5 Questions about the SunShot Prize for Minh Le

Recently, we announced the launch of the SunShot Prize—a new competition aimed at making it faster, easier, and cheaper to install rooftop solar energy systems. Participating teams must demonstrate that solar energy is an affordable solution for American families and businesses. To learn more about the competition, we caught up with Minh Le, Acting Solar Program Manager at the Energy Department. In the Q&A exchange below, Le shares important details about the impetus driving this innovative competition.

Why did the Department launch the SunShot Prize?

The global clean energy race is moving forward at lightning speed, and it’s time for the United States to regain its competitive edge. The SunShot Prize is meant to inspire organizations across the nation to dramatically reduce the costs of going solar. As part of the SunShot Initiative’s larger effort to make solar cost-competitive by 2020, this new program takes aim at soft costs, which are essentially what we think of as "the price to plug in." For the complete story, see the Energy Blog.

View the original article here

Will new UK Government initiative quiet fears about rising energy prices?

It is a turbulent time for Britain's energy industry. Rising energy prices make more persuasive than ever before the argument for solar PV prices, and the stage has clear for a new funding initiative to improve the nation houses been swept. It is called the green business.

The British are not impressed by the big six energy companies pricing. 92% of the people by the eco experts interviewed, said that they are concerned about the rising cost of energy. The remaining 8% high income groups, and they also won't be able to afford energy price increases of more than 30%. In the popular press and the flyers, in a manner not dissimilar to their coverage of corruption in the banking industry have the energy companies 2012 price increases were planned. Clearly you need an alternative and Government hopes that his new initiative provides.

So first of all, what is the Green deal? A green is a loan of up to ?10,000, which you use to improve your home, making it more energy efficient. Independent evaluation to determine what measures your electricity bill will make the most important improvement. Reimbursements are more than 20 years as rates, structured and are connected to the property, not to the individual. So, if you prefer to let the debts behind. Leave a property, which - in theory - is a cosy and has improved energy efficiency is more valuable.

Login your chance for the Green deal are public so impatiently wait? Of course not; 77% have not even heard. This is not so damning news, because the thing in the oven. It took years to coordinate and is expected to be another year full tire; Although the legislation has completed, the marketing has wait to complete training and other information. It is a promising program but still a chick.

What distinguishes the Green deal to past programs is that it be driven from the market. Because Government cannot afford, so a huge program subsidizing that was green deal developed, are fertile ground for companies: the launch is the Green deal, supported only by a starter Fund of ?200 m by the Government. The plan is to improve energy efficiency and to create thousands of jobs at the same time.

Aim is the Green deal to cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, to hit Government targets and to end 'Fuel shortage', defined as, if you spend more than 10% of your income on energy costs. An important research known as the Hill report to find lives in fuel shortage, with 2,700 'excess winter deaths' under heating per year - 20% in the United Kingdom more than killed on the streets.

In 2009, not 7.80 million people could afford the cost of energy.

2016 This number is expected to to 8.50 million increased.

Why is so much energy? A Fator is energy inefficiency; the UK has one of the oldest housing stocks in the world and the insulation and double glazing is often not properly installed, or not there at all. Poor heat output waste had money; Energy course of time inefficiency is untenable for all life on a budget.

The most important factor is simply the energy company, which set the prices.

SSE (Scottish and southern energy) has raised prices for at least 8.40 million people by an average of 8.7%. E.on earnings jumped prices for electricity and gas - 18% - 23% in the first six months of the year 2012, which demonstrated their increasing margins, and increase British Gas owner Centrica - 16% compared with the same period. Investment Bank Morgan Stanley predicted that British households are ?200 worse from 2013 onwards, and this is down in no small part to the energy companies.

The Green deal will begin in October. Environmental, social and housing combine agendas, at the time, the plans of the Government, it in the Coalition flagship green to develop policy. Support the ECO - energy are the Green deal company committed - which will replace the outgoing CERT and ESDP programs for insulation and new boilers.

