June 15, 2010
United States: EPA’s Endangerment Rule
Article by Jeffrey Bossert Clark
The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy initiatives. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author or authors. We hope this and other publications will help foster discussion and a further exchange regarding current important issues.
On December 7, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) promulgated a final rule commonly known as the “Endangerment Rule.” i In that finding, EPA determined that greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions endanger the public health and welfare, and that motor vehicle emissions in particular are contributing to such harmful effects. The Endangerment Rule was issued pursuant to EPA’s authority under Clean Air Act Section 202(a), ii which itself deals exclusively with the regulation of emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines (often known collectively in Clean Air Act parlance as “mobile sources”).
The implications of the Endangerment Rule are likely to be much more far-reaching than simply initiating the regulation of GHG emissions from mobile sources alone. Importantly, EPA’s final rule has been challenged in the D.C. Circuit under Clean Air Act Section 307(b)(1)’s iii judicial review provision. But if it withstands review, the Endangerment Rule will not only mandate the regulation of GHG emissions from mobile sources, it will potentially trigger the regulation of such emissions from stationary sources as well, and could well then be asserted as support by States, environmental groups, and a federal Indian tribe in several pending tort suits they have already brought against industrial emissions sources.
EPA argues that this rule is purely a scientific finding that “do[es] not impose any requirements,” and on that basis found that the rule “will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” iv But the statutory consequences of the Endangerment Rule could well make this the most costly rule in regulatory history, penetrating more deeply into the national economy than the Clean Air Act ever has before.
Background
The story of the Endangerment Rule could be opened at a number of different points, including by recounting the history of the Kyoto Protocol, v or by setting forth the origin of the theories advanced several decades ago that the man-made emissions of certain gases were causing global warming. vi In the interests of brevity, however, familiarity with the basic issue of climate change and with the fact that the United States has not signed the Kyoto Protocol is assumed.
For present purposes, the best place to begin to understand the Endangerment Rule is with the filing of a rulemaking petition at EPA by the International Center for Technology Assessment (“ICTA”) and 18 other environmental and renewable energy industry organizations in 1999. vii For the purpose of averting climate change, the ICTA Petition called for EPA to set new motor vehicle emissions standards for four gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbon. Before leaving office, the Clinton Administration raised the profile of the ICTA Petition by putting it out for public comment. The Bush Administration reviewed the comments filed upon assuming office, and later denied the ICTA Petition in the Fall of 2003. viii After an initial affirmance by the D.C. Circuit, 2-1, and the denial of en banc review, the Supreme Court took the case and ultimately reversed (5-4) the denial of this rulemaking petition in Massachusetts v. EPA.ix
The Supreme Court held that EPA had provided legally deficient reasons for denying the petition that were not wholly rooted in the Clean Air Act: “[O]nce EPA has responded to a petition for rulemaking, its reasons for action or inaction must conform to the authorizing statute.”x For instance, the reasons EPA cited for denying the ICTA petition included protecting the President’s foreign policy prerogatives. To this the Supreme Court said: “Although we have neither the expertise nor the authority to evaluate these policy judgments, it is evident they have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change.”xi
The Bush Administration responded to the remand in Massachusetts v. EPA, by issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPRM”).xii The ANPRM was criticized as simply “punting” the questions involved in the remand to the next Administration. Others maintained that the ANPRM attempted to explore on a comprehensive basis all of the complexities and consequences that would result if GHG emissions, especially from stationary sources, were regulated under the Clean Air Act. Proposals from EPA officials to mesh GHG regulations with the machinery of the Act appeared alongside the views of both Cabinet and other key White officials that such GHG regulation would seriously damage the national economy and overwhelm the administrative machinery of the Act. Summarizing the Executive Branch materials before him, the Administrator of the EPA offered the following preliminary view:
I believe [this notice] demonstrates the Clean Air Act, an outdated law originally enacted to control regional pollutants that cause direct health effects, is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases. Based on the analysis to date, pursuing this course of action would inevitably result in a very complicated, time-consuming and, likely, convoluted set of regulations. These rules would largely pre-empt or overlay existing programs that help control greenhouse gas emissions and would be relatively ineffective at reducing greenhouse gas concentrations given the potentially damaging effect on jobs and the U.S. economy.xiii
No action was taken in response to the public comments received on the ANPRM before the Bush Administration left office.
