Massenbach-Letter: NEWS 29/11/13

Massenbach-Letter

Udo von Massenbach

General (ret.) Klaus Wittmann: Unser Land ist keine Insel.“

„APPELL: Glaubwürdige Außenpolitik bedeutet, auch militärische Beiträge nicht von vornherein auszuschließen.

In der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik beschränken sich die Koalitions-Un­terhändler offenbar nicht auf Einzelthemen wie „Rüstungsexport" , „Parla­mentsvorbehalt" (für Auslandseinsätze der Bundeswehr) und ,,Drohnen". Vielmehr scheinen sie sich einig, dass Deutschland seiner Verantwortung in Europa und der Welt besser gerecht werden sowie seinen Handlungsspielraum und Einfluss zur Problemlösung stärker nutzen soll….“

Guten Morgen.

U.S. Energy Security:

Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act (H.R. 2728) / To recognize States’ authority to regulate oil and gas operations and promote American energy security, development, and job creation.

America’s New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the US Economy

Massenbach* Syrian recovery important to global economy

Baku, Azerbaijan, Nov. 21

By Trend Analytical Center head Ellada Khankishiyeva -Trend:

No country facing internal armed conflict benefits from the continuation of this war.Syria is facing great economic problems after 32 months of civil war. These problems negatively affect the economic processes not only within the country but also in the world economy.

According to Syria’s official data, the country’s financial losses due to the military conflict hit $ 100 billion. The country’s GDP declined by at least 30 percent. Oil production in Syria has recently decreased by 95 percent – to 20,000 barrels per day. Moreover, gas production halved in Syria. Syria extracted 30 million cubic meters of gas per day in March 2011, while today this figure dropped to 15 million cubic meters of gas per day.

Syrian authorities estimate the damage caused to the country’s infrastructure during the conflict at $ 11 billion. The industrial sector of the Syrian economy suffered losses worth over $ 2.2 billion. The consumer price growth rates in the country have amounted to 68 percent since May 2012. The inflation growth is associated with a sharp increase in food prices in the country.

Four out of ten Syrians need humanitarian aid to survive. The number of refugees has reached 9.3 million people, including 6.5 million internally displaced persons.

Great capital outflow from the country is being observed. Syrian investors now prefer to invest in the economy of stable countries, in particular the Turkish economy. Thus, Syrian investors are interested in making investments in the Turkish south-western province of Gaziantep. According to mayor of Gaziantep province Asim Guzelbey, Syrian investments in various spheres of the province exceeded $1.475 million over two years. The flow of investors from this country to Turkey is expected to grow.

Moreover, the country is suffering from sanctions unilaterally imposed by Damascus’s opponents. Syrian Permanent Representative to the UN Bashar Jaafari said that Syria has to deal not only with its armed conflict, which is being fueled by foreign forces. Several wars, including informational, financial-economic, political, diplomatic conflicts are simultaneously conducted.

After the conflict, Syria will recover very slowly. Economic recovery is possible only with foreign assistance. Economic revival without any foreign assistance is out of the question. Today, the Syrian government cannot buy food and fuel without loans from Iran, Russia and China. Humanitarian aid from different countries supports the civilian population and refugees.

Today, Syria is a deep debtor with giant losses in infrastructure, production base, sales market and human capital. Syrian Minister of Electricity Imad Khamis said that ongoing military actions in Syria is a big financial burden on the state.

From all this, we can conclude that the post-conflict reconstruction of Syria will take decades and a full recovery will cost billions. The international community is aware that the task of rebuilding the economy of Syria is not easy. It was said in the UN that about $ 3.5 billion will be needed to resolve the crisis caused by the flight of more than two million Syrians. Donor countries should reconsider their contribution to solving of the problem and to be generous, UN Deputy Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Valerie Amos said.

Syria needs help, otherwise the sprawling negative economic background in this country will eventually affect neighbouring states and as a result they can intervene in the situation and this in turn will cause instability and the weakening of global economy. Until now, the Syrian conflict did not have a significant influence on the world economy only because Syria does not have a large amount of hydrocarbons. This was a clash of more political rather than economic interests of several countries.

Nevertheless, the conflict has led to the disruption of foreign trade turnover of Syria’s trade partners and higher prices for goods because of violations of the supply chain. The dynamics of oil prices is changeable for a long period due to the fear of Saudi Arabia and Iran’s participation in the Syrian conflict, as well as the threat of U.S. military intervention.

