Wow

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?

  Oil exports from the U.S. are currently running at 1.8 million barrels a day - exports that enrich Big Oil but don't do a thing to reduce prices at the pumps. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is asking Bush to "keep our oil".

.....at the current export rate, by the time the first barrel of oil could be produced from increased offshore drilling, America would have already exported the equivalent of nearly 40 percent of the oil that is projected to lie beneath protected areas offshore.

And that's the Oil Shuffle, as brought to you by George Bush, John McCain and oil company campaign donations.

  What's a Republican candidate to do when he's rightfully accused of being beholden to the interests and agenda of Big Oil? Why, wrongfully accuse your opponent of being beholden to the interests of Big Oil. Just a day after getting publicly busted for taking highly dubious campaign contributions from a Queens, NY, couple with ties to the energy industry, the McCain campaign is selectively citing a Center for Responsive Politics report to make the ludicrous argument that Obama is in the pocket of the oil industry. New McCain communications flack Nicole Wallace -- formerly of Bush Co. -- took to "Morning Joe" this morning to push this deceptive storyline, only to get busted on it despite Joe Scarborough's most valiant effort to cover for her.

Download | play   Download | play (h/t Bill W.)

Wallace: "The money story of the week was the day after Barack Obama launched his ad - John McCain, George Bush, blah blah blah, Big Oil -  turns out Barack Obama has actually received more money from Exxon-Mobil and from oil than John McCain has..."

A couple things here. First, it is true that Obama has received more contributions from employees of Exxon Mobil than McCain. But it's also true, however, that McCain has received more than three times overall ($1.3 million) from the industry than Obama has.

(note the recent spike after McCain announced his full-throated support for off-shore drilling)

Second, as Steve Benen notes, there's a big difference in the types of contributions flowing to each candidate:

There’s a qualitative and quantitative difference between some low-level Chevron employee chipping in to the Obama campaign, and the kind of bundling we’ve seen from oil executives working on McCain’s behalf. There’s money from the oil industry and then there’s money from the oil industry.

Exactly. Say my wife works as an accountant for Exxon Mobil or Chevron and donates to the Obama campaign. It can hardly be argued that he is being influenced by the industry by taking her contribution. McCain and the RNC, on the other hand, are collection huge, bundled donations that certainly seem to be affecting the GOP energy platform.

Benen also makes this crucial distinction which seems to elude the shrieking wingnuts and clueless pundits:

Let’s not miss the forest for the trees — the problem isn’t just that McCain is taking Big Oil’s cash, it’s that he’s pushing Big Oil’s agenda. That’s a much bigger deal.

That's the point that needs to be hammered home. Regardless of who the contributions come from, the real issue is whether or not those contributions unduly influence the candidate's policy toward the respective industry. If Obama wants to take money from employees of oil companies then use that money to get elected and slap a huge windfall profits tax on the industry, by all means, go right ahead. But to somehow argue that Obama is in the pocket of Big Oil -- when he receives 1/3 of McCain's total large-sum contributions, mind you -- is just rank dishonesty.

Again, it should come as no surprise that this deceitful line of attack comes just one day after McCain is forced to return over $50,000 in questionable oil money. I'm pretty confident that the majority of Americans are smart enough to realize how laughable it is for a Republican to accuse a Democrat of favoring the Big Oil agenda. Then again, the idea was to divert attention away from McCain and his shady dealings. In that vein, it looks like it just may have succeeded.

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

Continue reading »

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

Continue reading »

Last week, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) filed charges for the first time against a sitting head of state, charging President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan with three counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes. Fareed Zakaria had Sudan's ambassador to the United Nations on his CNN show, GPS, to discuss the charges, which he called "a joke" and cited the U.S.' 2002 withdrawal from the ICC treaty as an example of why Sudan does not recognize the court's authority and will not cooperate with it:

Download | play Download | play

ZAKARIA: Will your government mount a defense in the International Criminal Court?

MOHAMAD: We have no relation with the International Criminal Court. We don't recognize its authority. We are not going to cooperate with it.

ZAKARIA: But of course, you know that other governments that did not recognize the Criminal Court were still forced to extradite their leaders. I'm thinking of Yugoslavia.