When the Obama Administration came into office, it shifted course. President Obama had campaigned on establishing a vigorous new regulatory regime to control carbon emissions, and he and his appointees also took important steps to make use of the existing framework of the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions. In President Obama’s first year in office, the new EPA announced three key interrelated initiatives:
First, beginning in February 2009 EPA reconsidered and reversed a Bush-era decision to deny California a preemption waiver, thereby allowing the Golden State to operate its own program setting tailpipe standards for GHG emissions from new vehicles.xiv EPA’s grant of the waiver has been challenged in the D.C. Circuit. That case remains pending.xv
Second, in May 2009, the President announced in a Rose Garden ceremony an agreement between several major automobile manufacturers and the State of California, as brokered by the Administration.xvi Pursuant to the commitment letters signed by the manufacturers and California, the manufacturers agreed, inter alia, to drop preemption lawsuits under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975xvii against California and the dozen other States that had adopted California’s GHG standards, while California agreed to accept compliance with new federal emissions standards to be issued by EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), as compliance with California’s own standards.xviii
The agreement was premised on the occurrence of certain future events. For instance, the manufacturers agreed that they would undertake particular steps regarding existing litigation, if the joint standards were issued “as substantially described” in the EPA-NHTSA notice of intent to conduct a rulemaking.xix The notice of intent in question suggested that EPA would promulgate standards of the following stringency:
EPA currently is considering proposing standards that would, if made final, achieve on average 250 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2016. The standards for earlier years would begin with the 2012 model year, with a generally linear phase-in from MY 2012 through to model year 2016. NHTSA expects to propose appropriate related CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards.xx
At the time, EPA stated that it had concluded that “[t]here is a critically important need for our country to address global climate change and to reduce oil consumption.”xxi As contemplated in the May 2009 agreement, EPA later issued the proposed joint standards, along with NHTSA, in September of last year.xxii Those standards have now been finalized.xxiii
Third, just before the May 2009 presidential announcement, EPA had issued a proposed rule that would find endangerment to the public from six GHGs (the four included in the ICTA petition that are emitted from motor vehicles, plus two that are not – perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride).xxiv Many of the conclusions in the proposed Endangerment Rule were premised on the United Nation’s Fourth Assessment, including prominently citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) for the following conclusion on the first page of the Federal Register notice:
The heating effect caused by the human-induced buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is very likely [footnote] the cause of most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.
[Footnote:] According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) terminology, “very likely” conveys a 90 to 99 percent probability of occurrence.xxv
To summarize, by September of last year, the Obama Administration had (1) granted California a waiver of preemption to allow it to set its own state GHG standards for new vehicles for model years 2012-2016 (this also allows other States to borrow California’s regulatory regime, under Section 177 of the Clean Air Actxxvi) ; (2) also promised to create a new federal regulatory regime encompassing two different agencies to govern the same mobile source emissions; and (3) as a necessary predicate for the issuance of EPA regulations in this area under the text of Clean Air Act Section 202(a),xxvii had proposed finding that GHG emissions both from new motor vehicles and from non-vehicle sources endanger the public health and welfare. When the final Endangerment Rule was issued on December 7, 2009, EPA stated that “[t]he Administrator’s findings are in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.”xxviii
Hence, by last Fall, it had become clear that the stage would soon be set for yet another round of judicial review, testing whether this second set of EPA attempts to grapple with the issue of GHG regulation under the existing Clean Air Act would be deemed consistent with law. This time around, however, two prominent legislative attempts to override or delay the impacts of Clean Air Act GHG regulation have also been launched in Congress. Some of the challenges to the Endangerment Rule are first discussed below.
Current Litigation and What We Know About the Legal Issues Presented
Seventeen petitions for review have been filed to challenge the Endangerment Rule in the D.C. Circuit (the only place such a rule can be reviewed under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act). Sixteen States and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection seek to intervene on EPA’s side. And thirteen States and the Governor of Mississippi seek to intervene on the side of those challenging the Endangerment Rule. Numerous environmental group intervenors and amici have also notified the Court of their desire to participate.
