Quick Hit: Shell Oil Buying Water Rights in Colorado

Shell Oil put forth a water claim on 15 billion gallons of water, as this article details.  I think this is in addition to the 7.2 million acre-feet of senior water rights that Shell and others bought last week, as I covered here.  The older article that I’m just now getting to says the Yampa River water rights are junior rights.  The end use of the water would likely be the same: drilling for oil in shale formations.  That’s why I’m not sure if the articles are actually about the same purchase or not.  If not, Shell is putting down a lot of money in what is likely to be a very bad investment.  If all the claims make their way past regulators and the court system (no guarantee in itself), it would take another decade before the first drilling could occur (if the technology is ready, another thing not guaranteed).  So in 10 plus years, Shell might be ready to drill for oil in formations.  What do you think our energy portfolio and infrastructure will look like by then?  Does anyone seriously think that oil and gas will be viewed as the best sources of energy in 10 more years?  Of course not – they’re not today and that won’t improve with time.  (The fact that absent massive corporate welfare, oil and gas are even worse sources than they are commonly viewed today seems to escape most peoples’ notice.)  For the sake of our environment and our economy, renewable energy sources are where the smart money is.

Once again, as gas prices inch back up toward $2 per gallon this spring (and likely to go higher again this summer), this is what Shell and other fossil fuel corporations are doing with a great deal of their money: securing water rights so that dozens of gallons of water can be wasted to produce one gallon of oil 10+ years from now.  They’re not incresing refining capacity, which would help lower the price of gas for all of us.  They’re planning to start boondoggle projects.  In too many people’s eyes, it’s alright if Shell and other corporations do so because they’re infallible.  It disgusts me.

Update: The Colorado Independent’s David Williams has an article up on this.

Rescued Firms Just Not Getting It

An interesting headline caught my eye this morning.  “Obama imposes limits on executive pay” is about President Obama and other Democrats introducing common sense limits on executive compensation if their firms receive bailout money from American taxpayers.  Why do I think they’re not understanding the environment?  Executives have been allowed for a generation now to run free at the helm.  They’ve been more than happy to take millions of dollars per year from firms, regardless of whether they succeed or fail.  They shouldn’t earn anything if their firms fail due to horrible executive decisions.  That’s more true than ever if firms accept American taxpayers’ money.

What Pres. Obama and other Democrats want to introduce in this recovery and reinvestment legislation is public accountability and transparency.  Private firms have been able to do whatever they want with consumers’ investments.  They’ve done whatever they want with the corporate welfare money they’ve taken from the public.  Now it’s time for change – that’s what the 2008 election was all about, after all.

Out of the $350 billion financial firms received from “president” Bush and Secretary Paulson, they decided to use it to buy other banks.  They decided to use it to pay for $18 billion worth of bonuses for executives!  What was the money supposed to be used for?  Balancing out the crappy financial instruments the firms decided to gamble with.  They money was supposed to increase the credit flow to Americans so that our economy could continue to function.  The same executives that decided to not use the money as it was intended by Congress are now warning Congress that

intrusion into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector’s recovery.

Call me underwhelmed.  That warning is a good indication of just how alternate the reality these clowns have been living in.  If private firms want public money to bail them out from their disastrous decisions, the terms for doing so need to include public transparency and accountability, as Sen. Dorgan is recommending:

On Tuesday, Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., introduced amendments to the Senate’s economic stimulus legislation that would require firms that receive bailout funds to disclose the bonuses they paid during the time they received government funds. The bonuses would be posted on the Internet and included in a report to Congress.

Why would executives not want their bonuses made public?  Because they know they’ve made unethical business decisions in the past and they think that a different set of rules should apply to them just because they’ve been financially successful.  All this while millions of Americans that actually work for a living have lost their health insurance, their jobs and their houses.  Those losses have come about as a direct result of the executives’ immoral decisions.

Sen. McConnell offers up another b.s. talking point:

“I really don’t want the government to take over these businesses and start telling them everything about what they can do,” Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said this week. “Then you truly have nationalized the business.”

Fine, Sen. McConnell, then the businesses should take care of themselves.  If the market is truly free, as you and other ideologues constantly assert, then they shouldn’t need billions of Americans money.  If they don’t want the oversight and the accountability that Pres. Obama and Congressional Democrats are proposing in return for a public bailout, they don’t have to take the money, do they?  They have the choice to do what they want.  Let’s see what happens when they refuse the money and oversight and fail.

Perhaps the scariest part to all of this is considering the “solution” the Cons would be offering if they had won the 2008 elections.  They were successful in giving away $5 Trillion of Americans’ money under 8 years of Bush rule.  This meltdown would only provide them an excuse to give away trillions more.  Democrats are coming up with solutions that will result in a healthier economy in the medium- to long-term.  Democrats want transparency and accountability, two items that were not considered under the Cons.