Constant expectation of a rise in oil prices in terms of global growth plays a negative role. Not only oil prices, but also the stock and currency indexes are galloping.

As world economic history shows, any military conflict doesn’t do anything good for the the world economy and only benefits a few in small circles. Today, at the current high level of globalization, the world economy is particularly vulnerable to the conflict in Syria.

http://en.trend.az/capital/business/2212951.html

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

In Oil and Gas Country, Water Recycling Can Be an Extremely Hard Sell

November 21, 2013 “We’re trying to preserve what we have for future generations,” Mr. Davis, the operations manager for Fasken Oil and Ranch, said about collecting clean water. Though required in abundance for oil and gas production, it is increasingly hard to find in drought-scorched Texas, where water use by drillers has come under increasing scrutiny. With that in mind, after lacing water with sand and chemicals to use during the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, Fasken pipes more than 330,000 gallons of the resulting wastewater each day through an on-site recycling system. Negatively charged waste in the water reacts with positively charged ions in the metal pipes, so the undesirable materials settle out and leave clean water that can be used for another hydraulic fracture. Fasken now recycles close to half of the water it uses for fracking, Mr. Davis said. But the process is still experimental. Recycling is a money-loser for the company for now, adding about $70,000 to the cost of handling the 1.9 million gallons of water needed for each hydraulic fracture. As the drought continues to take its toll on resources, more companies are considering the long-term benefits of water recycling, and state officials are trying to make that transition easier. Despite that momentum, recycling is far from a mainstream practice among oil and gas drillers because of the associated costs and the prevalence of disposal wells. For Fasken, Mr. Davis said, recycling is simply more expensive than using freshwater … No state agency tracks how much water is being recycled … Recycling cuts down significantly on disposal and trucking costs, though it does not eliminate them. Mr. Davis, of Fasken Oil and Ranch, said that after each recycling operation, three to five trucks must carry and dispose of solid waste that is removed from the wastewater, such as boron, sulfates or even radioactive metals. A significant amount of water — about 500,000 gallons — is also needed to drill the initial mineral well, and recycling that “would take a lot of equipment and a lot of money” …

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/in-oil-and-gas-country-water-recycling-can-be-an-extremely-hard-sell.html

in: Barandat – WATERINTAKE 26/2013

https://udovonmassenbach.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/barandat-waterintake-262013/

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Policy= res publica

Freudenberg-Pilster* Nicaragua canal boosts China power
By Arnie Saiki

Since it first opened in 1914, the Panama Canal has provided the primary shipping conduit linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through the Americas. And in that time, it has also represented US dominance in the region. Even after the canal passed entirely into Panama’s control in 1999, the United States has maintained a strong military presence in the region, establishing its continuity as the region’s key economic and political player.


All that is about to change.

Nicaragua and China have come to an agreement allowing the construction of a new inter-oceanic canal in Nicaragua, connecting China with the Caribbean and its Atlantic-American trade partners. This won’t just increase the flow of goods between China and the Americas. It will also usher China into the region as a major political force – something that is likely to raise alarm in Washington, which will regard any Nicaragua-China alliance as a destabilizing influence in the hemisphere.

China’s role in the development of this canal is partly about expanding its global trade. But it’s also a way for China to push back against Washington’s militarized "Pacific Pivot", as well as the US drive to establish a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (commonly shortened to Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP) that seeks to contain China’s global economic growth.

Rival alliances
The TPP is a US-led free trade agreement – a partial draft version of which WikiLeaks recently exposed to the public – that is being devised in secret by 12 Pacific Rim governments and 600 of the world’s largest corporations. It seeks to define the rules for investment and trade in the 21st century.

Unless China is willing to adopt rules that will rewrite its regulatory and investment laws to conform to the standard of this agreement – for example, by curtailing its state-owned investments and opening its state-owned enterprises to Wall Street investment rules – China will remain outside the TPP.

This is not to say that China needs to submit to this bullying. For example, China has capitalized its own development fund with the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) association, and organized its own economic partnership with ASEAN member countries in Southeast Asia (many of which are also involved with TPP negotiations) under the auspices of the Regional Economic Comprehensive Partnership (RCEP).