Climategate – Lists of issues that petitioners expect to raise in briefing have just been filed. Many of the issues raised track points of contention in several pending petitions for reconsideration that have been filed with EPA,xxix including by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Texas.xxx Reconsideration is premised on Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(7)(B).xxxi Most of the petitions for reconsideration point to Climategate as the basis for reconsideration. For instance, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s petition for reconsideration states: “In our view, this Endangerment Rule was unjustifiably based on unscientific reports by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and scientifically indefensible global temperature sets.”xxxii
Setting out the full extent of the Climategate controversy is beyond the scope of this paper. But the controversy began when e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (“CRU”) of the University of East Anglia were posted to the Internet in November 2009. Virginia characterizes the documents as follows: “[T]he e-mails and documents suggest that the CRU scientists questioned the reliability of their own data, the methodologies used in developing and analyzing such data, and the conclusions based thereon.”xxxiii
Other Alleged Legal Defects – The reconsideration petitions also assert other legal flaws. For instance, a supplement to CEI’s petition for reconsideration argues that EPA’s statement that applying the Clean Air Act to the regulation of stationary source GHG emissions would be absurd was not addressed when EPA issued its Endangerment Rule. Nor, in CEI’s view, was the issue adequately vented in the Massachusetts v. EPA briefing: “If EPA had forthrightly admitted to the Supreme Court that construing the Clean Air Act to cover carbon dioxide would end up forcing EPA to resort to the absurdity canon to deal with that construction, the outcome in Massachusetts might well have been different.”xxxiv
In its proposal to adopt the so-called Tailoring Rule, EPA reached its conclusion that application of the stationary source provisions in the Act known as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program (“PSD”) would be absurd.xxxv The Tailoring Rule proceeds on the theory that Clean Air Act Section 165(a)(4)xxxvi will trigger the application of the PSD program to stationary sources as soon as EPA issues the joint auto standards with NHTSA in final form. “This proposal is necessary because EPA expects soon to promulgate regulations under the CAA to control GHG emissions from light-duty motor vehicles and, as a result, trigger PSD and title V applicability requirements for GHG emissions.”xxxvii EPA’s view that the regulation of mobile sources automatically carries with it or “triggers” stationary source regulation is itself highly significant and underscores the potential significance of the Endangerment Rule for the national economy. Recently, EPA has taken the position that stationary source regulation will not be triggered until January 2, 2011, because that is the date on which the joint auto standards will become effective.xxxviii
The Tailoring Rule’s name derives from EPA’s view that applying the statute to stationary source GHG emissions was beyond Congress’s intentions at the levels referred to in the text of the statute – i.e., to any source emitting more than 250 tons per year.xxxix That level of emissions means, in the GHG context, that the PSD program would morph from a small program applicable to only the largest pollution sources in America, into a vast program that would require at least 40,000 PSD permits and six million Title V permits.xl
Finally, it is likely that one or more petitioners will argue that it was impermissible for EPA to make an endangerment finding under Section 202(a), relating exclusively to mobile sources, as to the two GHGs that are not emitted from vehicles. Other petitioners may argue that EPA prejudged the outcome of its proposed Endangerment Rule, by arranging in May 2009 for the California and auto industry settlement several months before the final Endangerment Rule in December 2009. Still other petitioners may argue that the Endangerment Rule has economic consequences that cannot bear scrutiny.
Efforts in Congress to Overturn or Delay the Endangerment Rule
The Endangerment Rule has engendered a strong negative reaction from many in Congress. Senator Murkowski is widely acknowledged as the leader of this effort. On her website, she explains her views on the subject, which bear many similarities to the views of Administrator Johnson as expressed in 2008’s ANPRM:
Sen. Murkowski believes that climate change is a real threat that must be addressed. She is also steadfast in her belief that Congress is the only agency in the United States with the power to tackle the problem in a responsible manner. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving toward regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Written in 1977, the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate climate change. The economy-wide implications of regulating greenhouse gases are not compatible with the blunt tools afforded the EPA under the Act.xli
Initially, Senator Murkowski sought to impose a one-year moratorium on the application of the Clean Air Act to stationary sources, based on the concern that the Endangerment Rule could trigger such regulation. More recently, Senator Murkowski has introduced a resolution under the Congressional Review Actxlii to disapprove the Endangerment Rule in its entirety. She summarized her current legislative thinking as follows:
“If you truly believe that EPA climate regulations are good for the country, then vote to oppose our resolution,” Murkowski said. “But if you share our concerns, and believe that climate policy should be debated in Congress, then vote with us to support it.”
