Saturday, January 21, 2012

Extreme Environmentalists Targeting Heavy Oil

As shown by the Keystone Pipeline controversy, extreme environmentalists are targeting heavy oils, claiming, with the help of the disinformedia, that oil extracted from tar sands and, by inference, thick, gooey, gummy heavy crude oil are "dirtier" and more dangerous than conventional (light) oil.

Utter baloney--at best.

The manmade global warming theory-based Big Lie that the life-on-earth-supporting carbon dioxide that is released in heavy oil production is a pollutant is central to the argument against heavy oil production--and oil production in general.


The Republican Presidential candidates need to tackle the carbon-is-killing-the-planet notion head-on as so much hot air and politically motivated propaganda aimed at keeping America's despised "fossil fuels" locked up. Mitt ("Maybe I'll Release My Tax Returns") Romney does not have the credibility to do this. Santorum simply isn't smart enough. Paul is basically irrelevant--he hardly believes in government to begin with. That leaves Gingrich. Alone among the remaining GOP Presidential hopefuls, Newt has the intelligence, knowledge, ability and wit to defeat the all-oil-is-bad camp.

Which explains (a) why pro-Obama CNN, which poses as a news network, ignored energy and its importance to the economy (along with foreign policy) during this week's Presidential debate, and (b) why Obama (of "the Muslim world") is ignoring North Dakota's great, job-creating oil boom: he and his henchpersons don't want the American people to know that their country is sitting atop enough onshore oil, including new oil that can be squeezed from old fields through enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods that are similar to heavy crude production methods, to make America energy independent. Really. Between the Bakken-lke light oil fields waiting to be discovered and the EOR fields--and known heavy crude reserves and resources--waiting to be developed, the United States could be said to be running into oil, not out of it.

Energy independence from real … as opposed to phony "green" … energy … millions of well-paying, permanent jobs … with benefits … genuine prosperity … all this is possible, doable, attainable with the right leadership.

Will the nation get the leader it needs in 2012?


POSTSCRIPT: Had Obama wanted to act like a true progressive upon entering office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, he would have called for the creation of a national oil company--a real stimulus--to responsibly explore for and develop domestic oil resources that are economically recoverable, but arguably not economic enough, for (American-in-name-only) Big Oil. Alternatively, he could have backed the revival of America's once mighty independent oil industry and urged government incentives for companies to develop the nation's domestic oil resources, especially on federal land. He did neither of these things, of course, preferring (in line with his Islamobominist ideology) to push inefficient and nonexistent energy solutions in the name of "saving the planet." Wanted: A President to save America.