l3bsq9 & http://tinyurl.com/kv42oh.
12:09 PM Jun 11th from web

EIA estimates US energy consumption will INCREASE by 44% in next 20 yrs. We MUST utilize our local energy sources. http://tinyurl.com/lesekh
3:17 PM Jun 12th from web

A month later, there was a nice little tweet:

AK is the place to invest. 15 new oil & gas explorers rcvd $193M cash from State for their tax credits in FY09. http://tinyurl.com/l2y68b
10:50 AM Jul 12th from web

An anonymous source reported that Sarah Palin stayed with someone named “Smith” in Giddings Tx, who had a connection to Wasilla, and that they believed that the actual place she was staying at had a gate with the letter/number “Dj-1” on it.

Who are these people?

Dorwin and Joanne Smith, the principals of complex subcontractor DJ Excavation & Development, have donated $7,100 to Palin ……..Joanne is a Palin appointee on the state Board of Nursing.

The Wasilla-Giddings Connection:
Dorwin Smith
1584 County Road 226
Giddings, TX 78942-6174

(979) 542-3443

Dorwin R Smith
2970 E Cottle Loop
Wasilla, AK 99654-7251
907-376-3443

Same name, same last four digits on the phone numbers. Coincidence?

Dj-1 LLC

Sarah Palin may have enjoyed the hospitality of this generous couple, maybe not. But one thing is for sure, she enjoyed the generosity of a number on Texan business people on June 13, 2009. SarahPac received some large donations on that date:



We ask again, who are these people?


Robyn Roberts ($5,000 donation)

She and her husband Alan live in Giddings. They have numerous properties, and own a “Ranch” with an airfield, helicopter and airplane and it is right down the road from the gate with the Dj-1 marking.

Pumpco, Inc.
P.O. Box 742
Giddings, Texas 78942
979-542-9054


Julie Irwin-Cotton ($5,000 donation)

119 Bucks Rd.
Paige, Tx 78659

Owner of:
J Irwin Co.
3775 Hwy 290 East
Paige, Tx. 78659
512-253-0020

Pipeline Contractors


Kimberly Morgan Sarahpac donation ($5,000 donation)

Partner with husband (Michael Ray Morgan)

Morgan Petroleum Testers
(physical address)
1038 Private Rd. 7703
Giddings, Tx. 78942
979-546-9390

Mailing Address
P.O. Box 1600
Giddings, Tx. 78942

RJ Nitsche ($2,000 donation)

WCS Oil & Gas Corp. ( OIL & GAS EXPLORATION & DEVELOPMENT)

451 Cactus St.
Giddings, Texas 78946
979-542-0021

He is also listed as being a partner in a construction firm, Chasco and listed as CEO of Insurance Network of America (Texas).



All the above SarahPac donors have connections with the gas and oil industry.

Two other people from Texas who donated on June 13 are not directly connected to the industry, but let's look at them just because we're curious:

Larry Lehman ($1,000 donation)
Larry & Darlene Lehman Owners of D&L Consulting & Investment
931 Acorn St.
Giddings , Texas 78942

I could not find a website or any further information on D&L Consulting & Investment.

Kelli L. Higgins
(although her donation to the PAC was only $250.00, there is the Paige Tx address, where “Irwin-Cotton” is from)

Ms Higgins and a William Higgins are connected to Lone Star Auctions

Kelli Higgins
450 Schwantz Ranch Rd,
Mcdade, TX 78650

William Higgins Jr
Rr 1,
Mc Dade, TX 78650

Ms Higgins is also listed as:

Giddings New Horizon Lions Club
Kelli Higgins
P.O. Box 531
Giddings, Texas 78942

We have four large donations from people connected with the oil and gas industry, one from an investment company and a small donation by an individual, all on the same day and all from or around Giddings, Texas.

Remember that tweet from earlier?

AK is the place to invest. 15 new oil & gas explorers rcvd $193M cash from State for their tax credits in FY09. http://tinyurl.com/l2y68b
10:50 AM Jul 12th from web



No one has been able to find a list of the 15 new oil and gas explorers who were the recipients of these $193 million dollars. The press release is not listed in the archives under the Oil & Gas Production Tax News.

