October 21, 2008 BBC
Western concerns about global energy markets hit new heights last night when Russia, Iran and Qatar said they were forming an Opec-style gas cartel. The move by the three countries, which control 60% of the world's gas reserves, was met with immediate opposition from the European commission, which fears the group could drive up prices.
Government officials handling billions of dollars in oil royalties partied, had sex with and accepted golf and ski outings from employees of energy companies they were dealing with, federal investigators said Wednesday.
The alleged transgressions involve 13 former and current Interior Department employees in Denver and Washington. Their alleged improprieties include rigging contracts, working part-time as private oil consultants, and having sexual relationships with - and accepting golf and ski trips and dinners from - oil company employees, according to three reports released Wednesday by the Interior Department's inspector general.
The investigations reveal a "culture of substance abuse and promiscuity" by a small group of individuals "wholly lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical standards," wrote Inspector General Earl E. Devaney, whose office spent more than two years and $5.3 million on the investigation. "Sexual relationships with prohibited sources cannot, by definition, be arms-length," Devaney said.
The reports describe a fraternity house atmosphere inside the Denver Minerals Management Service office responsible for marketing oil and natural gas that energy companies barter to the government in lieu of cash royalty payments for drilling on federal lands. The government received $4.3 billion in such royalty-in-kind payments last year. The oil and gas is then resold to energy companies or put in the nation's emergency stockpile. ...read on
UPDATED: Charlie Savage has much more at the NY Times.
In three reports delivered to Congress on Wednesday, the department's inspector general, Earl E. Devaney, found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government's largest sources of revenue other than taxes. "A culture of ethical failure" besets the agency, Mr. Devaney wrote in a cover memo.
The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration's watch. The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration's watch...read on
(h/t Murray W)
Aside from Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney gallivanting around the Denver Metro area (hoping to pick up a couple of undecided Democrats or just to monopolize broadcast air time? You decide) another notable non-Democrat in the Big Tent in Denver is T. Boone Pickens.
About The Big Tent
The Big Tent will be the place to be for new media journalists, bloggers, reporters, and non-profit leaders covering the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer. [..]
Quite simply, for anyone concerned about fostering a path toward a prosperous, climate-friendly society, The Big Tent's agenda reads like a who's who of heroes. From Lester Brown to Van Jones to Majora Carter to ..., there are people's whose fights for a better future cannot be question and whose visions merit a hearing in the halls of power. And, come next January, they will have a more receptive audience in the Oval Office and the Executive Branch.[..]
Another sponsoring organization could raise even more concern.
The Pickens' Plan is a "Major Sponsor" and is sponsoring a lunch in The Big Tent. And, speaking within The Big Tent will be T Boone Pickens. Next Wednesday, in The Big Tent, outside the Democratic National Committee, T Boone will be on the stage with Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, and John Podesta, the President and Chief Executive Office of American Progress.[..]
For those listening to The Pickens Plan, a small reminder might be in order about The Pickens' Problem which ranges from being a key (and unrepentent) funder of the Swift-Boat Veterans for Truthiness and a continuing major contributor to the Republican Party, including his most recent political contributions maxing out to Jim Inhofe who, quite simply, is perhaps the worst member of the Senate when it comes to ending our oil addiction and moving toward a sensible energy future.
So why is a guy with that kind of resume hanging with the Dems? Get Energy Smart sees the difference between the Pickens' Plan and the Pickens Problem:
T. Boone Pickens speaks to the need to end America's oil addiction, to move off oil. T Boone Pickens' political contributions speak to continuing the status quo, to drilling the hole deeper when it comes to oil addiction.
Thus, until there is a resolution of The Pickens' Problem, all are advised to tread very carefully when it comes to T Boone Pickens and The Pickens' Plan.
Josh Nelson reminds us (as if you needed it) that this is a man Democrats should be leery of praising. Hear that Harry Reid and Dick Durbin?
For some strange reason, prosecutors in the corruption case against Ted Stevens (R - VECO) don't want to mention a letter Dick Cheney sent at Stevens' behest, shilling for corporate wheeler-dealer Bill Allen's pet pipeline project.
In a conversation secretly tape-recorded by the FBI on June 25, 2006, Stevens discussed ways to get a pipeline bill through the Alaska Legislature with Bill Allen, an oil-services executive accused of providing the senator with about $250,000 in undisclosed financial benefits. According to a Justice motion, Stevens told Allen, "I'm gonna try to see if I can get some bigwigs from back here and say, 'Look … you gotta get this done'." Two days later, Cheney wrote a letter to the Alaska Legislature urging members to "promptly enact" a bill to build the pipeline. The letter was considered unusual because the White House rarely contacts state lawmakers about pending legislative matters. It also angered state Democrats, who accused Cheney of pushing oil-company interests. The former executive director of Cheney's energy task force had gone to work as a lobbyist for British Petroleum, one of three firms slated to build the pipeline.
