Remember this?

[AFTiger 282]

The Clintons' Coal-Gate

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Scandals: Hillary Clinton calls President Bush's talks with the Saudis about increasing oil output "pathetic." But it's not as pathetic as her co-president husband locking up billions of tons of clean coal in exchange for political contributions.

As Bush wrapped up his Middle East trip, Sen. Clinton commented: "President Bush is over in the Gulf now begging the Saudis and others to drop the price of oil. How pathetic."

A large part of America's energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.

Why would he dedicate a Utah monument while standing in Arizona? Well, this federal land grab was done without any consultation with the governor of Utah or any member of the Utah congressional delegation or any elected official in the state. The unfriendly Utah natives might have spoiled his photo-op.

The state already had six national monuments, two national recreation areas and all or part of five national forests. Three-quarters of Utah already was in federal hands. Still, the land grab was sold as a move to protect the environment.

At the time, the Clintons were worried that Ralph Nader's presence on the ballot in a few Western states would draw green votes from Clinton in a race that promised to be close after the GOP retook Congress two years earlier.

In fact, the declaration of 1.7 million Utah acres as a national monument, thereby depriving an energy-starved U.S. up to 62 billion tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion and minable with minimal surface impact, was a political payoff to the family of James Riady.

He's the son of Lippo Group owner Mochtar Riady. James was found guilty of — and paid a multimillion dollar fine for — funneling more than $1 million in illegal political contributions through Lippo Bank into various American political campaigns, including Bill Clinton's presidential run in 1992.

Clinton took off the world market the largest known deposit of clean-burning coal. And who owned and controlled the second-largest deposit in the world of this clean coal? The Indonesian Lippo Group of James Riady. It is found and strip-mined on the Indonesian island of Kalimantan.

The Utah reserve contains a kind of low-sulfur, low-ash and therefore low-polluting coal that can be found in only a couple of places in the world. It burns so cleanly that it meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act without additional technology.

"The mother of all land grabs," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said at the time. He has called what was designated as the Grande Staircase of the Escalante National Monument the "Saudi Arabia of coal."

When Clinton signed the proclamation, he promised to exchange other federal lands for the land that was taken. But a fair exchange was impossible, Hatch said, since no other land in Utah had a trillion dollars worth of clean coal.

Rep. James Hansen, R-Utah, pointed out that a large portion of the coal-rich Kaiparowits Plateau within the monument belonged to the children of Utah. When Utah became a state in 1896, about 220,000 acres were set aside for development, and a trust fund was created to collect and hold all the revenues directly for the benefit of schools.

Margaret Bird, trust officer for the fund, said that because the land will not be developed, the schools stand to lose as much as $1 billion over the next 50 years. Phyllis Sorensen, head of the Utah chapter of the National Education Association, called Clinton's action a "felonious assault" and "stealing from the schoolchildren."

Stealing from children to reward Indonesian billionaires. How pathetic.

When you also consider that we can't drill in a barren landscape call ANWR or alongside the Chinese in the Gulf of Mexico, or build nuclear generating plants or mine low sulpher coal in Utah, our government led by the environmentalist wacko influenced Democrat Party has guranteed that we will always be dependent on hostile countries for our energy supplies.

[autiger4life 3]

While I am a huge proponent for finding new forms of energy, it is increadible how much resources like coal are being covered up. We have technology to burn coal almost completely clean, but we can't because of misguided politicians. They are making decisions based completely on being re-elected, not what is actually right. Florida will not allow any new coal plants to be built even though they would be clean coal.

No one will build new nucleur plants even though they are really safe. You could eat food off of the floor of a nuc plant they are so clean and well monitored. Everyone points to three mile island as what would happen but it really should be seen as a success story. Our failsafes worked. We aren't Russia, I would like to think we wouldn't be paying off the inspectors, I just hate it, I really do because it only causes more problems in the middle east.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Man, I hate both sides of the aisle. I'm writing-in for the President of the United States of America Ron Paul of Texas.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Question: Why hasn't Bush, who has been pushing clean coal technology, rescinded this executive proclamation so we could mine it?