The Green deal is discussed as an ambitious and innovative; Greg Barker, Minister for energy and climate change, calls it a new framework for energy efficiency, which previously been 'the preserve of the big six energy companies'. This new framework should be flexible, provide for more people across the country and provide further improvement measures, as such an initiative in the past.

View the original article here

Video reveals truth about Smart grids

We believe not about energy until something goes wrong, and this week things gone wrong at the historical level. Therefore the public and experts focused again on the fragility of large power grids.

Ten percent of the world's population - more than 600 million people - lost their power in India on July 31, marking the largest power outage in history. India's grid collapse follows the storm-related outages, the links of Washington, D.C. sweltering days in June, when a freak hit super Derecho.

So the timing could not be better to accelerate his, consumer education about Smart grids and the non-profit smart grid consumer collaborative (SGCC) in the work.

Smart grid uses high-tech equipment for the electrical system more sophisticated and less likely an error. It paves the way for a future of decentralized power where the home, car and office buildings each power stations in their own right become.

But smart grid requires a level to customer energy management, something most of us strangers. So that the industry has worked hard to find out as to interest consumers in the different energy displays, smart operation time prices, smart meters and other tools of the grid.

This includes utilities in the mind of the consumer, to do something Proctor & gamble or Apple computers get, routinely but must have monopoly-based utilities never before found necessary.

In an effort to help SGCC asked recently not only consumers, what they think about Smart grids, but also video taped their answers. Because sometimes we say what only half revealed what we mean. As we say something, means much.

"It is one thing to read a single-dimensional set of quotation marks." "But it is another thing entirely to consumers and they say hear in their own words what they think and what they know," said Patty Durand, SGCC Executive Director, in a recent interview.

The group interviewed 24 consumers in Atlanta, Los Angeles and Chicago. What point the interviews, and how can the information help utilities?

It turns out consumers want data on use their energy, but want to help to understand what it means and how to use it. You worry about reliability and price and in some cases the environment. Most importantly, says Durand, they all alike, so that all utilities in the same way should be addressed not think.

Consumers generally fall into five categories, she said.

Traditional - often seniors, the is ChangeDo-it-yourselfers against - they want their SpendingEasy roads save money and mange - highly trained, consumers or they make a good income, save time and avoid WasteYoung Americans - they just want out, don't know much about smart-grid, but would like to embrace the most likely smart-grid LearnConcerned green - environmentally motivated people,
Each of these groups responds differently to smart grid spaces. Utilities are to capture the best interest of consumers if they adapt messages to anyone, she said.

For example, information on renewable energy be resonance with affected Greens and easy Street, while it will irritate the traditional. She could better respond to a message that stresses us competitiveness. "There are so many opinions and passions around energy and the environment, that the targeted message better," Durand said.

The bottom line is that utilities have for many years treated customers as a "Monolith", she said. Consumers in action watch shows on video, the differences in the consumer concerns and interests. "Education is the key, but it must be deployed carefully."

Find here want the ten things, the consumer most of smart-grid and a short clip of the interviews.

ELISA is a long-time energy writer, whose Artikel are available at RealEnergyWriters.com

View the original article here

What To Think About Kinder Morgan's $38B El Paso Deal

Kinder Morgan‘s $38 billion takeover of El Paso Corp. will create the world’s biggest pipeline company, with 80,000 miles of conduits for natural gas, petroleum and refined products. The deal will link pipeline networks from Florida to California to Illinois, New York and Montana. It is also likely to set off a round of consolidation among the nation’s other pipeline operators.

What’s the significance for the average American? Hard to tell. If Kinder Morgan can squeeze efficiencies out of the combined network and pass along lower costs to its customers, primarily natural gas drillers, then the result might be lower energy prices. If, however, Kinder decides to use its market dominance and greater heft to increase the prices it charges to move gas from fields to market, it could mean higher gas prices.

Whichever way this dynamic goes, it appears that the primary beneficiaries of this deal will be the natural gas traders of Kinder Morgan, Goldman Sachs (which owns 19% of Kinder) and Barclays (which is providing $11.5 billion in loans for the deal) who will be in a position to enjoy better knowledge of the pricing differentials of gas produced in America’s various basins.