Stevens confirmed to NEWSWEEK last week that he asked Cheney to write the letter. "We wanted the federal government to tell the state to act quickly on it," he said. (A spokesman for Alaska's other senator, Lisa Murkowski, said her office also had contacts with Cheney's office.) A Cheney spokeswoman said his office does not comment on pending legal matters.
Now why do you think Bush's Justice Department isn't too keen on using this important bit of evidence? Stevens is charged with offfenses under the Ethics in Government Act. Could it be that following all the leads would open up a big can of worms for the White House?
I guess the only plus for McCain on this trip is that there wasn't an oil spill.
Sometimes political attacks materialize all by themselves. John McCain is set to board a helicopter today and travel 150 miles off the Louisiana cost to host a campaign event on the Genesis Project oil rig.
The overarching point is to stress the Senator's newfound commitment to offshore drilling. But the stop also plays into a meme critics have been pushing for weeks. The oil rig on which McCain will be speaking is partially owned by Exxon Mobil. According to the website RIGZONE.com, the energy giant has a 38.38 percent share in the Genesis Project, topped only by Chevron's 56.67 percent.
the DNC sends out an email hitting McCain for his oil rig visit, adding, among other things that "on that rig, it took 10 years from the date oil was discovered until the rig he will be standing on today produced a single drop of oil.
What, 10 years you say?
Since he's trying to exploit the anger Americans are feeling at the pump by basing his entire domestic platform on an "all of the above" energy policy, don't you think John McCain would be wise to actually show up and vote on crucial renewable energy legislation? Well, according to Tom Friedman, John McCain is a big fat hypocrite after missing eight important Senate votes.
NYT:
John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.
Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.
It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.
Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.
Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.
This is precisely the reason we are so addicted to fossil fuels. Renewable energy will never become financially competitive with oil and gas until the feds invest in it and incentivize its progression. I hope every Obama energy ad from now til November notes that while he may be talking a good game about supporting alternative energy, Senator McCain 0-for-8 when it really counted.
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Bill W)
Steve Benen has already covered how the right has picked up their new symbol to mock Barack Obama's energy policy, as if the entirety of Obama's program is to have people keep their tires inflated. Jon Perr points out this isn't a new tactic for them. However, Keith Olbermann goes further, and points out that this strategy (at least amongst the critical thinking in the electorate) may backfire when this advice has been endorsed by GOP Veep shortlister Charlie Crist, California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger, NASCAR and even President Bush's Highway Traffic Safety Department, none of whom could credibly be called in Obama's corner.
Anti-science as the GOP likes to be, I'm sure these facts will go right over their heads:
The study indicates that substantial benefits would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary tire pressure checks with oil changes including: (i) increased safety by decreasing all crashes and saving more than 100 lives per year, (ii) reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year, which would (iia) provide over $4 billion in economic savings for US consumers that could in part be recouped in retail/auto-care facilities, (iib) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tons and automobile pollution and (iic) enhance national security.
As Obama says, "it's like these guys take pride in being ignorant."
Oh, snap!
Full transcripts below the fold
Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)
The cognitive dissonance involved in being Bill O'Reilly is truly stunning. Take, for example, the latest edition of his Talking Points Memo, in which he castigates Obama for saying that he would give an $1000 energy rebate check to American families derived from windfall profit taxes of the oil companies.
Oh noes! Obama is talking about taxes, that liberal! Doesn't he realize that we have a HUGE deficit??? That we can't afford to keep spending money frivolously? Of course the fact that Billo's been cheerleading and apologizing for this deficit every dime along the way is conveniently swept under the rug. Because damnit, we're on the edge of a collapse! We can't tax oil companies, silly Obama.
Bill's solution: ask the oil companies to volunteer 2% of their record-breaking profits. That's fair, and since it's voluntary, we don't have to use the dreaded T-word. Of course, when Billo sent his minions to approach the oil companies, they were less than receptive. Quelle surprise! But it's unacceptable to think that Americans will go cold this winter, and since the oil companies so far are not interested in helping their fellow Americans (a surprisingly *gasp* socialist notion coming from O'Reilly), so what's a presidential candidate to do? Maybe not giving them tax breaks would be a good first start, right, Bill?
Full and ridiculously circular logic of the transcripts available below the fold
Should the oil companies help out the folks? That is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo. Understanding that many Americans are furious with the oil companies, Barack Obama is trying to tie John McCain in with them and putting forth this:
OBAMA: I believe we should give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate and we should pay for it with part of the record profits the oil companies are making right now.