Murkowski filed her disapproval resolution pursuant to the provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., and Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, were the principal sponsors of the CRA, incorporated into the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. If the committee does not favorably report the resolution, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 Senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster.xliii
Murkowski’s resolution has 41 cosponsors, and thus has created a significant political event that calls for careful response by the Obama Administration.xliv A companion resolution was introduced into the House on March 2, 2010.xlv
Senator Rockefeller has launched a second legislative effort concerning the Endangerment Rule. Senator Rockefeller’s proposal is to delay the onset of PSD regulation of stationary sources under the Clean Air Act for two years. “The ‘two-year suspension’ will give Congress ‘the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future,’ Rockefeller said in an e-mail.”xlvi
Both the Murkowski and Rockefeller initiatives remain pending. Controversies have swirled, particularly around the Murkowski approach, as to whether passage of the CRA resolution would effectively block implementation of the impending auto rules or cause the May 2009 settlement agreement to collapse.xlvii Proponents of the resolution dispute that claim.xlviii
Implications for Pending “Public Nuisance” Tort Suits
Several collections of plaintiffs have filed tort suits, principally advancing federal or state common law public nuisance theories against various groupings of industry GHG sources. To date, four such suits have been filed – two in the Northern District of California,xlix one in the Southern District of New York,l and one in the Southern District of Mississippi.li
All of those cases have gone up on appeal, and two remain pending there. The first such nuisance suit, against automobile manufacturers, was dismissed pursuant to the May 2009 arrangement between those companies and the plaintiff State of California. Industry’s threshold defenses of a lack of standing and the presence of political questions were rejected 2-0 by a panel of the Second Circuit in the Connecticut v. AEP appeal, with en banc rehearing recently being denied.lii And a unanimous panel of the Fifth Circuit essentially reached the same conclusion in Comer v. Murphy Oil, but en banc rehearing there has been granted.liii
The remaining suit (the second to be filed in the Northern District of California) is in the early stages of briefing to the Ninth Circuit. In that case, captioned Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil, the District Judge dismissed the complaint of a Native Alaskan tribe on the grounds that it could not meet the causation prong of constitutional standing doctrine and that the tribe’s theory of tort liability required the resolution of political questions. The tribe sought to show that climate change was causing their native village to sink into the ocean. In their opening brief, the plaintiffs have argued that their tort action is supported by EPA’s Endangerment Rule. “EPA found that during this century, the ‘largest warming [in the United States] is projected to occur in winter over northern parts of Alaska.’”liv When relevant briefing opportunities present themselves, plaintiffs in each of the public nuisance cases may also argue, along with the Kivalina plaintiffs, that the Endangerment Rule supports their bids for large tort recoveries or expansive injunctions.
Conclusion
The Endangerment Rule, related rulemakings, together with associated litigation, and the congressional responses thereto, all premised on GHG emissions, present numerous novel legal questions too important to the national economy to get wrong. The debate has just begun and will continue in earnest throughout this year and beyond.
* Jeffrey Bossert Clark is a partner in the D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and is a member of the Firm’s Appellate Litigation Practice.
Leave a Reply
Let us know your thoughts on American energy. Comment below.
I’m sick and tired of dealing with the Arabs and making them rich. We need to disempower the oil cartels and put the environmentalists in their rightful place – away from the US and out of our business. If the environmentalists want to live somewhere that’s primitive and barely touched by humans, they can all move to some third world country. We have all the oil we need right here, so we need to quit sitting on our own resources and use them now.
what is the payback on wind turbines- without government participation?
Great interview with former Governor / Senator George Allen. Wish we still had his leadership in the U.S. Senate. This web site will be very useful as I track what the real and true cost of energy will be in the Commonwealth and to my family living in other states. If Cap and Tax becomes law, it will increase the cost of EVERYTHING for anything grown, produced, transported, sold and bought by the consumer. It will lead to the closure of more businesses and give us more unemployment. Virginians (and people from the other states) need to go back to the root of their beginnings and re-read the documents that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote. Three simple words… “WE THE PEOPLE”. The ruling political class will hear from the people this November and next November if they continue spending and taxing us to death! If countries like China, India and other developing nations refuse to do anything to stop “so-called harmful” emmissions into the atmosphere, why should we? All this will do is transfer more and more jobs to these countries and further hurt the blue collar American worker. As an un-empoyed person stretching every dollar I have to provide for my family, I do not need another mis-guided policy passed by Washington which will further hamper my attempts to find a job and take care of my family.
why don”t we use cane sugar alcohol like brazil? We could adapt the average american auto for 200 dollars to accept this flex-fuel without driving up the price of corn – based products as well as meat related products. How about heat cingues (Concrete Islands) also known as cities. Return plundered land and property to it’s tree-laden and pristine appearence. At any -given minute of every hour , of every day, we have over 3000 airliners in the sky- carbon seeding at its best? The ten largest poluters in the world are not located in the U.S.A. – and yet WE must agree to cap and trade (taxes). We must educate the citizens to the true benefit of conservation without taxing them to oblivion.
Dear Governor Allen,
We have a technology that will certainly help with America’s energy future while combating climate change at the same time. Our patented liquid sorption technology captures 95% of the toxic pollutants from coal fired power plants, refineries, etc. Our technology now allows for the production of liquid fuels from COAL as presently the biggest drawback to this process is the incresed CO2 emissions which we can now capture. Our captured CO2 can also be used for the increased production of algae (Exxon) as an alternative fuel. Please visit our web page for additional details:
http://www.qdsciences.com Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss our technology and how use of it will make “Cap and Trade” a mute point therby saving the American public alot of their hard earned money. Sincerely, Ray Corbett
Hi Former Governor Allen:
I was a Virginia citizen and voted for you.