[AFTiger 282]

Question: Why hasn't Bush, who has been pushing clean coal technology, rescinded this executive proclamation so we could mine it?

Good question. Maybe Otter can help. I think that once these are things done they are extremely difficult to undo.

[Tigermike 3,054]

Here is an article from a year and a half ago. It will take time for this oil to be drilled, transported via a pipeline that has to be built and into refineries. But once it is tapped it should greatly reduce dependence on foreign oil.

This is not the entire article, just the first couple of paragraphs.

U.S. Oil Reserves Get a Big Boost

Chevron-Led Team Discovers Billions of Barrels in Gulf of Mexico's Deep Water

By Steven Mufson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 6, 2006; Page D01

An oil discovery by Chevron Corp. has bolstered prospects that petroleum companies will be able to tap giant reserves that lie far beneath the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

Oil analysts and company executives said newly released test results from a well 175 miles off the coast of Louisiana indicate that the oil industry will be able to recover well more than 3 billion barrels, and perhaps as much as 15 billion barrels, of oil from a geological area known as the lower tertiary trend, making it the biggest addition to U.S. petroleum reserves in decades. The upper end of the estimate could boost U.S. reserves by 50 percent.

"This looks to be the biggest discovery in the United States in a generation, really since the discovery of Prudhoe Bay 38 years ago," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of the consulting firm Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc. "There's been a lot of anticipation about what's called the Wilcox formation, and this is the validation of the theory and of the technology," he said, using another name for the area of the Gulf.

Cambridge Energy forecasts that the deep-water area of the Gulf of Mexico will produce 800,000 barrels of oil a day within seven years and account for 11 percent of U.S. oil production. That would not solve the world's energy problem or eliminate U.S. reliance on oil imports, but it would help stabilize U.S. oil production, which has been declining, and cover some of the world's rising demand for petroleum. Prudhoe Bay, in northern Alaska, produced about 1.5 million barrels a day at its peak.

Washington Post

Brazil announces new oil reserves

Friday, 9 November 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7086264.stm

New Oil Reserves Found in Argentina

Tuesday January 29, 4:02 pm ET

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080129/argentina_p...a_oil.html?.v=1

link

Vast oil reserves found in northern Albania

January 11, 2008

Manas PetroleumTirana - Vast and untouched reserves of oil and gas have been discovered in northern Albania, one of Central Asia's and Eastern Europe's leading petroleum corporations announced Thursday.

link

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I remember that, but mums the word now. They won't bring it to market. They're too busy making money not having to meter the flow.

[AFTiger 282]

So we could be energy independent if the politicians would allow us to be.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

The Northern Slope of Alaska has enough crude to last us 200 years.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Not that I agree with what Clinton did,but can you burn coal in a car.It would seem difficult(and would get your hands dirty)trying to break it up into small enough pieces to fit in that quarter sized hole.

What about the quality of the oil in Anwar.I've heard different arguments on the amounts as well.

Maybe we could get the land back and actually make the coal companies not pollute our envirenment.I'm sure those people in Kentucky and West Virgiania enjoy that black water running out of their taps.Maybe they should bottle it and sell it as some kind of medical cure.Maybe like that berry juice from South America

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Not that I agree with what Clinton did,but can you burn coal in a car.It would seem difficult(and would get your hands dirty)trying to break it up into small enough pieces to fit in that quarter sized hole.

What about the quality of the oil in Anwar.I've heard different arguments on the amounts as well.

Maybe we could get the land back and actually make the coal companies not pollute our envirenment.I'm sure those people in Kentucky and West Virgiania enjoy that black water running out of their taps.Maybe they should bottle it and sell it as some kind of medical cure.Maybe like that berry juice from South America

Drilling in ANWAR and bringing it to market are two different things. Drilling doesn't mean they are actually going to use it here. Remember that, and try not to read between the lines.

[LegalEagle 22]

The Northern Slope of Alaska has enough crude to last us 200 years.

Linky-dinky???