There may be no connection whatsoever to those companies or people in Giddings, but there are so many coincidences... the timing of Sarah Palin's visit to Giddings, Texas, all the donations to SarahPac on June 13 and this lovely tax break for 15 new investors...

Sarah Palin doesn't believe in coincidences...

Feel free to explore these findings a bit further. Please don't use the e-mail addresses and telephone numbers that appear on this post to badger people for information. The contact information for all these people and companies are easily found on their own websites or through searches, but let's be careful out there.

(Some of the links provided in Sarah Palin's tweets don't work anymore. I provided hyperlinks to the ones that can still be accessed)

UPDATE

ADN July 22, 2009

The state paid $193 million in cash over the past year to oil and gas explorers in exchange for tax credits they had accrued for making investments in the state, the Department of Revenue said.

For fiscal year 2009, which ended on June 30, the state distributed the $193 million to 15 "new" oil and gas explorers, the department said.

By new, the state means companies that aren't yet producing any oil or gas, said state Revenue Commissioner Pat Galvin. He said he couldn't by law reveal the names of the individual companies. (H/T to MicMac for the link)

Has anybody found out which law prevents the state from revealing the names of the companies?

Sarah Palin's claim to victory

This was probably covered by other bloggers, but as I have started reading "Going Rogue" a bit late (taking copious notes) because I was away in Australia when it came out, I really have to make some comment regarding this passage (page 62), which comes at the end of the section about the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989:

“ExxonMobil's litigation compounded the suffering, especially for Cordova and Valdez fishermen. Court challenges stretched on for two decades. It took twenty years for Alaska to achieve victory. As governor, I directed our attorney general to write an amicus brief in the case, and, thanks to Alaska’s able attorneys arguing in front of the highest court in the land, in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the people,” she writes in her book. “Finally, Alaskans could recover some of their losses.”

Victory??? The 33,000 fishermen had to share $383 million after attorney fees. But calculating on the gross amount, they would receive less than $11,606 each, which is less than $580 for each of the 20 years they had to wait for it. Victory indeed, and all thanks to Sarah Palin...

It surprised me that she was willing to take the credit for this "victory". Sarah Palin has a strange, selective memory, as you can see in this video.


.

Sarah Palin and the volcano

"Fortunately Redoubt has been giving us signs that it was bound to blow sometime this spring," Sarah Palin said. "These warning signs gave Alaskans in Southcentral time to protect their belongings, educate their families, and stock up on air filters and other essential protective gear."

Unfortunately, the Governor didn't take any steps about the Chevron crude oil tanks sited at the base of the volcano before it erupted. She didn't question Chevron or request they drain the tanks while the volcano was still calm despite the appeals from Cook Inletkeeper.

Now it's not safe to drain the tanks and the arrangements for dealing with a possible spill are inadequate. There are 6 million gallons of crude stocked at the base of an erupting volcano that had been giving signs that it was bound to blow.

Alaskans who depend on fishing for their survival know very well how a major oil spill affects their livelihoods. The Exxon Valdez disaster has proved that the oil industry is irresponsible and unaccountable. After 20 years of litigation, the people affected by the spill received $12,000 each as compensation for their losses.

Exxon likes to say how they spent billions of dollars in the clean-up operation, which was inadequate and introduced further pollutants into the waters of Prince William Sound. It made the oil "invisible", but 20 years on, people can fill jars with the crude that keeps popping up. They didn't spend billions in the operation, they claimed it from their insurance companies. Exxon's costs amounted to not much more than the criminal and civil settlements, including the paltry compensation paid to the people who had their lives destroyed. Who knows, they might have been insured for some of that as well!

"We can safely and responsibly develop our resources." That's what Sarah Palin, the foremost energy expert in the country, is fond of saying.

Chevron must have figured that with the levels of safety and responsibility required, it was cheaper to leave the oil sitting there, risk a major spill and they would still be in in the money.

Exxon got off lightly by blaming the drunk captain of the tanker. Chevron can blame the volcano. Mt Redoubt wouldn't even have to serve 1000 hours community service like drunk captain Hazelwood.