As a geologist and environmentalist I have studied past environments and mechanisms concerning climate. As you know (I wish Al Gore, Pelosi, Obama, and the other liberals were also in the loop) the earth’s environment is cyclic (warming and cooling events). Based on the past and current information CO2 has almost nothing to do with Global temperatures. The models do not take into account, the Pacific Decadal Occilation (PDO), ADO, suns energy output, solar wind variations, cosmic ray interactions with low level cloud formation, negative feedback, and of course the greatest green house gas “Water Vapor.” So all of the models are completely wrong. We have been in a cooling phase since 2001. I can asure you that for the next 30 years we will be in a cooling phase. We may even approach a Dalton Minimum. We can expect crop failures, dryer west, wetter east, and colder temperatures for the next 30 years. I am with you for developing all of our energy sources. If CAP and Trade passes the Senate, the US will have major major problems (depression, collapse of the dollar, etc.).
Scott Bullock
George,
Scientists involved have indicated that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), New Mexico, has operated for over 10 years with no toxic releases to the environment or personnel, while being a disposal site for some nuclear wastes. They also indicate that it has the potential capacity to store all of the nuclear waste humans could create in the next 10,000 years. Being located in a salt formation, the WIPP does not have the problems associated with the fissures at Yucca Mountain. If these claims are valid, the WIPP should have a prominent place in our expansion of Nuclear Energy generation plants.
I have contacted several Government Offices with either a reply that they are not chartered to consider the WIPP, or no onswer at all.
What say you?
Walt – Charlottesville
I believe we must seek energy independance if for no other reason than to denie the funds we currently send to our known enimies. While I understand this will require intrim plans but ultimately I believe we need to turn to technology like the Chevy Volt with triple digit gas milage. If we do not solve the gasoline consumption issue we will never be fuel independant.
Thank God somebody is finally trying to open some eyes.
Think for a moment, warming, whether a house or the world is caused by heat. Carbon and carbon dioxide do not PRODUCE heat. The producer of heat is the energy that the creator supplies to create and sustain what has been created and heat once here cannot escape because the earth, including its atmosphere, exist in a near perfect vacuum that prevents the transmission of heat except and unless in the form of photons.
Think for a moment, carbon is not some dirty evil thing. Carbon is the most heat stable of all atoms. Consider the diamond. Carbon does not make or absorb heat and is fundamental to creation and life. It is the “backbone” of most things including the transformation of energy for life’s processes. It is because carbon is so heat stable that it is residue of processes that involve combustion and oxidation. Actually, Oxygen is the active ingredient in those processes that release heat, not carbon.
Think for a moment. Carbon dioxide does not PRODUCE heat, it absorbs heat when its surroundings are hotter and it releases heat when its surroundings are cooler. Carbon dioxide is the creator’s temperature regulator. When it absorbs heat it causes cooling and when the temperature of the atmosphere (and carbon dioxide) is sufficiently cooled, the carbon dioxide is absorbed by and eventually sinks to the bottom of the oceans where it is converted back into a hydrocarbon compound. Consider this. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dictated by the amount of heat (coming from the oxygen) it has absorbed from its surroundings (I. E.: the amount of cooling) so an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that the creator’s process of global temperature regulation is working.
What has gone wrong with our ability to reason? We’ve become like dumb animals where a master decides everything even when and how to bred. Are we willing to allow a communal government of bureaucrats to spend billions on global temperature control, which our creator handled perfectly well for billions of years? The “cap and trade” legislation in the Senate must be defeated before the U. S. economy is wrecked.
A winning Energy Game Plan is excellent, so true.
Check out the “R&D Blog by Joe the Miner” on the WV Coal Association’s web site. There are many pages, accessible via links at the bottom of the first, fully documenting the science and technology that does exist, that has been and is being practiced, to both convert coal into liquid fuel AND to reclaim/recycle Carbon Dioxide, and convert it into liquid fuels, as well.
this was sent to me help me get the message out to Americans…
THIS IS QUITE THOUGHT-PROVOKING!
0A
About 6 months ago I was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. This is out of context, but this is the actual question as asked. The host said to Forbes, “I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer, how much oil does theU.S. have in the ground.” Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, “more than all the Middle Eastput together.” Please read below.
The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April (‘08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn’t been updated since ‘95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana ….. check THIS out:
The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska ’s Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of t he oil is recoverable… at $107 a barrel, we’re looking at a resource base worth more tha n $5.3 trillion.