Taxing windfall profits, how exactly would that work? Would that be constitutional, selecting a single industry for advance taxation? That’s not going to get done, for a variety of reasons. Also giving the folks another rebate is a bad idea. The government must get out of the giveaway business, this country is now running a half-trillion dollar deficit. All together, we owe about ten trillion dollars. That’s why the U.S. dollar is a disaster. If the USA continues to spend more than it takes in, we will have a complete economic collapse. Does Obama or McCain want to be the next Herbert Hoover? If so, continue to run up those deficits.
The United States simply must stop its massive spending, must begin to balance the budget and must return to the value of the US Dollar to its once elite status. We’re all in big trouble if that doesn’t happen. But — and this is an important but – many Americans are getting hammered by energy prices. Some will have trouble heating their homes next winter. That is completely unacceptable.
So here is my proposal: I am asking the five major American oil companies, Chevron, Occidental, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and Hess, to donate 2% of their profits for the last four quarters to a fund that would help struggling Americans pay their heating bills. That way, the oil companies could pay back their country. A nation that has allowed them to prosper more than any other concern in the history of civilization. A 2% charitable disbursement would alleviate the suffering of tens of millions of Americans and not hurt the oil companies much at all. Last year, they made a combined $80 billion in profit, a record amount for any industry at any time.
Now we contacted the five big oil corporations and to say the response to my idea was lukewarm is to be kind. Exxon and Chevron pointed out they pay huge amount of taxes to the government, which is true. But what about directly helping those in need? Not much enthusiasm so far. If just one of the oil companies would establish such a charitable fund, the goodwill that corporation would receive would more than make up for the money spent, as millions of Americans would buy that company’s oil over the others. So we encourage the oil companies to directly help out their fellow Americans who are struggling. No one – no one -- in this country should be cold this winter. But it is going to happen.
Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)
What a complete and utter tool. On C-Span's Newsmakers show this weekend, Roy Blunt blames Nancy Pelosi for how little the 110th Congress has accomplished. Now I have my issues with Pelosi's priorities and leadership, but let's call a tool a tool. The reason that so little has been passed is that the Republicans have been playing these stupid partisan games (and Blunt, John Ashcroft's and Tom DeLay's personally groomed protege, knows exactly how to do it) and basically fighting every bit of legislation that comes along. Can you say obstructionism, Roy? (.pdf) I knew that you could.
And then to prove that the Republicans are serious about being as difficult as possible, Blunt admits that the Republicans have every intent to shut down Congress after the summer recess unless the Democrats allow for off-shore drilling rights. But it's the Democrats' fault. I can't believe how dishonest this guy is...and of course, since he's being interviewed by a Washington Times journalist, no actual facts will be proffered.
We've discussed the fallacy of the off-shore drilling doing anything to help our energy crisis...a perfect example of the Shock Doctrine being pushed upon us. Yes, our gas is expensive, relatively speaking, for us (but compared to Europe, still a bargain). No actual increase in supply would happen for at least 5-10 years, no guarantee that resource would go to offset Americans' costs (rather than going on the global market to the highest bidder) and the disaster waiting to happen of oil spills in sensitive ecological areas makes it a smart choice for the Democrats to take a stand. The only benefits go to oil companies and I'd say they're doing fine right now.
So it's up to the Democrats (hear me, Pelosi?) to get in front of this and make sure the American people know that Blunt & Co. want to shut down the government to put more money in the bank accounts of oil companies. That's all that needs to be said.
transcripts below the fold
Looks like the Shock Doctrine is working once again:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources .Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.
Republican rival John McCain, who earlier dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, has been criticizing Obama on the stump and in broadcast ads for clinging to his opposition as gasoline prices topped $4 a gallon. Polls indicate these attacks have helped McCain gain ground on Obama.
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post...read on
Obviously, Obama changed his position because of public opposition to the ban and because he thinks he could use it get Republicans to sign on to other legislation as he says. It's an election year. But I would suspect they will extract another 100 pounds of environmental flesh before they do. That's how they operate. Maybe we could agree to store nuclear waste at Fisherman's Wharf in exchange for some investment in wind power. Or perhaps we could agree to drill in Yellowstone in exchange for subsidies to the automakers to put solar panels on their office buildings. If there's one thing you can count on it's that Republicans negotiate in good faith.
And our pal Naomi Klein:
Memo to John McCain: When trying to sell your energy plan (Drill! Drill! Drill!) you might not want to cite the approval of oil executives. The last thing voters want to hear is that the fatcats who have been raking in record profits at our expense are happy with your "solution" to our problems.
Download | play Download | play
"My friends, we have to drill off shore. We have to do it. It's out there and we can do it. And we can do that. The oil executives say within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it. So why not do it?"
Ken over at Howies place asks: "Are those his environmental experts???"