China’s FDI strategies have surpassed analysts‘ expectations, and last year China became the third largest investor country, behind the United States and Japan. According to a recent press release by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, China’s tremendous investment in many African countries has driven up FDI in Africa, defying the global trend. In Nigeria alone, China’s investment rose from $75 million to $1.2 billion between 2004 and 2010. The United States, while still a much larger investor, has been unable to match the growth of China’s investment in resource-rich developing countries.

Due to its increased shipping of resources and goods, China has emerged as the new center not only for global manufacturing but for investment as well. To put this in perspective, China’s container traffic measures over 5,000 transits a year, with hauls exceeding 10,000 gross tonnage per ship. According to a World Bank Data chart, China’s container traffic surpasses that of the United States by a ratio of nearly three to one.

The TPP – with its current 12-nation membership, including Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam – has a combined GDP of more than $27 trillion, representing over a third of global GDP.

Yet despite its economic power and its military influence throughout the region, the United States has not been able to conclude this agreement. There has been focused criticism nationally and internationally against the TPP, as it is seen as an undemocratic agreement primarily written by corporations for the benefit of corporations. Additionally, for the TPP to conclude, it still needs congressional approval. The push to "fast-track" Obama’s Trade Promotion Authority is likely to meet further resistance from lawmakers.

China’s success in regional and global trade, meanwhile, has given it the economic and fraternal clout to partner with the other ex-colonial – or ex-socialist – emerging economies to provide an alternative model to the neoliberal TPP. It is therefore no coincidence that none of the BRICS countries participates in the TPP.

What BRICS offers is a new reserve currency that helps stabilize economies in developing markets, thereby providing greater access for development and trade, as well as a less draconian debt structure, compared to Wall Street investments.

Of course these competing systems are not mutually exclusive – after all, China and the United States have a symbiotic and integrated economic relationship with each other. However, the TPP and the BRICS economies are competing over the trade and investment rules for the 21st century – and the neoliberal model no longer gets the last word.

Global south benefits
The proposed Nicaraguan canal is a tangible symbol of this emerging multipolarity.

The canal would bypass not only the already congested Panama Canal, but also the strong US military presence patrolling the area. The access provided by Nicaragua’s canal would be a welcome and long-sought opportunity for Global South economies – especially for regional economic and political trading blocs like the South American Common Market called Mercosur, and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA).

As we unpeel the geographical layer of the TPP, we find that the TPP countries form an integrated wall separating the Mercosur and ALBA economies under Brazil’s economic influence from the Asia-Pacific economies under China’s regional influence – in effect turning the west coast of South America into a barrier between two of the BRICS charter members. A Nicaraguan canal not only provides the maritime access that streamlines the supply chain between China and Brazil, but it also provides new trade advantages to the Global South.

This does not necessarily alienate the United States, but it does have the potential impact of reducing US economic and military hegemony in the region.

In a 2008 hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on "The New Challenge: China in the Western Hemisphere," US representatives expressed concerns that Latin American countries were beginning to turn away from US investment in favor of China. Latin America expert Daniel Erikson testified that "the pace of trade between China and the region has skyrocketed from $10 billion in 2000 to over $100 billion in 2007." In 2012, China surpassed $200 billion in trade, doubling the 2007 figure, and supplanted the EU as Latin America’s second-largest trading partner after the United States.

The Nicaragua canal would be yet another blow to US influence in the region. Although the United States relinquished its official sovereignty over the Panama Canal in 1999, it continues to have a strong military presence in the region, maintains first rights for the passage of military ships, and cooperates with Panama to patrol and check ships without warrant. At this time, the United States does not have such an agreement with Nicaragua.

Containerment
Both the TPP and the US "Pacific Pivot" have been framed as a kind of "China containment strategy."

This is not to say that the United States is practicing the same kind of containment strategy it has towards North Korea. For one thing, as long as China’s trading partnerships remain productive, any suggestion of containing China would likely be seen as a deluded conceit.

Perhaps a better description is that the United States is practicing a "containerment" strategy with China – a policy that seeks to assert greater control over China’s overseas investment by controlling the shipping lanes that move the bulk of resources and manufactured goods to and from China. If China gets a new route to the Atlantic, this strategy may wither on the vine.