MOHAMAD: No. I don't care about them. As far as we are concerned, we are not members. We have been told these days repeatedly that the ICC is an independent body. And so, OK, if it's an independent body, I am not a U.N. organ. We have full right to be part of it or not. And we choose not to be part of it, like the United States. ...(full transcript)

Complicating the ICC's ability to pursue war crimes charges, as referenced in the interview by Sudan's UN ambassador, is President Bush's "unsigning" of the International Criminal Court treaty in 2002. Though President Bush has publicly denounced the killings in Sudan as genocide, the administration has soft-pedaled sanctions against the Sudanese government to preserve its extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan, once a safe haven for bin Laden that has become a crossroads for Islamic militants making their way to Iraq and Pakistan.

The most major impediment to ending the genocide in Darfur has been China's longstanding diplomatic protection and economic support in return for its access to the 500,000 barrels of oil that Sudan produces daily. China, also not a signatory to the ICC treaty, was revealed in a report about a week ago by the BBC to be in violation of the UN arms embargo there through its export of weapons and training of fighter pilots.

Supporters of Barack Obama who would like to see the United States reembrace the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, thereby reaffirming its commitment to human rights, have created a group on the candidate's website, my.barackobama.com.

On Sunday's Late Edition Rep, Roy Blunt (R-MO), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee who reliably votes in favor of the Oil & Gas industry and against renewable energy bills and has been rewarded in return, joined the month-long chorus of Republicans including McCain that have been making the demonstrably false claim that there weren’t any major spills caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Download | play Download | play

Blunt: If there was ever a test of this system it's in the one place that we do drill which is the gulf - 4,000 platforms in the gulf - thank God we've got them. 238 of them were injured by either Katrina or Rita. There was really no oil loss of any appreciable kind at any of those. Less oil was lost than used to seep up out of the gulf floor."

In fact, as we continue to note each time a new version of this claim has been made, there were at least 124 oil spills as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The website Skytruth.org even has posted satellite images of the spills as seen from space. Blunt added to his false assertion a repeat of what must be the new talking point on this issue that was offered on Thursday by McCain’s policy adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer (an energy lobbyist) after she was called out by MSNBC's David Schuster after trying to claim that "hurricanes Rita and Katrina and did not spill a drop” of oil, a downplaying of the spills by comparing them to the amount of oil that naturally seeps into the ocean floor.

As ThinkProgress notes, “the effects of seeps and spills differ hugely” in their environmental impact. It's an apples and oranges comparison, as seeps are natural, thus not preventable, and they have very little adverse ecological impact due to the fact that they result in a much lower rate of release over time over a larger area, while the effects of spills on the surface can be devastating.

Rep. Blunt also attacked Speaker Pelosi's calling for a release of 10% of the oil in the strategic oil reserve and her pointing out many of the same facts I had written about a month ago that the oil industry has yet drilled in just 19 percent of the more than 40 million acres they already can that are not covered by the current ban — 40 million acres that represent 79 percent of America’s technically recoverable offshore oil reserves. Using generous estimates from the latest analysis from Bush’s own Department of Energy, allowing for unlimited drilling both offshore and in ANWR “would lower the price at the pump by less than 6 cents" a gal. by 2025.

Continue reading »

Naomi Klein has a great new article up on her website called Look Out, that is worth a read. Her book, The Shock Doctrine has just been released in paperback so grab your copy here...She explains how the Shock Doctrine is being applied in the usual Milton Friedman way in the pursuit of pushing through the last remaining remnants of Bush's policies. As usual they prey upon the fears of Americans living in a time when gas and food prices are creating household insecurity like we haven't seen in a long time. What better time for the Republcians to pounce, right

Iraq isn't the only country in the midst of an oil-related stickup. The Bush Administration is busily using a related crisis--the soaring price of fuel--to revive its dream of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). And of drilling offshore. And in the rock-solid shale of the Green River Basin. "Congress must face a hard reality," said George W. Bush on June 18. "Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels--or even higher--our nation must produce more oil."

This is the President as Extortionist in Chief, with gas nozzle pointed to the head of his hostage--which happens to be the entire country. Give me ANWR, or everyone has to spend their summer vacations in the backyard. A final stickup from the cowboy President.