If the Chevron oil spills, Alaskans and the rest of the world will blame the Governor's accommodating attitude to the big oil industry she "took on", together with her inability and unwillingness to deal with any crisis that cross her path.

Further reading about Chevron: Shannyn Moore, Progressive Alaska, AKMuckraker
Exxon Valdez

Pipeline, big oil and Sarah Palin

Please go to the Mudflats and read Les Gara's letter plus all the comments.

Having read through the whole thing, my position is the same as it was when I wrote "Oil spill", which is to look into new ways to generate energy and revenue:

Clean, renewable energy won't fill Alaska's state coffers, it won't contribute to the Permanent Dividend Fund, it won't make anybody stinking rich.

In the longer term oil means economical and environmental suicide. It will run out and leave irreversible damage behind. It's time to be creative and devise new ways of generating energy and revenue.

Greed and lack of foresight led to the big mess we're all living in at the moment. Why continue this culture of big bucks now, forget about the future?

Alaska's economy is 90% dependent on oil revenues. Introducing gas into the equation still leaves too much power in the hands of the big oil companies. Gas is cleaner than oil, but it's another non-renewable resource.

The pipeline is an incredibly expensive initiative, riddled with uncertainties and conflict. The enormous amount of money involved in this venture would be better used if invested in renewable sources of energy and infrastructure projects to create a more versatile economy in Alaska.

If the state doesn't make make any moves to diversify the economy and revise the tax position, there will be a very high price to pay in a not very distant future.

Money from big oil has too many strings attached and will not last forever...
.

Pipeline, pipeline

"Joe McGinniss, bestselling author of Going to Extremes, a nonfiction account of his year in Alaska, returns to the state in search of the $40 billion natural gas pipeline that Sarah Palin has said she is building. He finds that not only is the pipeline not being built, but Palin herself is the biggest obstacle in its path."

Bill Mcallister is not happy about the press release where the above appeared and countered with his own, on behalf of Sarah Palin.

Alaska Dispatch has more details and a few questions.
.

Oil spill

The massive oil slick that has coated 60km of pristine Queensland coastline will take weeks to clean up, as authorities last night admitted they were still unsure of the extent of the spill from the stricken Hong Kong-flagged cargo ship Pacific Adventurer.

More than 200,000 litres of oil are estimated to be washing the shores of Moreton and Bribie islands, as well as parts of the Sunshine Coast in possibly Queensland's worst marine environmental disaster.

Fresh fears have emerged about the potential for the oil slick to contaminate the drinking supply on Moreton Island, which relies on an underground water table close to the site of the devastating diesel spill.

The 185m cargo ship began working the route between Southeast Asia and Australia in 2006, just weeks after a collision with a Chinese patrol boat that killed 17 naval personnel.

Waves of up to 9m have been blamed for dislodging 31 containers of ammonium nitrate, which fell overboard and then ruptured the hull.

Authorities said that it will take at least two weeks to clean up the spill, if conditions allow.

Scores of birds have been found caked with oil, but the biggest threat will come in the next few days with the likely emergence of algae blooms through the existence of thousands of kilograms of ammonium nitrate in the water.

I believe oil is the dirtiest commodity around. In whatever shape or form, it's dirty. Crude, refined, before burning, after burning, you name it.

Not to mention the corruption that seems to be part and parcel of the oil business.

Sarah Palin claims environmentalist bleeding hearts stand in the way of progress. She says wildlife lovers use emotional arguments to stop her progressing the great state of Alaska.

The way I see it, progress these days has nothing to do with making big holes and planting ugly chunks of metal everywhere, disrupting whole ecosystems and the lives of people who live near the darned things. Waiting for the next big spill or corruption scandal is not progress.

Progress today is investing in cleaner alternatives.

OK, clean, renewable energy won't fill Alaska's state coffers, it won't contribute to the Permanent Dividend Fund, it won't make anybody stinking rich.

In the longer term oil means economical and environmental suicide. It will run out and leave irreversible damage behind.

It's time to be creative and devise new ways of generating energy and revenue.