A China-led Nicaragua Canal challenges Washington’s 150-year-old claim of military and economic hegemony in the Western Hemisphere as outlined in the Monroe Doctrine. The rise of the trans-global BRICS economy, coupled with a new inter-oceanic canal that the United States has no jurisdiction over, means that the United States has been, at this moment, out-maneuvered by China.

Whether Washington attempts to reassert its hemispheric dominance remains to be seen. It will certainly be a challenge, since blowback from the United States‘ historically brutal policies in Latin America could very well strengthen economic ties among the developing economies represented by China and their BRICS partners.

Although the completion of a Nicaragua Canal will likely be fraught with difficulties, this China-Nicaragua partnership demonstrates that China will not be container-ed.

Foreign Policy In Focus contributor Arnie Saiki is the coordinator for Moana Nui Action Alliance, which focuses on Pacific Island political and economic justice issues.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GECON-01-221113.html

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Politics: From Vision to Action

Barandat* * Strategic Studies Institute U.S. Army War College *

View the Executive Summary

As NATO and the United States proceed to withdraw their forces from Afghanistan, the inherent and preexisting geopolitical, security, and strategic challenges in Central Asia become ever more apparent.

The rivalry among the great powers: the United States, China, Russia, India, and others to a lesser degree, are all becoming increasingly more visible as a key factor that will shape this region after the allied withdrawal from Afghanistan. The papers collected here, presented at SSI’s annual conference on Russia in 2012, go far to explaining what the agenda for that rivalry is and how it is likely to influence regional trends after 2013. Therefore, these papers provide a vital set of insights into an increasingly critical area of international politics and security, especially as it is clear that the United States is reducing, but not totally withdrawing, its military establishment in Afghanistan and is seeking to consolidate long-term relationships with Central Asian states. Accordingly, these papers provide assessments of Sino-Russian rivalry, the U.S.-Russian rivalry, and a neglected but critical topic—Chinese military capability for action in Central Asia. All of these issues are essential for any informed analysis of the future of Central Asian security, as well as relations among the great powers in Central Asia.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Suter*

Apprenticeships improve job opportunities

by IZA Press

In Italy, as in many other European countries, apprenticeships and on-the-job training have been gaining popularity. Although being only of temporary nature and exhibiting a relatively low level of employment protection, apprenticeships are widely believed to be a successful form of employment as they may eventually lead to permanent contracts. A new IZA discussion paper by Matteo Picchio and Stefano Staffolani puts this claim at a test by using administrative labor market data from Italy. The authors affirm that apprenticeships are sorts of "long entrance halls" towards open-ended contracts: apprentices often remain in the firm where they performed their apprenticeship.

Read abstract or download discussion paper.

IZA Press | November 25, 2013 at 12:03 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p3cqoR-tb

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

An independent report found that shale oil and natural gas production accounted for 1.7 million jobs last year and another found that it saves the average American family $100 on their energy bill each year.

“America’s New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the US Economy”

An IHS Report

Just half a decade ago, the outlook for meeting America’s demand for oil and natural gas was increasingly focused on non-domestic sources of supply.

The standard view held that domestic production would inevitably decline and imports would consequently rise. Indeed, US oil production had been falling for

nearly four decades. The country was on a path to spending several hundreds of billions of dollars more a year on imports to meet oil and natural gas demand.

Unconventional oil and natural gas activity is now unlocking new domestic sources of supply. Net petroleum imports have fallen from 60% of total consumption in 2005 to 42% today. The decline is due, in part, to moderating energy demand during the slow recovery in the wake of the Great Recession, but greater fuel efficiency in autos and a slowing of the growth in total vehicle miles will continue to constrain the growth of demand. However, the decline in imports has also been achieved through significant supply side changes resulting from increased domestic oil production.

US oil production, which has risen 25% since 2008, is expected to reach 8.5 million barrels per day in 2012.1

The largest element of this increase comes from what has become the major new advance in energy development: tight oil. (contd.)

http://marcelluscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/IHS_Americas-New-Energy-Future.pdf

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*Massenbach’s

Recommendation*

Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act (H.R. 2728)

Status: Passed the House on November 20, 2013 with a bipartisan vote of 235-187. Awaits consideration by the Senate.

· The Protecting States’ Rights to Promote American Energy Security Act (H.R. 2728), introduced by Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), would protect American jobs and American energy production by limiting the Obama Administration’s ability to impose duplicative federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing.

