Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Windmills Are Killing Our Birds

September 8th 2009 18:44
The Wall Street Journal reports that "Windmills Are Killing Our Birds" throughout the country.

On Aug. 13, ExxonMobil pleaded guilty in federal court to killing 85 birds that had come into contact with crude oil or other pollutants in uncovered tanks or waste-water facilities on its properties. The birds were protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which dates back to 1918. The company agreed to pay $600,000 in fines and fees.

ExxonMobil is hardly alone in running afoul of this law. Over the past two decades, federal officials have brought hundreds of similar cases against energy companies. In July, for example, the Oregon-based electric utility PacifiCorp paid $1.4 million in fines and restitution for killing 232 eagles in Wyoming over the past two years. The birds were electrocuted by poorly-designed power lines.


But these are not windmills, they are "traditional" energy systems. The windmills kill the same birds, but the operators are not being prosecuted.

A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.

Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.


Could it be that "green" energy is somehow "better" and so operators do not have to deal with the consequences of the birds being killed? No one appears to have a clear answer, but it definitely appears to be a double standard.
36
Vote
   


Labor Unions and Environmentalists

June 30th 2009 19:06
Who would have expected labor unions to hold up development of environmentally positive projects? Well, as IBD Editorials report, that's exactly what's happening in California.
The New York Times [no link], for all its problems, can still do good reporting, one example being its coverage of unions using environmental regulations in California to try to pressure developers into signing "agreements pledging to use union labor."

"If they refuse," reports Todd Woody, "they say they can count on union groups to demand costly environmental
In other words, damn the environment - we want union labor only on these projects.

Since the economic viability of 'green tech' projects is already questionable in most cases, the difference between union labor rates and free market rates may be the deciding factor between projects being profitable (or even being built!) or not.
The difference in unions using greenmail and blackmail, says Sherk, is that in greenmail "unions use government bureaucrats instead of armed thugs to intimidate businesses." And "it happens repeatedly."

Companies that are victims of greenmail should stand up to union shakedowns. While refusing to unionize won't allow companies to avoid the snarl of environmental rules, it will improve their chances to operate their businesses at lower costs and provide investors with better returns.
Oh, glad you 'splained it to us.
52
Vote
   


Exxon Mobil Does It Again - Take Note

January 30th 2009 19:40
The media reports are loaded with headlines screaming about Exxon Mobil's $45.2 BILLION in profits for calendar 2008. But, as reported here before, that is not the entire story.

In calendar 2008, Exxon Mobil paid a total of $116.3 BILLION in taxes. In other words, for every dollar in profits they paid almost three dollars in tax. That's roughly a 70% tax rate. But the politicians will yell about "obscene" profits and call for a windfall profits tax.

Look at it this way: Exxon Mobil collected $477.4 BILLION in revenue, so their profit was 9.4% for the year. Companies like Microsoft and Google earn more than double that. Why isn't there a call for "windfall profits taxes" on those companies?

This is all political posturing. We should understand that company profits are paid to shareholders - the pension funds and retirement accounts of all Americans. It's more important that political resources be put into national security and not into talking about what companies should or shouldn't be earning.
72
Vote
   


Interior Dept Sex Scandal

September 11th 2008 05:21
While everyone is complaining about the high price of gasoline, it appears that employees of the Interior Department in Denver were having sexual relations with oil industry eimployees.

As reported by the AP earlier this evening:
The reports describe a fraternity house atmosphere inside the Denver Minerals Management Service office responsible for marketing oil and natural gas that energy companies barter to the government in lieu of cash royalty payments for drilling on federal lands. The government received $4.3 billion in such royalty-in-kind payments last year. The oil and gas is then resold to energy companies or put in the nation's emergency stockpile.
.
.
.
One of the reports claims that the former head of the Denver royalty-in-kind office, Gregory W. Smith, purchased cocaine from a co-worker, and one occasion had it delivered to the office. He also allegedly had oral sex with subordinates. The report also said Smith steered government contracts to Geomatrix Consultants Inc. and used government databases and e-mail accounts to conduct business for the company, which paid him $30,000 for his work from April 2002 through June 2003. Smith retired from the office in May 2007.

Congressman Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has already said he will call for hearings next week.

62
Vote
   


Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies

September 5th 2008 22:24
Barack Obama has called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies after another round of record earnings were reported by the industry. As I mentioned here back in May, the only numbers being reported by the media, and repeated often by politicians of a certain stripe, are the earnings.

Horrors! They made money!

Now columnist George F. Will, writing in the Washington Post, has added a different view on the Exxon Mobil numbers of note:

...Obama promises a $1,000 check for every family, financed by a "windfall profits" tax on oil companies. Obama is unintimidated by the rule against legislating about subjects one cannot define.

Obama thinks government is not getting a "reasonable share" of oil companies' profits, which in 2007 were, as a percentage of revenue (8.3 percent), below those of U.S. manufacturing generally (8.9 percent). Exxon Mobil pays almost as much in corporate taxes to various governments as the bottom 50 percent of American earners pay in income taxes. Exxon Mobil does make $1,400 a second in profits -- hear the sharp intakes of breath from liberals with pursed lips -- but pays $4,000 a second in taxes and $15,000 a second in operating costs.

Yes, it's true. But Obama and Liberals in general don't need to be bothered with the truth. They are making plans for "change" and cannot be bothered with the truth along the way.
59
Vote
   


O'Reilly Calls for FFVs

June 18th 2008 19:02
Last week Bill O'Reilly called on Congress to mandate flex fuel vehicles (FFV) in order to get the US off of oil. Here's his commentary and the analysis:


[ Click here to read more ]
86
Vote
   


General Motors' New Re-structure

June 3rd 2008 21:56
Earlier today GM announced that it would close four plants in a move toward making smaller cars and fewer trucks and SUVs.

The US auto industry has been challenged more than any other by a combination of forces: International competition, environmental regulations, labor union costs and benefits, and shifting consumer preferences. Now the high price of gasoline is adding to the burden of the automakers


[ Click here to read more ]
60
Vote
   


The "S"-Word

May 31st 2008 19:37
The "S"-Word has been floating around Washington, DC, for decades. It is rarely spoken outloud and hardly ever even in private. But last week Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), in lecturing oil industry executives, finally did it:


[ Click here to read more ]
67
Vote
   


Opher Banarie's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Opher Banarie
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]