Despite the Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less bumper stickers, drilling in ANWR would have little discernible impact on actual global oil supplies, as its advocates well know. The argument that it could nonetheless bring down oil prices is based not on hard economics but on market psychoanalysis: drilling would "send a message" to the oil traders that more oil is on the way, which would cause them to start betting down the price.

Two points follow from this approach. First, trying to psych out hyperactive commodity traders is what passes for governing in the Bush era, even in the midst of a national emergency. Second, it will never work. If there is one thing we can predict from the oil market's recent behavior, it is that the price is going to keep going up regardless of what new supplies are announced...read on

She appeared with Tavis Smiley in the above video and got into this discussion a bit more and really explains the exploitation that occurs when some sort of disasters hit and BushCo is there just waiting...Her book was the best one I've read in a long, long time. Naomi will be joining C&L for a live chat next Wednesday, July 16 at 2:00 PM EST. I'll keep you posted...

T. Boone Pickens is a billionaire oil man and a career corporate raider who loves George Bush so much he donated $250,000 to his 2004 inaugural ball. He was, and still is, fully behind the invasion and occupation of Iraq and makes no bones about it. So why is he now pushing for the use of alternative energy sources like wind and solar in his Pickens Plan?

It might be because he sees the soaring price of gas and how it is crushing the average American and decided to invest billions of dollars of his own money on a bet that it will pay off. His holdings in natural gas would make his a very healthy profit, should we convert to using it more.  Don't get me wrong, I support anyone who wants to lower our dependence on oil and clean up our environment, but if you watch the above video and go to the PP website you'll see that the environment doesn't get much play.  In fact, considering his push for OCS drilling, I'd say the environment isn't the overriding issue, just ridding us of our dependence on foreign oil. 

Carl Pope, Executive Director of The Sierra Club has praised his plan, going so far as to say Pickens is "out to save America" -- and I have no problem with that -- but do financial motivations vs. environmental motivations matter? Should we just be thankful that someone has stepped up to the plate, even if it means that the ultra-wealthy will once again control our energy resources, or do we strive for more ownership in the future of our own energy policy and demand more emphasis and accountability on our environment?  In the end, will Pickens' plan even work? 

I took this yesterday. Maybe it's higher today....I knew it was all ANWR's fault... On the Saturday Stock shows tomorrow---I'm sure the wall street welfare crew will blame Obama's run at the presidency for the escalating prices along with environmentalists. They lie, lie, lie.

John McCain admits that his energy policy consists of nothing other than mind games.

"I don’t see an immediate relief,. But I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist, and in the view of many experts that do exist off our coasts, is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial."

McCain's argument is that speculators will magically drive the price of oil down when they learn that the federal government has opened up ANWR and other offshore drilling sites; in other words, treat the market like a crap shoot and hope things fix themselves. Here's an idea: Why don't we go after these irresponsible crooks and bring the price of oil down to it's legitimate supply and demand level?  In fact, according to experts, these people are directly responsible for artificially inflating gas prices to the extent that it's costing Americans a half trillion dollars a year.

Salt Lake Tribune:

Gasoline should cost about $2.25 a gallon, and everything above that is ''funny money'' largely tacked on by and manipulation, testified Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America.

    ''The speculative bubble in energy commodities has cost households about $1,500 over the past two years in increased costs for gasoline and natural gas,'' said Cooper, estimating that the total cost to the U.S. economy has been more than half a trillion dollars.

$500,000,000,000 and all John McCain has to offer is "psychological" relief.

Republican Presidential Candidate, John McCain, proposed a gas tax holiday which turned out to be a non-starter with the American people, then he flip flopped on offshore drilling, and now, with his latest proposal to help end our current energy crisis, the Arizona Senator proves why voters prefer Barack Obama over him when it comes to the economy and solving the energy crisis. 

Download | play   Download | play  

Keith Olbermann talked to Chris Hayes from The Nation on Monday's Countdown about McCain's $300 million dollar offer to anyone who can design a "Flash Gordon-y" battery, and exposes it for the joke that it really is. McCain even said he would pay the hefty sum by cutting out pork barrel projects from his budget -- which is a bit confusing as he is supposed to be the savior who will step in and put an end to all pork barrel spending.