· This bipartisan bill prohibits the Interior Department from enforcing federal hydraulic fracturing regulations in any state that already has regulations and recognizes states’ authority to regulate this type of activity.

· New hydraulic fracturing technology represents one of the greatest opportunities for strengthening our Nation’s energy security and spurring economic growth.

o According to a study by IHS, shale oil and natural gas activity contributed over 1.7 million jobs in 2012 and will increase by over 45% to almost 2.5 million jobs in 2015. 500,000 non-oil and natural gas manufacturing jobs are supported by shale oil and natural gas. By 2015, the United States will be the world’s leading energy producer according to IEA’s World Energy Outlook.

o Shale oil and natural gas activities saved families $100 per month in 2012 in the form of lower energy bills and lower costs for other goods and services. According to PwC, U.S. manufacturers are collectively saving $11.6 billion annually to lower natural gas prices.

· The Obama Administration’s proposed federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing would cost American jobs, decrease American energy production, increase energy prices, and harm economic growth. They would add duplicative, costly and unnecessary layers of red tape. According to a study by John Dunham & Associates, the proposed regulation would cost at least $345 million annually.

· States have safely and successfully regulated hydraulic fracturing for over 60 years and should have the right to continue to regulate this activity within their state.

· This bill does not prevent the federal government from implementing baseline standards in states where none exist. It simply prevents the federal government from wasting time and resources imposing duplicative red tape that will only stifle energy production and job creation.

· The proposed federal regulations represent a solution in search of a problem. Even the Obama Administration has admitted that there has never been one example of harm to human health or ground water contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing.

· States are able to carefully craft environmentally responsible regulations to meet the unique geologic and hydrologic needs of their states. Imposing a ‘one size fits all’ regulatory structure is both unnecessary and simply will not work.

· Total federal natural gas production is down 21% on federal lands since President Obama took office due to burdensome regulations and lengthy permitting times. The Obama Administration’s proposed hydraulic fracturing regulations would make it worse. Meanwhile, energy development on state and private lands, not under federal regulations, has flourished. Currently, 93% of shale wells are located on state and private lands.

Bill Information:

· Legislative Text of H.R. 2728

· Final vote results for House Roll Call No. 604

· All Congressional Actions on H.R. 2728

Committee Activity:

· Committee Action on H.R. 2728

· Markup – Full Committee Markup on H.R. 2728 and other bills (7/31/2013)

· Hearing – Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Legislative Hearing on H.R. ____ (7/25/2013)

Related Videos:

Chairman Hastings: Duplicative Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations are Unnecessary, Will Cost American Jobs (11/20/2013)

Hydraulic Fracturing: The Key to American Energy, Jobs (11/20/2013)

Chairman Hastings−Focus on Hydraulic Fracturing on Blaze TV (11/18/2013)

Infographic:

Related News:

· House Approves Bipartisan Bill to STOP Duplicative Federal Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations

· Chairman Hastings: Duplicative Hydraulic Fracturing Regulations are Unnecessary, Will Cost American Jobs

· Business Groups, American Energy Producers & States Call for Passage of House Hydraulic Fracturing Legislation

· Chairman Doc Hastings‘ Op-Ed in The Daily Caller: Protecting the states‘ right to regulate hydraulic fracturing

· Texas Reps. Flores and Cuellar OpEd in The Hill: America needs its shale energy and hydraulic fracturing provides it

· Resourceful Information: Hydraulic Fracturing Facts – The Key to American Jobs, American Energy

· Witnesses Highlight States’ Successes in Regulating Fracking

· Media Advisory: Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Hydraulic Fracturing Legislation

Organizations in Support:

· America’s Energy Advantage

· America’s Natural Gas Alliance

· American Chemistry Council

· American Exploration and Production Council

· American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers

· American Iron and Steel Institute

· American Petroleum Institute

· Americans for Tax Reform

· Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.

· Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama

· Domestic Energy Producer Alliance

· Ground Water Protection Council

· Heritage Action

· Independent Petroleum Association of America

· Industrial Energy Consumers of America

· National Association of Manufacturers

· National Federation of Independent Business

· Natural Gas Supply Association

· Nucor Steel

· Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association

· Texas Alliance of Energy Producers

· Texas Oil and Gas Association

· U.S. Chamber of Commerce

· U.S. Oil and Gas Association

· Western Energy Alliance

Alaska Senator Cathy Giessel

http://naturalresources.house.gov/legislation/hr2728/

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act of 2013 (H.R. 1965)

Status: Passed the House on November 20, 2013 with a bipartisan vote of 228-192. Awaits consideration by the Senate.