Variable prices can yield profitable trades. Natgas may go for $3.60 per mmBTU at the NYMEX, but it’s worth less in places like North Dakota, where producers in the Bakken shale (predominantly an oil play) still flare some 20% of produced gas because there’s not enough pipelines to take it. Traders can profit by buying Bakken gas cheap, then selling it at a premium into Florida or New York.

Hopefully Kinder Morgan, with its added heft, will be willing to build pipelines to the Bakken. Getting more gas into pipelines would be good for the average consumer, bringing more supply and lower prices.

Another wrinkle in the deal is taxes. Kinder Morgan Inc. (NYSE:KMI) is buying El Paso. But Kinder Morgan Inc. owns the general partner and 11% of limited partner interests in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (NYSE:KMP). The latter is set up as a master limited partnership, which means all profits from the company flow through, untaxed, to unit holders (who then pay taxes on the income at individual rates). Many of El Paso’s assets, in contrast, are held, and taxed, on the regular corporate level. Profits from those assets are still subject to both corporate taxes then individual taxes when passed on to shareholders. Kinder can unlock a lot of value for existing unitholders just by moving El Paso’s assets from “Inc.” over into the MLP.

The deal is a vote of confidence by Chief Executive Rich Kinder and his team that America’s natural gas renassiance is real, that the shale plays across the country really do contain the trillions of cubic feet necessary to fill old pipelines and to justify building out new ones.

“We believe that natural gas is going to play an increasingly integral role in North America,” said, Richard Kinder, in a statement. “We are delighted to be able to significantly expand our natural gas transportation footprint at a time when it seems likely that domestic natural gas supply and demand will grow at attractive rates for years to come.”

The merger, assuming it’s approved by the Federal Trade Commission, will likely set off a slew of other deals among pipeline operators. Enterprise Products Partners (NYSE:EPD), cobbled together over decades by the late billionaire Dan Duncan, would now be looking for deals. As would Williams Cos., which this summer lost out in the bidding for Southern Union. Energy Transfer Equity, controlled by billionaire Kelcy Warren, appears to have won Southern Union, itself controlled by billionaire George Lindemann, in a $5.7 billion deal.

Other tycoons whose pipeline assets suddenly look more valuable include Trevor Rees-Jones, whose Chief Oil & Gas has a sizable network in the Marcellus shale, and Rod Lewis of Lewis Energy, who five years ago sold half of his pipelines in south Texas (Eagle Ford shale territory) to Enterprise for some $400 million. MarkWest Energy Partners L.P. (NYSE:MWE) would also be in play.

The terms of Kinder Morgan’s bid for El Paso is kind of unusual. It amounts to $26.87 a share, a 37% premium to Friday’s close. For each share Kinder is offering $14.65 in cash plus a 42% of a Kinder share plus 64% of a Kinder warrant that allows the holder to buy a Kinder share for $40 within five years. KMI is currently at $26.90 a share.

For more details on the deal, you can look here or here or here or here. My pet peeve: contrary to what many headlines say, this is not a “$21 billion” deal. It is a $38 billion deal. Kinder is buying $21 billion in equity and taking on $17 billion in debt.

View the original article here

Kuwait Energy Optimistic About Oil And Gas Opportunities In Iraq And Egypt

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Kuwait Energy is one of the fastest growing independent oil and gas companies in the Middle East, operating in eight countries in the MENA and Eurasia regions.

The interview discussed a broad spectrum of topics including the latest developments on the Mansuriya and Siba gas fields in Iraq,Kuwait Energy's approach towards infrastructure, security and resourcing challenges facingindustry operators in Iraq, itsexpectations from Iraq's fourth bidding round which takes place early next year, and the Company's recent hydrocarbons discoveries in Egypt.

Last June, Kuwait Energy signed the development contracts forthe Siba and Mansuriya gas fields in Iraq, with Joint Management Committees (JMC) formed for both fields shortly after. The company and its partners were awarded 20-year term gas development contracts for these two fields in Iraq's third bidding round held in October 2010.