‘When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..’ says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature’s financial analyst.
‘This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years’ reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It’s a formation known as theWilliston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the ‘Bakken.’ And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S.oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the ‘Big Oil’ companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken’s massive reserves…. and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!
That’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.
=0 A
2. And if THAT didn’t throw you on the floor, then this next one should – because it’s from TWO YEARS AGO!
U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online – 4/20/2006
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth… Here are the official estimates:
0A
- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
-20500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it’s all right here in the Western United States .
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy…..WHY?
&nbs p;
James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we’ve got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That’s more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post..
Don’t think ‘OPEC’ will drop its price – even with this find? Think again! It’s all about the competitive marketplace, – it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?
Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you’re thinking about it …. and hopefully P.O’d, do this:
3. Pass this along. If you don’t take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next time you want to complain about gas prices— because by doing NOTHING, you’ve forfeited your right to complain
——–
Now I just wonder what would happen in this country if every one of you sent this to every one in your address book..
By the way…this is all true. Check it out at the link below!!!
GOOGLE it or follow this link. It will blow your mind……..>GREG
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
I support Nuclear power, off shore drilling,
use of natural gas.
I support Coal, Nuclear power, off shore drilling and drilling in Anwar
Drill here, now,oil and gas. Stop making ethanol,a net loss in fuel to build w no pipelines,fuel to move it to blend site,import phosphates,poor heat value,upset world grain markets during famines.Solar,wind,tides,sure,but years away.Research clean coal burning and make our #1 energy self-sufficiency,not unproven pipedreams on carbon footprints while ruining our economy, LOSING jobs instead of creating them thru research and new production.
Our energy choices need to be “All of the above.” Let’s free the marketplace to give us the cleanest, most efficient source to meet our economic needs.
Most rational people are all for the untapped and seemingly abundant energy this country can produce on its own. Oil reserves (costly to tap into but enormous), nuclear (clean and efficient), natural gas (we have lots of it). The downside in a global economy is the fall back position of the middle east producers if the world no longer wants their black ‘puddles’. On the other hand, they may perhaps do something constructive instead of wasting time warring.
It would take more than a comment considering what a mess the US is in with regard to energy initiatives and current policy emanating from the Obama administration. First Cap and Trade would be disastrous for the coal and gas states; I am pro nuclear energy, water and wind, hydroelectricity, generating huge amounts of electricty, off shore drilling can be started however the ability to actually use the oil and convert into usable energy is a huge question, where to store it safely on the East coast, subject to weather like the N.O. Coast. What happened to the Alaskan pipeline ,, I could go on.. the last thing we need is an energy Czar from the Obama administration, perhaps we can just hold out until a new “competent” administratin is put into place, all for now ..
The United States is blessed with abundant
resources if permitted to access them To fail
to do so is the height of irresponsibility.
And, if pollution free energy production is truly
desired, the barriers against Nuclear energy
must be removed. Failure to do so defeats the
very stated objectives.
We must develop ALL our energy resources in the continental US immediately to stop the hemorraging of our money into the middle east increasing our deficet and enriching the economies of muslim states who wish us great harm. Our business and economy are suffering just as the average working citizen is suffering from the high cost of energy. We can not afford ever higher taxes on fuel and energy to heat our homes or fuel for transport for work. The Bakken oil discovry must be developed now as well as solar, wind, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. This must be done immediately to provide jobs and resusitate our economy.
I would submit that it long past time for us to increase domestic oil production. Drill ANWR now, and let’s start working toward getting it in the pipeline. There’s no logical reason not to do so. We can easily be energy independant in five to ten years, if the right incentives are given to our energy producers.
As for so called green energy, the best thing the government can do is get out of the way. As fossil fuels become scarce the energy companies will then begin to concentrate their efforts toward these alternative sources. Supply and demand, it’s worked for hundreds of years in this country, and it will continue to do so. The feds need to simply to do what they do best; NOTHING.
I am sure there is enough arm twisting on all sides to go around. However, I undertand that countries such as Russia is taking advantage of their energy sources in their Artic regions. Understanding how Russia uses natural resources such as natural gas to manipulate former satellites, i.e. Ukraine and even Estonia, I believe the United States Government is now threatening their own people with high prices to control them with cap and trade.
We have the resources and the technology to save ourselves from slavery to the countries who hate us. Keep up the good work.
Dianne Altizer, President
Tazewell Subchapter
10th Amendment Foundation
I think we should tap into our own resorces and at the same time develope new ones. The current government wants to do one without the other which is not very practical and will put this country into financial peril.
We should do everything we can to produce energy in the U.S. This includes more nuclear plants (France proved this works well) and more drilling for oil and gas.