[DKW 86 7,441]

Once something is declared a national monument, it cannot be un-declared by another president. If it can be, it would literally take an act of Congress, I doubt we ever see it happen.

[LegalEagle 22]

Once something is declared a national monument, it cannot be un-declared by another president. If it can be, it would literally take an act of Congress, I doubt we ever see it happen.

Linky-dinky???

[DKW 86 7,441]

Once something is declared a national monument, it cannot be un-declared by another president. If it can be, it would literally take an act of Congress, I doubt we ever see it happen.

Linky-dinky???

When the President is lawfully exercising one of these functions,22 the scope of his power to issue written directives is exceedingly broad. In short, he may issue or execute whatever written directives, orders, guidelines (such as prosecutorial guidelines or nondiscriminatory enforcement policies), communiqués, dispatches, or other instructions he deems appropriate.

The President also may issue directives in the exercise of his statutorily delegated authority, unless Congress has specified in law that the statutory power may be exercised only in a particular way. A few examples of Congress's conditional grant of statutory authority are mentioned herein, but as previously explained, there are limits to how far Congress can go in an attempt to micromanage even the President's statutorily delegated authority.23 For example, Congress can grant the President (or his Attorney General) the authority to deport certain illegal aliens, but it cannot attempt to retain a veto over the final decision as it tried to do in the Immigration and Nationality Act.24

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/LM2.cfm

[LegalEagle 22]

Once something is declared a national monument, it cannot be un-declared by another president. If it can be, it would literally take an act of Congress, I doubt we ever see it happen.

Linky-dinky???

When the President is lawfully exercising one of these functions,22 the scope of his power to issue written directives is exceedingly broad. In short, he may issue or execute whatever written directives, orders, guidelines (such as prosecutorial guidelines or nondiscriminatory enforcement policies), communiqués, dispatches, or other instructions he deems appropriate.

The President also may issue directives in the exercise of his statutorily delegated authority, unless Congress has specified in law that the statutory power may be exercised only in a particular way. A few examples of Congress's conditional grant of statutory authority are mentioned herein, but as previously explained, there are limits to how far Congress can go in an attempt to micromanage even the President's statutorily delegated authority.23 For example, Congress can grant the President (or his Attorney General) the authority to deport certain illegal aliens, but it cannot attempt to retain a veto over the final decision as it tried to do in the Immigration and Nationality Act.24

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/LM2.cfm

That doesn't convince me. It doesn't say a president cannot reverse what a former president did.

[LegalEagle 22]

The Clintons' Coal-Gate

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

A large part of America's energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.

In fact, the declaration of 1.7 million Utah acres as a national monument, thereby depriving an energy-starved U.S. up to 62 billion tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion and minable with minimal surface impact, was a political payoff to the family of James Riady.

Your 62 billion ton coal pile shrinks a bit when you attempt to mine it:

http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/index.htm

Hettinger and others (1996) estimate that some 62.3 billion tons of original coal resources are contained in the Kaiparowits coal field (table 1). They define original resource as including all coal beds greater than one foot thick. None of the resource is minable by surface methods. Moreover, the total original resource estimate does not reflect geologic, technological, land-use, and environmental restrictions that may affect the availability and the recoverability of the coal. At least 32 billion tons of coal are unlikely minable under current conditions because the coal beds are either too deep (greater than 3,000 feet), too thin (less than 3.5 feet thick), inclined at more than 12, or in beds that are too thick (greater than 14 feet thick) to be completely recovered in underground mining using existing mining machinery. The estimated balance of 30 billion tons of minable coal resources does not reflect land-use or environmental restrictions, does not account for coal that would be bypassed due to mining of adjacent coal beds, does not consider the amount of coal that must remain in the ground for roof support, and does not take into consideration the continuity of beds for mining. Although all of these factors will reduce the amount of coal that could be recovered, insufficient data are available to estimate recoverable coal resources. Using Hettinger and others' (1996) summary, the UGS feels that an additional 7.5 billion tons within seams 3.5 to 6 feet thick are not minable because they are too thin for current longwall operations in Utah. This leaves 22.74 billion tons minable throughout the field. Applying a conservative recovery factor of 50 percent to the minable resource leaves about 11.37 billion tons as recoverable. Other underground coal mines in Utah recover 60 to 80 percent of the minable resource. Studies of coal resources in the southeastern Appalachians have shown that less than 10 percent of the original coal resource, in the areas studied, could be mined economically at today's prices (Rohrbacher and others, 1994). Given that much of the Appalachian coal was in thin beds and was mined with much lower efficiency methods than are currently available, the 10 percent recovery should be considered an unrealistically low minimum recovery factor in the Kaiparowits coal field. Moreover, if longwall technology is redesigned allowing coal seams to be mined that are thicker than 14 feet and mining occurs deeper than 3,000 feet, then minable resources could be greater, perhaps 50 percent higher.