"The first meeting of the Siba JMC has taken place, where the interim work program and budget were presented. As for Mansuriya, the first JMC meeting is expected to be held in October 2011. This marks the beginning of a long-term partnership with Iraq, and a step forward in Kuwaiti-Iraqi relations. We are very excited to start participating in the development of the country's natural gas resources. The gas will be utilized to generate power in Baghdad and Basra, providing the Iraqi Government with cost savings, an environmentally friendlier fuel and the opportunity to better serve its people as per its overall plan,"said Mr. Aboush.

A challenge for Kuwait Energy is the availability of local, technically proficient talent. With two bidding rounds previously completed in Iraq, Iraqi skilled professionals in the industry have now become rarer.

"That won't stop us from looking," said Mr. Aboush. "Our aim is to have an Iraqi team comprising Iraqi nationals, working on Iraqi wells. We have already filled some key positions and are very optimistic about finding the right talent. We are always looking for talented and skilled industry professionals to join our team in Iraq and across all our countries of operations as well."

Iraq today still has national problems to addresssuch as a lack of gas infrastructure and other security concerns, making it difficult for foreign companies to invest in the country.

Mr. Aboush said: "We are actually part of the solution to the gas infrastructure problem. Kuwait Energy is responsible for building gas processing facilities in line with the Gas Development and Production Service Contract (GDPSC) requirements signed with the Iraqi government. We are very optimistic about this."

On matters of security, Mr. Aboush said: "On-ground security situation in Iraq is improving dramatically day-by-day, especially in Basra and surrounding areas. Having said that, the security situation is not optimal yet, but we are confident that the situation will continue to improve, thanks to the efforts of the national and local governments. On our part, we undertook a full safety evaluation as part of the Company's due diligence for bids. The security and safety of our team security and the communities we are part of is very important for us in Iraq, and across all our areas of operation.

Mr. Aboush then commented on the fourth bidding round by the Ministry of Oil in Iraq. He said: "Kuwait Energy is very positive about the concept of expanding its Iraqi operations further and has recently completed its road show activity for the fourth bidding round. The Company is now forming its opinion on the specific blocks offered."

Meanwhile, Kuwait Energy recently announced it has discovered hydrocarbons in Egypt, in the GPZZ-4 and Al Ahmadi-1 wells located in its Abu Sennan concession in the Western Desert.

"Tests are still ongoing on both wells," said Mr. Aboush. "These two discoveries bring the total number of discoveries we've made in Egypt to 13, reflecting Kuwait Energy's commitment to contributing to Egypt's hydrocarbons industry. We have had continued success in structuring a well-diversified portfolio in Egypt with assets from different classes, ranging from frontier exploration to brown field acreage."

Mr. Aboush will participate with other high level speakers in the Iraq 2011: Future Energy forum and discuss and debate over four days the opportunities and challenges faced by those operating and investing in one of the world's most challenging, yet lucrative, markets, Iraq.

When asked about the significance of Iraq 2011: Future Energy, Mr. Aboush replied: "This is a greatopportunity for the oil and gas industry players to discuss and share their views on energy investments, regulations, the development of infrastructure and technology, all with the aim of building a better Iraq."

Organized by The Energy Exchange, Iraq 2011: Future Energy will take place from the 26-29 of September 2011, at the Elite World Istanbul Hotel in Turkey.

View the original article here

Iran produces about 9 million tonnes of petrochemical products in 3 months

Replication or redistribution in whole or in part expressly banned info FZ LLC without prior written consent of AME / Emap limited.

The information in this section is contained neither, nor is it than out, a call take a person any form of investment decision. The content of the AMEinfo.com not constitutes advice or a recommendation by AME Info FZ LLC / Emap limited and not in making (or renunciation of the production) should be understood each decision relating to investments or any other matter. You should consult your own independent financial adviser and obtain professional advice before exercising any investment decisions or decisions based on information on this website AMEinfo.com.