The cap and trade legislation proposed is based on faulty science -this will cause massive unemployment for U.S. citizens. Other countries will cheat, just as they have on trade treaties.
Whatever America needs to be strong and independent of foreign powers America Must do –Drill, Explore, Experiment with New Sources of Energy — all of them– we must go after with all haste. Along the way, we must be careful not to take for granted our resources or our environment.
The Cap & Trade bill is just a portion of a much larger agenda. It allegedly aims at saving the planet and it’s inhabitants from destruction. However, it’s reason for existing is based on deliberately constructed lies. It is one segment of a series of proposals by the Socialist elite to save us from ourselves via a bloodless coup.
It’s very easy to get caught up in the words we hear called the content and to miss the reason they are spoken, which is the context they are generated from. For example, we can be involved in an emotional subject like abortion and not see the massive takeover capacity of the healthcare bill to control so many important aspects of our lives and one-sixth or more of our financial futures.
To paraphrase Stephen Covey, “We have complete control over what choices we make and we have no conrol over the consequences they carry within them.”
One vital component is completely missing in all these Socialistic proposals and that is integrity. Without it all efforts no matter how grandly conceived or majestically presented will ultimately fail as history so aptly reveals again and again. So when people of low or missing integrity speak, “it’s never about what it’s about.
Almost everyone knows the quote ending in “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If power tends toward currupting people, what can we expect from a group of politicians coming into powerful positions who were already corrupted?
The Founders studied the governments that preceded them. They struggled to create a government that would avoid the majority of the many pitfalls that exist. They started this extraordinary experiment by declaring, “We the People” instead of “We the Politicians.” They knew what they were doing by insisting that the power be vested in the people and the purpose of the government was to serve the people with integrity.
Eckhart Tolle described the Universe’s fundamental nature by saying, “Everything is crumbling. The mountains are crumbling, you and I are crumbling, our systems are crumbling.” Ideas like freedom, honesty, responsibility and truth do not have a life of their own. Someone must speak of them out loud and take a personal stand for them or they simply dissapear.
We have energy sources to utilize in this country — let’s do it! On another note, George Allen is STILL a true patriot. Virginia needs you — perhaps you will run again in a few years after our current president sets us back like Jimmy Carter did years ago. Thanks for your service!
Dear Governor Allen,
I am appalled by the audacity of the EPA officials declaring the very air we breathe as toxic to life. It is as if truth does not matter in any realm of government today–only the implementation of an agenda to take control of all aspects of life in the US and around the world. Much of what they propose will in fact be detrimental to life on earth in real ways that “too much” carbon dioxide will not. Their use of preemptory acts such as this in order to have leverage to pass legislation they know is opposed by the population and even most in Congress should be considered a criminal act. We cannot and must not accept lies as truth just because a bureaucrat declares it is so.
Donna Lauderdale
The GlobaL Warming hype is just another contrived “crisis” to be used to take control of our country by socialists/communists who desire to control the entire world. A hacker released evidence of falsified data and conspiracy by “scientists” desperate to perpetrate this fraud. Both China and India have stated they will not sign this treaty. Why? They don’t want their economies harmed! Why should the US economy be ruined further? Al Gore preaches about the “inconvenient truth” of global warming. However, the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore has invested with an investment firm that has invested almost a billion in “Green industries” and will profit heavily from this if signed. Al Gore had about $2 million when he left office in 2001 but now reportedly has about $100 million in assets. Talk about going green!
American energy needs a significant alternative for betterment of our future generation. To be able to revamp our economy we should come up with such a solution that is going to be a safe for our children and we keep our soberness around the globe. The existing system may not be able to keep us in #1 status therefore we need to do enough due diligence and come up with alternative American energy that can be sold to the rest of the world instead of import to balance our budget under your leadership.
Thank you.
I sent this to Michael Steele and wanted to let you have a copy….Rindy and I look forward to helping you as needed in the coming months…Best Wishes !
GOOD MORNING MICHAEL !
As you know, the tide is turning our way more every day with the strong-arm actions of the Dems. HOWEVER, the talk here in my part of Virginia…and I suspect nationwide….is still strong dissatisfaction with the current positions of the RNC….still too much of a big government…good ole’ boy network….and I agree.