[LegalEagle 22]

I found authority for Congress to override the Pres., but found nothing that says Pres. cannont override a former Pres.

GWB had a Republican Congress, and the opportunity to override. He didn't.

[arnaldoabru 11]

The Clintons' Coal-Gate

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

A large part of America's energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.

In fact, the declaration of 1.7 million Utah acres as a national monument, thereby depriving an energy-starved U.S. up to 62 billion tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion and minable with minimal surface impact, was a political payoff to the family of James Riady.

Your 62 billion ton coal pile shrinks a bit when you attempt to mine it:

http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/index.htm

Hettinger and others (1996) estimate that some 62.3 billion tons of original coal resources are contained in the Kaiparowits coal field (table 1). They define original resource as including all coal beds greater than one foot thick. None of the resource is minable by surface methods. Moreover, the total original resource estimate does not reflect geologic, technological, land-use, and environmental restrictions that may affect the availability and the recoverability of the coal. At least 32 billion tons of coal are unlikely minable under current conditions because the coal beds are either too deep (greater than 3,000 feet), too thin (less than 3.5 feet thick), inclined at more than 12, or in beds that are too thick (greater than 14 feet thick) to be completely recovered in underground mining using existing mining machinery. The estimated balance of 30 billion tons of minable coal resources does not reflect land-use or environmental restrictions, does not account for coal that would be bypassed due to mining of adjacent coal beds, does not consider the amount of coal that must remain in the ground for roof support, and does not take into consideration the continuity of beds for mining. Although all of these factors will reduce the amount of coal that could be recovered, insufficient data are available to estimate recoverable coal resources. Using Hettinger and others' (1996) summary, the UGS feels that an additional 7.5 billion tons within seams 3.5 to 6 feet thick are not minable because they are too thin for current longwall operations in Utah. This leaves 22.74 billion tons minable throughout the field. Applying a conservative recovery factor of 50 percent to the minable resource leaves about 11.37 billion tons as recoverable. Other underground coal mines in Utah recover 60 to 80 percent of the minable resource. Studies of coal resources in the southeastern Appalachians have shown that less than 10 percent of the original coal resource, in the areas studied, could be mined economically at today's prices (Rohrbacher and others, 1994). Given that much of the Appalachian coal was in thin beds and was mined with much lower efficiency methods than are currently available, the 10 percent recovery should be considered an unrealistically low minimum recovery factor in the Kaiparowits coal field. Moreover, if longwall technology is redesigned allowing coal seams to be mined that are thicker than 14 feet and mining occurs deeper than 3,000 feet, then minable resources could be greater, perhaps 50 percent higher.

Damn, they hate it when you let actual facts get in the way.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Once something is declared a national monument, it cannot be un-declared by another president. If it can be, it would literally take an act of Congress, I doubt we ever see it happen.

Linky-dinky???

When the President is lawfully exercising one of these functions,22 the scope of his power to issue written directives is exceedingly broad. In short, he may issue or execute whatever written directives, orders, guidelines (such as prosecutorial guidelines or nondiscriminatory enforcement policies), communiqués, dispatches, or other instructions he deems appropriate.