AME Info FZ LLC / Emap limited can be not made liable or responsible in any way for the advice, suggestions, recommendations or comments by one of the contributors to the various columns on the AMEinfo.com Web site still opinions of contributors necessarily reflect of AME Info FZ LLC / Emap limited.

In any case, AME Info is FZ LLC / Emap limited be liable for damages of any kind, including, without limitation, direct, special, indirect, consequential or incidental damages or damages due to loss of profits, loss of revenue or loss of use, of or relating to the AMEinfo.com Web site or which is, whether such damages under contract, negligence information contained, tort, statute, in equity, by law or otherwise.

View the original article here

Nuclear energy Institute criticized sloppy reporting about US nuclear power plant safety AP

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Nuclear Energy Institute criticized the Associated Press today for selective, misleading reporting in a series of new articles on U.S. nuclear power plant safety. The coverage has factual errors, fails to cite relevant reports on safety that contradict the reporting, and raises questions about historic operating issues while ignoring more recent evidence of improved performance in areas that it examines.

It also gives short shrift to the considerable amount of time, money and manpower that the nuclear energy industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission devote independently to aging management and long-term plant reliability.

The first article in the series focuses on federal safety standards but ignores the industry's actual safety performance. There has been only one safety-significant "abnormal occurrence" throughout the industry since 2001 and that lone instance came nine years ago, according to annual reports to Congress available on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website.

While the AP account discusses the 2002 occurrence at an Ohio nuclear energy facility, it fails to note the industry's more recent safety record and fails to note that, in response to the Davis-Besse reactor vessel head degradation, the industry implemented a materials management initiative to strengthen research efforts and predictive maintenance in the area of materials reliability. The NRC in 2005 levied its largest single fine ever against the utility that operates Davis-Besse.

The NRC defines an abnormal occurrence as an unscheduled incident or event that the NRC deems significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. NRC's annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 2001-09 (the 2010 report is not yet available) can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0090/.

AP references operating issues common to industrial facilities -- "Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles," -- and then states, "[n]ot a single official body in government or industry has studied the overall frequency and potential impact on safety of such breakdowns in recent years."

This is incorrect. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, established in 1979, maintains a database of operating issues and tracks and trends them. Every utility that operates a nuclear power plant has access to this information for review and corrective action as needed. INPO was established to help the industry achieve operational excellence above and beyond federal regulatory requirements. It accredits training programs, conducts plant evaluations, and shares operating experience and lessons learned throughout the 104 reactors that produce 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply.

AP's assertion that safety standards have been weakened is belied by one of the regulatory issues that gained significant media attention in the weeks after the Fukushima Daiichi accident -- the NRC's ongoing evaluation of updated seismic analyses in the Central and Eastern United States. The purpose of the NRC's screening analysis is to determine whether nuclear facilities in the Central and Eastern U.S. should take additional protective measures to ensure their ability to safely manage the impacts of an earthquake, based on improved seismic knowledge since the facilities were built.

The AP article contains myriad references to historic operating experience going back decades. But it fails to note that the industry's defense-in-depth approach to safety is designed to assure that multiple safety barriers remain in place even when problems in a given system or piece of equipment occur. Nor does the article acknowledge innovations and improvements that have rectified problems or otherwise increased safety margins. Over the past four years alone, more than 20 of the Top Industry Practice awards presented to industry employees during NEI's annual conference in May have been for innovations that focus on aging management or long-term plant reliability.

AP's initial article states there were seven steam generator tube "ruptures" in 1993. Any tube "rupture" would meet the NRC reporting requirements under NUREG 10-22. However, NRC records do not show any "ruptures" in 1993, so it is not immediately clear what situation AP's reporting reflects. Regardless, the article fails to acknowledge the industry's improved steam generator performance in the intervening years as the industry's technical knowledge of water chemistry and metal alloys grew and dozens of steam generators were replaced to prevent problems. While 15 plants reported degraded steam generator tubes in the 1980s, only seven reported degraded tubes in the 1990s, and only five plants did from 2000-2004. No plants have met the NRC's reporting threshold for degraded tubes since 2005.