LISTEN TO THE CONSERVATIVE TEA PARTY ACTIVISTS…Those who have spent their own time and moneys to come to rallys both in DC and around the nation! ….WE WANT A RETURN TO THE REAGAN CONSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO GOVERNMENT !!! and right now only a few are understanding this….like Sen. Jim DeMint. That is why you all are seeing more 3rd party “independent” candidates coming to the forefront …because the RNC won’t bring itself to change its big government ways. There is HUGE FRUSTRATION in my area against the RNC from Republicans and I don’t think you all are getting…AND LISTENING…to the message….Please get out of DC and understand the true mood of the country….WE CAN SWEEP VIRTUALLY EVERY RACE IN 2010 !! IF YOU ALL CHANGE YOUR ATTITUDE ….WE’LL ATTRACT HUGE NUMBERS OF SO-CALLED “INDEPENDENT” VOTERS WHO ARE REALLY SEARCHING FOR A HOME…IF WE MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THEM INTO OUR FOLD….IT WILL BE A MAJOR MISTAKE.
PLEASE LISTEN TO US !!….I AM ALMOST 70 YEARS OLD AND HAVE BEEN INVOLVED BEHIND THE SCENES IN REPUBLICAN ISSUES FOR MY WHOLE LIFE….OUR PARTY MUST HAVE THE COURAGE…AND CONVICTION TO CHANGE BACK TO OUR CORE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPALS….I AM SURE IF WE DO….WE WILL SEND THE DEMS A MESSAGE BY OUR UNBELIEVEABLE VICTORYS IN 2010 THAT WILL SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THEM FOR 2012….I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THEY DON’T DUMP OBAMA AFTER HIS 4 DISASTROUS LIBERAL YEARS ! IT CAN BE DONE…BUT WE MUST LISTEN TO THE TEA PARTY PEOPLE…THEY SPEAK FOR MILLIONS OF US !
I believe our country could be in a major recovery and moving forward a flank speed if we would focus on all resources for energy independence. We must back the EPA off and get the American people educated about the incredible progress we have made on safety in those areas of extraction, movement and usage. Television is our worst enemy and our greatest tool. We must try to educate the young people via this medium.
I believe that our loving creator would not have given us all the oil, gas and coal if it would suddenly be gone because we were using what he has given us. I also believe that these sources of energy do renew themselves, because there is no way the only oil was from animals dying and rotting.
Keep up the work.
Push for the French model of recycling spent nuclear rods, a potential key to more nuclear power
There needs to be L.P. tanks at every gas station so we have an alternative to run our vehicles on natural gas. Conversion in the vehicles is fast and cheap. Why no progress on this front? We have the resources. JUST DO IT! and stop supporting terroism against us. Let the Arabs drink their oil.
Drill Here Drill Now. We have lots of oil and natural gas here in this country. This will create jobs and stimulate our economy and energy independence which everyone wants. While we are using our own resources we can be looking for renewable energy.
All this gore talk and poetry about our sick planet is so absurd and lacks credibility.
Weather and climate will always change from year to year, century to century. The world won’t end until everyone hears the Gospel and has a chance to respond to that. When that happens and then we will know the end is near it won’t be green house gas that brings an end to this planet, but man’s rejection of Jesus Christ and not conforming to the plans and purposes of God for our lives.
GOD BLESS AMERICA, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, AND IN GOD WE TRUST! Global climate gate you bet! We are good stewards of what God hs bestowed upon us and we will continue to improve. A legal attempt to fleece the american people and others. THANK YOU LORD FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BESTOWED UPON US. MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Global Warming is another scam for government to raises taxes and for wall street to make money selling air. Total scam
Global Warming is a scam to penalize the ordinary citizen
Ronnie
Please run again!
-I along with the majority 0f West Virginians and US citizens are outraged with the Cap &Trade bill that is being considered-It need to be defeated-It can only destroy america as we know it-Economically it will destoy our way of life in this country as we know it-We hope that voters take note and vote out of office any member of congress who votes for this terrible bill.Thank you
I think Al Gore needs to invest in some really speedy running shoes! I keep wondering if he can be prosecuted for perpetrating a fraud upon the American people. He’s a liar. I’m sick about the damage he has done to how Americans are viewed in the world.
I favor former Governor Palin’s energy ideas. Clean coal, natural gas and start drilling for oil of our own. And certainly the United States of America owes NO ONE money for the agreements drawn up in Copenhagen. I did not agree to this use of tax dollars. Who did Obama think he was up there promising away our dollars for unsubstantiated carbon footprints. Here’s a footprint up your behind sir.
Drill Baby Drill.
Grief – we are being scared over every little
thing from Tsunami, schools lock down, climate, ’severe’ weather every time it rains
This is manipulation city. Yet we hear little
about the real problems- like why health costs go up and up but nobody explains what the causes are. Or why the Credit Default Swap market increased by 500 times in 10 years.
Also, for intermittent energy – it might make
more sense to bring the work to where the
windmills are than trying to connect them to
the grid, and ditto for solar.