The President also may issue directives in the exercise of his statutorily delegated authority, unless Congress has specified in law that the statutory power may be exercised only in a particular way. A few examples of Congress's conditional grant of statutory authority are mentioned herein, but as previously explained, there are limits to how far Congress can go in an attempt to micromanage even the President's statutorily delegated authority.23 For example, Congress can grant the President (or his Attorney General) the authority to deport certain illegal aliens, but it cannot attempt to retain a veto over the final decision as it tried to do in the Immigration and Nationality Act.24

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/LM2.cfm

That doesn't convince me. It doesn't say a president cannot reverse what a former president did.

http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/article...eeches_home.cfm

Doesnt say it CANT happen. Just that it is almost never going to happen. The Clinton 1996 Decree is called laughable on many areas that go way past and indeed are not covered by the Antiquities Act. Yet it still stands. Bush and Cheney ran on overturning the Clinton land grab, yet eventually didnt even try to do the right thing.

[DKW 86 7,441]

The Clintons' Coal-Gate

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT

A large part of America's energy dependence on foreign sources can be traced to Sept. 18, 1996, when President Bill Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon on the Arizona side and signed an executive proclamation making 1.7 million acres of Utah a new national monument.

In fact, the declaration of 1.7 million Utah acres as a national monument, thereby depriving an energy-starved U.S. up to 62 billion tons of environmentally safe low-sulfur coal worth $1.2 trillion and minable with minimal surface impact, was a political payoff to the family of James Riady.

Your 62 billion ton coal pile shrinks a bit when you attempt to mine it:

http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/index.htm

Hettinger and others (1996) estimate that some 62.3 billion tons of original coal resources are contained in the Kaiparowits coal field (table 1). They define original resource as including all coal beds greater than one foot thick. None of the resource is minable by surface methods. Moreover, the total original resource estimate does not reflect geologic, technological, land-use, and environmental restrictions that may affect the availability and the recoverability of the coal. At least 32 billion tons of coal are unlikely minable under current conditions because the coal beds are either too deep (greater than 3,000 feet), too thin (less than 3.5 feet thick), inclined at more than 12, or in beds that are too thick (greater than 14 feet thick) to be completely recovered in underground mining using existing mining machinery. The estimated balance of 30 billion tons of minable coal resources does not reflect land-use or environmental restrictions, does not account for coal that would be bypassed due to mining of adjacent coal beds, does not consider the amount of coal that must remain in the ground for roof support, and does not take into consideration the continuity of beds for mining. Although all of these factors will reduce the amount of coal that could be recovered, insufficient data are available to estimate recoverable coal resources. Using Hettinger and others' (1996) summary, the UGS feels that an additional 7.5 billion tons within seams 3.5 to 6 feet thick are not minable because they are too thin for current longwall operations in Utah. This leaves 22.74 billion tons minable throughout the field. Applying a conservative recovery factor of 50 percent to the minable resource leaves about 11.37 billion tons as recoverable. Other underground coal mines in Utah recover 60 to 80 percent of the minable resource. Studies of coal resources in the southeastern Appalachians have shown that less than 10 percent of the original coal resource, in the areas studied, could be mined economically at today's prices (Rohrbacher and others, 1994). Given that much of the Appalachian coal was in thin beds and was mined with much lower efficiency methods than are currently available, the 10 percent recovery should be considered an unrealistically low minimum recovery factor in the Kaiparowits coal field. Moreover, if longwall technology is redesigned allowing coal seams to be mined that are thicker than 14 feet and mining occurs deeper than 3,000 feet, then minable resources could be greater, perhaps 50 percent higher.

Damn, they hate it when you let actual facts get in the way.

http://www.pbs.org/now/science/coal.html

11.37 billion tons as recoverable X @ $5 per ton = $56B+

Gee I cant see why anyone would be mad that they got screwed out of $56B+....

[CCTAU 3,346]

Not that I agree with what Clinton did,but can you burn coal in a car.It would seem difficult(and would get your hands dirty)trying to break it up into small enough pieces to fit in that quarter sized hole.

TRY LOOKING UP COAL GASIFICATION.

Other people break it up into little pieces for you. You won't have to get your hands dirty.