And the DNC notes that McCain's position on off-shore drilling, beyond the initial flip-flop, keeps evolving:
McCain was in New Hampshire this afternoon where he unveiled the latest excuse for coastal drilling. Oil executives tell McCain that "within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it." There's no doubt that oil companies will profit handsomely from McCain's coastal drilling plan. It's helpful that McCain would relay that to an audience of voters.
First position: When he first announced his decision to abandon his longstanding opposition to offshore drilling, McCain said it would be helpful in the short term.
Second position: Days later, McCain and his top economic advisor admitted it would have no immediate effect, but would have a "psychological" impact.
Third position: Later he reversed himself once again, say drilling is part of his short term solution to energy prices.
The latest: During today's town hall meeting in New Hampshire, McCain says "oil executives" told him we "could see results" from offshore drilling "within a couple of years."
Considering that he can't even keep his facts straight, is it any surprise that his new ad offensive has been universally panned as "false," "misleading," and "wrong?"
Steve wrote about McCain's idiotic attack ad on Obama. Here's a spoof video of McCain's ad. They use McCain's own words--- blaming the high gas prices on politicians like McCain, who've been working in DC over the last 30 years. The truth hurts, right Holy Joe? Is it really a spoof ad? I think not.
Gah! I admit that I've never watched Fox Business Channel, even though my cable company carries it. Based on this clip of their "after-the-market-closes" show, Happy Hour, I see I've made a wise choice. What kind of surreal experience is this? Bar set, complete with a bartender and business men with their brewskis in the background, host Rebecca Gomez looking like she's ready to hook up and whose only research before interviewing Naomi Klein appears to be skimming the reviews of The Shock Doctrine on Amazon, and to top it off, guest host Eric Bolling admits to not only being an oil trader, but never looking at the book? That's respect, I'll tell you, for the collective intelligence of their viewers as well as Naomi.
Still, with all the obstacles Fox Business Channel places in the way of having an intelligent discussion, Klein still gets in some great points that leave the embarassingly ill-informed Fox hosts with little to do but sputter inanities like "Naomi, do you like capitalism?"
Klein: This is just a classic example of what I mean by ‘disaster capitalism,' which is using a real disaster, a real crisis, or a shock-like the oil shock-to push through policies that you can't get through in normal circumstances. So here you have a shock, you have a real oil crisis. People are in pain, they want solutions. And you got the President, the "Extortionist-in-Chief" whose job is actually to solve the problems, but instead he holds the country hostage. And he says, "Listen, unless you give me ANWR, you'll never drive again."
Gomez: Wait a minute, so this is, just so I've set it up correctly, this is so you're saying that the President's taking advantage of this crisis...
Klein: Exactly...
Gomez: ...to get into ANWR.
Klein: ...to push the wish list of the oil and gas industries. These are not real solutions. People need real solutions. They're presenting this as if it's a short-term solution and you guys know full well that it's a long...if it's any...going to have any kind of impact on gas prices, it's in the long run. But people are so desperate for solutions that they're willing to buy anything.
Bolling: Listen, I have to take the other side of this...
Klein: You're kidding!
Bolling: ...I've been talking a long time about the actual...you know, it's really only about a year to 5 to 6 years to pull some oil out of the water in the outer continental shelf now.
Klein: A year? You need to build the rig!
Bolling: No, no, listen, they're already built. All you have to do is move it.
Klein: I'm hearing different things.
Gomez: He's an oil trader though, Naomi, he may know!
Gah!
Former Vice President Al Gore delivered a major speech Thursday on US energy policy in which he challenged all Americans to confront the crisis head on and wean itself off fossil fuels in the next 10 years.
Download | play Download | play
Longer version here.
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment.
"Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen."
Senator Obama responds:
“For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President. It’s a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer.”
Full transcript below the fold:
(h/t Bill W)
Download | play Download | play (h/t Heather)
Heather created this mash up of the respective coverage of Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! and Richard Engel of MSNBC of the news that Iraqi's oil fields would be opened up to foreign countries, under the guidance of US advisors:
The New York Times reports a group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest oil fields in Iraq. The disclosure marks the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development. The Times recently reported the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company—Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP— as well as Chevron, are on the verge of getting no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest oil fields. In their role as advisers to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, American government lawyers and private-sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts.
Makes clear the motive for going into Iraq, doesn't it? And the idiots on the MSNBC report still insist that the oil will pay for the war and that it will lower gas prices someday. Yeah, right. With companies like Exxon Mobil posting the record quarterly profits, if you buy that, I have a bridge to sell you--cheap.
I don't think there's a more clear example of the influence of the corporate media to disinform the general public. In fact, I would hazard a guess that if the major news outlets actually informed the public the way that Democracy Now! does consistently, we would have an approval rating for the Bush administration in the single digits.