Greed and lack of foresight led to the big mess we're all living in at the moment. Why continue this culture of big bucks now, forget about the future?

If Alaska and the rest of the world don't start acting now, the results will be disastrous for generations to come.

Who will be held accountable then?

Further reports: Sydney Morning Herald, HuffPo, Associated Press.
More photos: Guardian UK.
.

Drill, baby, drill!

A federal appeals court has vacated an opinion issued last year that halted Shell’s drilling plans for the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s northern coast, leaving both sides in the case wondering what the action means. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday gave no indication whether a change in the 20 November ruling would mean exploration drilling will be allowed, or whether the ruling by a smaller panel of the court’s judges will be replaced with a similar decision.

I found two opposing views about drilling in the Beaufort Sea.

"A coalition of Alaska Native organizations and conservation groups sued to halt drilling because large-scale industrial activities threaten endangered bowhead whales, polar bears and other marine animals in coastal waters just off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Arctic is undergoing major shifts due to climate change. Summer sea ice is retreating rapidly – reaching record minima during the past two summers. The changes raise major concerns about the survival of wildlife – such as the polar bear – that call the Arctic home. In spite of these dramatic, observed changes, however, the Bush administration charged ahead, opening this fragile environment to oil and gas activity, without following environmental laws.

“If polar bears and other ice-dependent species are to survive as the Arctic melts in the face of global warming, we need to protect their critical habitat, not turn it into an industrial zone,” said Rebecca Noblin of the Center for Biological Diversity."

Here's the other view, titled "Ninth Circus Court: Shell can’t drill for oil, since it might piss off polar bears"

"A federal appeals court has ordered Shell Oil to stop its exploratory drilling program off the north coast of Alaska. A hearing is planned for mid August in San Francisco to decide if Shell can go forward and provide us with some oil, after bidding $39 million for the offshore leases, and blowing who knows how much on court costs. If not, no problem: we can just keep paying through the nose to buy oil from Arabs, who will spend the proceeds on madrasahs and weapons programs. Hopefully the polar bears and beluga whales will appreciate it."

Sarah Palin would wholeheartedly agree with the second opinion...

Links
Article about latest from the Court of Appeal here.
First view about drilling in Beaufort Sea here.
The other opinion on this issue here.
.

Oil or the safety of women and children?

Former Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan speaks out about sexual violence:

"Alaska's forcible rape rates are 2.5 times the national average. Our children are abused at six times the national average. We are number one in the nation for spousal and partner murder. Alaska holds the distinction of suffering higher rates of interpersonal violence than any other state in the nation. Our children, women and men endure this epidemic of violence daily.

As a police officer, chief of police and the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety, I witnessed the lasting damage interpersonal violence creates. I have seen little ones suffer unimaginable cruelty from those responsible for caring for them. I have investigated crime scenes, viewed pictures and learned details that continue to haunt me today. So have the men and women I worked beside. I've determined that this epidemic must be met with an equally strong charge against violence. We cannot expect change while allowing the resources and attention paid to these crimes to remain stagnant."

When Sarah Palin fired Walt Monegan last July and later Troopergate started interfering with her VP campaign, one of the justifications for the firing was that Monegan had made an unauthorised trip to Washington DC to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.

"The governor hadn't agreed the money should be sought, and the request was out of sequence with other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. Stevens." (from an e-mail sent by her special counsel at the time)

Monegan wasn't fired because he refused to dismiss Sarah Palin's former brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten, it was because he tried to address the problem of sexual violence in Alaska against the Governor's wishes!

Sarah Palin has not addressed the rampant sexual abuse, rape, domestic violence and murder that make Alaska one of the most dangerous places in the country for women and children. Despite the Governor's pro-family image, public safety experts and advocates for women and children struggled when asked to explain how Palin's leadership has helped address the crisis.

"She's really done a lot of work on oil and gas, but when it comes to violence against women and children . . . we haven't been on her radar as a priority," said Peggy Brown, executive director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.

When it comes to allocating resources or offering support, Sarah Palin appears to have only one priority.

Yes, you've guessed it.

Further reading here and here.
.