Bush and Banks Robbing the American Taxpayer

I’ve written about this a little since Sep 15th, when everything in the financial markets went to hell.  I didn’t trust the Bush “administration” to handle the financial crisis with any degree of honesty or integrity.  I take no pleasure in reading news reports that my worst fears continue to come true.  Bush and Sec. Treasury Paulson are taking American taxpayers for a ride; a ride that they will never be held accountable.  How bad is it already?  As detailed by Jerome a Paris, here are the up-to-date details:

• the original $700 billion bailout;
• an additional $140 billion in tax breaks for banks (quietly non-announced by the Bushies);
• $150 billion for AIG, on much sweeter terms than they were paying for the earlier $85 billion bailout (with a whoopping 5% drop in the interest rate they have to pay, for instance);
• lest we forget, the $29 billion guarantee to JPMorgan for Bear Stearns assets (but that’s almost small change now);
• and $1,200 billion new liabilities on the Fed’s (ie ultimately the taxpayers’) balance sheet, backed by mostly junk paper;

That’s $2.3 Trillion in just under two months’ time.  From a party that will whine for the next four years that Democrats are being fiscally conservative.  Is it responsible or moral to give away more taxpayer money to banks that ran around unregulated for years?  Is it responsible or moral to renegotiate the AIG deal with a lower interest rate when they blew through their original giveaway in a few weeks’ time?  Is it moral or responsible for the Federal Reserve to refuse to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral?

This is the kind of immoral and irresponsible behavior that cost the Cons the 2008 elections.  Yet, the lesson they’ve learned so far from the elections is they didn’t attack Democrats enough; they weren’t loud enough about their failed ideas and policies.  Believe me, the American voter heard more than enough disgusting Con attacks.  Voters have suffered under the Cons’ failed policies.  The problem is Con policies are too extreme for America.  If Cons want to come back toward the center-left the nation actually occupies, they’ll win plenty of elections.

2008 Energy Bill: House Version & Initial Reaction

The House passed their initial version of the 2008 energy bill.  Two major focal points of this bill are the following: it would allow drilling 50 to 100 miles off-shore and it would repeal tax breaks (corporate welfare) for oil corporations.  Republicans have been pining for the former and screaming about the latter for months.  Americans generally support increased drilling as long as its coupled with renewable energy research funding increases.  A clear majority of Americans support rescinding the fossil fuel industry’s welfare.  Americans can pretty easily make the connection between $4.00 gas and news of record profits that corporations like Exxon enjoy every quarter.  They’re tired of that being the status quo.  So I say let Republicans continue to scream about stopping the corporate welfare.  They’ll continue to look like ideologues for it.

Republicans are also whining about no “litigation reform”.  But here’s the reality: if the off-shore areas end up going up for lease, which would require Senate passage of the same bill (unlikely this year) and no veto by Bush (not a guarantee in the off-chance Congress actually passes something), it’s not like they’ll drill on those new areas.  Why?  Because here’s the dirty secret Republicans want to keep out of the spotlight: fuel corporations currently hold leases on 68 million acres of land and they’re not drilling on them right now.  More than that, those corporations have no plans to begin drilling any time soon.  They’re enjoying the high fuel prices too much.  Increasing the supply would bring that price down.  That situation was true before demand for fuel started falling in the face of $4.00 gas and is even more true now.  With demand decreasing, they have absolutely no incentive to put more fuel into the market.  So no environmental lawsuits will be issued because no corporation will drill.

Drilling In Colorado & Paying Your Fair Share

The Colorado Petroleum Association paid for a report that says if Colorado were to eliminate the corporate welfare currently given away to oil and gas corporations, Colorado taxes would rank second in the nation behind Wyoming. The message they’ve manufactured is that taking away their welfare will end up costing consumers more. I’m not buying it.

Here is the important fact: the ad valorem tax credit allows energy companies to subtract 87.5% of their property tax bills from the mineral taxes they owe the state. Why was the credit established? Gov. Ritter has provided that answer. The credit has its roots in the late 1970s when Colorado wanted to help the energy industry establish itself in the state. Does anyone seriously think the drilling industry isn’t established in Colorado? I agree with the Governor: enough is enough. Oil and gas companies are recording record profits every quarter. If the companies want to continue to do business in the state, they should pay what they owe.

Once the giveaway is canceled, the state will receive an additional $260 million in revenue. Gov. Ritter, looking ahead for our state, wants to use some of that money to underwrite “Colorado Promise” scholarships. That makes sense to me: oil and gas corporations pay their fair share and young Coloradans gain another avenue to further themselves.

There is an alternative ballot measure that would redirect the taxes to a different recipient: transportation (read: roads). This is a less optimal situation. Once the money is spent on roads, it’s spent. Roads need additional funding, that’s for sure, but Republicans are trying to do so without raising taxes. Here is my opinion: if our infrastructure needs investment, let’s invest in it. If nobody ever pays anything for the infrastructure, it’s going to fall apart and end up costing us more in the long-term. If the money is directed toward improving citizens’ future earning potential, I think the state sees a larger benefit from that in the long term. They’ll not only earn more, and therefore generate more revenue for the state, but they’ll produce more for the state during their careers, thanks on their increased education.