The length of a plant's initial operating license is 40 years, as the article states, but the length of time was based on a judgment of an appropriate period to amortize the large capital investment, not the anticipated design life. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 permits nuclear plants to renew their operating licenses for an additional 20 years.

Plants replace and repair equipment and components, such as pumps, valves and piping, throughout their operational life. Even massive multi-ton components like reactor vessel heads and steam generators are replaced when needed. The industry invested approximately $6.5 billion in 2009 (the last year for which data is available) to replace steam generators and reactor vessel heads, in the equipment modifications necessary to uprate the plants, and in other capital projects. Capital expenditures in this area have increased annually since 2005.

Such investments, along with INPO's activities, are among the ways that the industry has steadily improved its safety and operating performance. Other means include continued innovation by industry employees; improved diagnostic and monitoring technologies; and a new reactor oversight process put in place in 2000 that has enabled the NRC and the industry to better and more effectively focus their respective resources on issues most important to safety.

The new risk-informed reactor oversight process was described by the Union of Concerned Scientists as an improvement over the process it replaced. David Lochbaum of UCS stated in a March 29, 2001, letter to the NRC's David Meyer, "the Union of Concerned Scientists believes that the ROP is much better than its predecessor in monitoring plant safety levels and communicating to various stakeholders about the safety levels."

The NRC's oversight process includes deployment of at least two independent inspectors at every nuclear plant site every day of the year. Each site receives an average of 6,000 hours of federal oversight annually, according to the NRC. Key safety indicators and inspection reports for every nuclear facility are compiled on the NRC's website, adding to the transparency that made AP's reporting possible.

The second AP article focused on tritium leaks at U.S. nuclear energy facilities. While the article noted that "none is known to have reached public water supplies," it makes only a vague reference to the fact that in 2009 the industry voluntarily launched an underground piping integrity initiative to better manage issues related to the integrity of underground piping. Even though no public health or safety risk has resulted from tritium releases at commercial nuclear power plants, the initiative commits the industry to a series of actions to establish more frequent inspection and enhance dependability of underground piping with a goal of protecting structural integrity and preventing leaks, with a special emphasis on piping that contains radioactive materials.

The NRC formed its own Groundwater Protection Task Force in March 2010 to bolster its oversight in this area.

The industry's average capacity factor—a measure of efficiency—has been within a percentage point or two of 90 percent every year for the past decade. In addition, both NRC and industry safety indicators are at or near all-time highs," said NEI's senior vice president and chief nuclear officer, Tony Pietrangelo. "It is not possible to achieve this outstanding level of performance on a consistent basis if the facility is not being well managed and well maintained."

The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's policy organization. This news release and additional information about nuclear energy are available at www.nei.org.

SOURCE Nuclear Energy Institute

View the original article here

Top 5 myths about subsidies for oil companies

This is a cross post from transition voice. Written by Erik Curren

The President can the Osama bin Laden now killed to big oil get up?

Comments by House Speaker John Boehner, the subsidies for oil and gas companies on the table, Democrats led by Montana Senator Max Baucus should cut through encouraged last week again stalled efforts handouts to the largest oil companies billions a year in taxpayer.

No wonder big oil will gently into the good night, not even after the message only gains 30% over the previous year. At the same time are ordinary families who do not have, that much touted recovery experience now to pay $4 a gallon or more at the pump.

But that hasn't stopped, the oil and gas lobby from firing back. The American Petroleum Institute has already set, robust lobbying efforts by complement its member companies with their own pressure campaign to Congress.

Meanwhile, API Chief Economist John Felmy said that "If about gasoline prices seriously, he would concentrate Senator Baucus on the further development of our vast resources here at home the much-needed American would create jobs, revenue for the Government to erhohenund strengthen our energy security."

Of course, America needs the oil. But to assert that the industry is much more for the domestic economy in exchange for the taxpayer is only one of the myths that has spun the oil lobby in the support that they enjoy.