The oil and gas corporations want people to buy into their myth that eliminating their welfare would hurt their industry.  I’ll expose that for the lie that it is: are the corporations fleeing Wyoming, where their taxes are higher, for Colorado?  Of course not.  The energy industry is thriving in Wyoming also.

Colorado deserves its fair share from the energy industry just like it does from every other industry.  The time for giveaways is over.

Random Pieces 7/28/08

George W. Bush continues to set record after record. Five of the worst deficits? They’re Bush’s and his extremist allies in Congress. This year’s deficit will amount to around $482 billion. Bushies are of course trying to spin the number, citing two worse deficits in our history, based on percentage of GDP. There’s a lot of that going around as the economy tanks and businesses post record-setting losses themselves. It’s only the third worst yearly deficit ever! Brought to you by folks who convinced voters they were fiscally responsible. One more reason not to vote for McCain and dozens of other candidates.

***

One out of five bridges in the US is 50 years old or older, according to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Why is 50 years worth mentioning? Engineers design bridges to last 50 years. And the amount of traffic using those bridges far exceeds what was estimated 50+ years ago. Last year, a bridge collapse in Minnesota killed 13 and injured 144 people. And yet the same conservatives who have run up record deficits continue to argue that we shouldn’t invest in our national infrastructure. Indeed, immoral corporations like Halliburton and Exxon are gleefully accepting corporate welfare while our infrastructure edges closer to failure.

***

So someone went to a church in Tennessee with a shotgun and killed two people while injuring seven others.  Who is this person?  Another psychotic white male.  He was pissed off at “liberals and gays” and frustrated he couldn’t find a job.  He believes that all liberals should be killed.  Where did he get such crazy thoughts?  Unsurprisingly, his reading included Bill O’Reilly, Mike Savage and Sean Hannity.  Their writings and general use of language, along with other extremist right-wingers, have been identified as infused with violence.

I recommend reading Jeffrey Feldman’s “Outright Barbarous” to get a clearer idea of this – he takes a short stroll through right-wing pundit-land and examines their rhetoric.  His conclusion: that the level of violence in their rhetoric prevents any real discussion of the issues we all face today.  I’m actually surprised even more outbursts like this haven’t been seen.

I’m curious if Jim David Adkisson will be charged as a terrorist.  Based on the fact that he’s not brown and doesn’t have a Muslim-sounding name, I doubt it.

Energy Corporations to Lobby for More Corporate Welfare in Colorado

I’m sure we’re all about to hear again from the truly concerned pundits about how out-of-state money shouldn’t affect local elections and politics. I mean, what is more subversive to our style of politics than out-of-state special interests pumping millions of dollars into efforts that will likely be filled with lies, half-truths and fear? If you’re with me so far, I’m glad. Because I’m about to turn a number of you off to the remainder of my post, which actually gets to the reason I’m writing it.

Who are the nefarious entities that are about to pour their millions into our local issues? Energy corporations. $3.6 million is the sum, $2.6 of which will originate from outside Colorado. Severance tax increases is the issue.

The proposed ballot measure would eliminate a property tax credit that allows energy companies to write off hundreds of millions of dollars in the taxes they owe to the state every year.

Let’s review what that really means, shall we? Energy corporations receive $321 million in corporate welfare just from the state of Colorado alone every year. Does anybody think the state of Colorado might have a better use for $321 million than giving it away to energy corporations who are making record profits every quarter? Could education use some additional funding? How about infrastructure like dams and bridges and the electric grid? How about water treatment plants? How about health care? Dozens and dozens of critical things could use any or all of that money.

Science and Energy Tidbits

Some things that caught my eye today:

2007 is going to go down as one of the top-10 warmest (global surface temperatures) on record. Right now, it’s on track to be the second warmest ever, behind 2005. Expect the record to be broken in the next couple of years.

Scientists think they have figured out the physical cause behind the aurora borealis/australis. 5 NASA satellites measured tightly wound bundles of magnetic fields that provided the energy necessary to illuminate the skies.

Sides are still being taken at the Bali Climate Conference. The U.S., Japan, and Canada don’t want to discuss actual numbers as targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while the E.U. wants some sort of goal laid out now. Said the U.S. negotiator, “The main effort here in Bali is to get all of the countries to agree, in concept, that they will collectively support a long term global goal for reducing emissions.” What are you doing there if you haven’t already agreed to the concept of supporting that goal? And what would you define as long-term? 50 years? 500? Never? Important concepts that I haven’t seen asked yet. A January conference in Hawaii might produce progress. I have the feeling that a drastic reduction in shoreline will be what eventually spurs people to action.

Billions of dollars in corporate welfare (our tax dollars) will continue to flow without restraint to energy corporations. You know, the same companies who are barely scraping by with profits that set records every quarter. Funny that, I thought Republicans always said tax dollars belong to us. And don’t they dislike entitlement programs? Why are entitlements for corporations okay but for citizens, they’re not? Curious…