Is to set the record straight, here our take on all the things that the industry warns that we lose when we finally cut their handouts of this time.

Don't be scared. Instead, you are very, very un-scared.

Claim: "What is the oil companies - what does each company - when your taxes rise?" asks Conservative commentator Keith Koffler, echo the Orwellian industry's line, that subsidies cut is actually a form of tax increase. "PASS IT THE COST ALONG TO THE CONSUMER." "That is, higher gas prices."

Reality: In 2006, now on course for peak oil there can do to stop not much anyone to gas prices rising. Crude oil and gas prices will be a nasty BREW of declining supply and demand volatile, but the trend in the coming years only up, up, up. Briefly as they tell us for years, ExxonMobil, Chevron and the other oil majors have little control over prices. US gas prices are driven mostly by global crude oil prices. And crude oil are set on the world market. A joint Economic Committee report says, "the removal or alteration is one to have little effect on consumer prices for oil and gas [these subsidies]."

Claim: "The Administration continues to ignore the fact that largest job creator, is this industry in the nation", said CEO Jack Gerard API in February, claimed that cut oil subsidies "Thousands of potential jobs." would eliminate the industry to support claims to 9.2 million American workers.

Reality: What is the harm in a little exaggeration? Now, if you actually employ less than 10% of employees claim, then Houston we have a problem. According to the Bureau of economic analysis, in 2009 the industry directly employs only 800,000 in the United States, comparable to the number of clerks, commercial employees, the work in sporting goods, hobby, book and music - and much less than 1% of the entire American jobs. Studies have consistently, that new shown labour-intensive energy sources like solar and wind create far more jobs per dollar as mature industries such as drilling and mining costs have to rely increasingly on machines to work.

Claim: Cutting subsidies "would actually lower revenue to the Government of many billion dollars due to a lost revenue from projects that [aka, cut subsidies] would prevent the tax increases going forward," says the API of Gerard.

Reality: The true effective tax rate which is oil industry, a topic of debate, with some analysts claim that petroleum and pipeline pays only about a third of the statutory corporate income tax rate of 35%. If, in the current overheated oil market, projects to find and oil are not value without subsidies do, then these projects were a waste of money probably from the outset. And is prepared not after almost a century of public support, this age industry that still take off wheels? Or have the world's most profitable companies are addicted to corporate welfare?

Claim: "America needs policies, promoting more supply of petroleum and natural gas, not policies, which hinder the industry's ability consumers which require energy, that you need." The United States much energy security could improve that access to domestic oil and gas resources, "says API-funded website energy morning."

Reality: Myth # 3. Here, drilling, drill now, dream on. Or in the words of radio host Cenk Uygur "are not U.S. property multinational corporations such as ExxonMobil." They sell to the world and their component parts to corporate profits. So, if they drilling, drilling for the whole world, not just us. "Some might find the heart warming, but it has certainly nothing to do with the United States having more oil or lower prices."

Claim: The oil and gas industry is already supports clean energy and green jobs more efficiently than the Obama administration, according to the API ", with less burden on the American taxpayer by its own green investment."

Reality: How stupid think oil lobbyists really we are? Despite cheery advertising campaign with solar panels and sunflower not expand achievement industry into green energy far beyond the field of marketing clearly. It is true that the industry spent $98 billion for "renewable, alternative and advanced emerging energy technologies" from 2000 to 2005. But 0nly about 1%, went into clean energy including solar, wind and geothermal energy, while a whopping $86 billion went one in "refine heavier sources of crude oil, including tar and oil sands and oil shale, and turn of waste and residues hydrocarbons into useful products" - more or less the opposite of clean energy - loud a report of the Senate.

President Obama devoted his April 30 weekly address cutting oil subsidies. "We should in the future instead of subsidising the yesterday's energy invested."

Let us hope that meet its deeds to its words. Big oil is undoubtedly a formidable enemy, even if they are perforated in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. But when the President finally used his pulpit really clean energy and conservation advocate, who takes care of itself to America's future with him should be.

: Erik Curren

View the original article here