· The Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act of 2013 (H.R. 1965) would protect and expand onshore American energy production and create new American jobs by streamlining government red-tape and regulations.

· Costly litigation, endless red-tape and burdensome bureaucratic processes are often the biggest obstacles to energy production and job creation. These bills establish an efficient and effective process to responsibly produce both renewable and conventional energy on our federal lands.

· Federal oil and natural gas production has declined since President Obama took office. Since 2009, total federal oil production is down 7.8 percent and total federal natural gas production is down 21 percent. ALL of the increase in U.S. oil and natural gas production has been on state and private lands, not federal lands.

Title I – Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act:

· The Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act, introduced by Rep. Doug Lamborn (CO-05), would streamline government roadblocks and bureaucratic red-tape that block and delay onshore American energy production and job creation.

· The bill would reform the leasing process for onshore oil and natural gas projects on federal lands to eliminate unnecessary delays; reform the process for energy permitting, once a lease is in hand, to encourage the timely development of our federal resources; ensure funds are available for efficient wind and solar permitting; and set clear rules for the development of U.S. oil shale resources.

Leasing

· The Obama Administration has had the four lowest years of federal acres leased for energy production going back to 1988.

· This bill would expand onshore energy production by requiring the Interior Secretary to conduct new lease sales in areas identified with the greatest energy potential, prohibit the Interior Secretary from taking away leases already sold, set firm timelines for the Secretary to issue leases, and prohibit the Secretary from changing the rules after the leases and contracts have been finalized.

Permitting

· This bill would ensure the timely approval of permits by setting a firm timeline for the Interior Secretary to act on a permit to drill; direct a portion of permit processing fees and rights of way fees to the local office where they were collected in order ensure the permitting agencies have the personnel, expertise, and resources to keep American oil, natural gas, wind and solar production on track by processing permits, leases and protests in a timely manner; and ensure American energy projects are not indefinitely delayed by frivolous lawsuits by setting reasonable time limits for litigation.

Oil Shale

· According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. holds more than half of the world’s oil shale resources – six times Saudi Arabia’s proven resources, and enough to provide the United States with energy for the next 200 years.

· Since taking office the Obama Administration has repeatedly hindered oil shale development, preventing the production of this new energy resource and blocking the creation of thousands of American jobs.

· This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue additional Research, Development & Demonstration (RD&D) leases within 180 days after enactment of bids published on January 15, 2009; direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue at least 5 separate commercial lease sales by January 1, 2016; provide regulatory certainty to oil and natural gas producers for commercial development; and provide the Secretary of the Interior the ability to temporarily reduce royalties and fees paid by oil producers in order to further incentivize and encourage energy development.

Title II – The Planning for American Energy Act:

· The Planning for American Energy Act, introduced by Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03), would establish common sense steps to create an all-of-the-above American energy plan using our vast federal resources.

· The bill ensures that our Nation’s energy needs are met through development of both traditional and alternative energy resources–a true all-of-the-above approach that will lower the cost of energy, grow our economy, and get Americans working.

· Specifically, the Planning for American Energy Act would:

o Strengthen our energy security by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to develop a Quadrennial Federal Onshore Energy Production Strategy (a strategic action plan) every four years on how to responsibly develop our federal onshore energy resources in order to meet the United States’ energy demands and promote the energy security of our Nation.

o Require the Secretary to set production objectives for the development of our Federal resources. Also requires the Secretary to report annually to Congress on the progress of meeting these objectives.

o Ensure the development of a true all-of-the-above energy plan that embraces all of America’s vast energy resources by requiring that oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, oil shale and minerals be included in the plan.

Title III – The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act:

· The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act, introduced by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) and Rep. Don Young (AK-at large), would create new jobs, support current energy jobs in Alaska, expand American energy production, and lower energy costs by ensuring that oil and natural gas resources in the National Petroleum Reserve -Alaska (NPR-A) are developed and transported in a timely, efficient manner.

· The NPR-A was specifically established as a petroleum reserve in 1923 and again in 1981 when stewardship was passed from the Navy to the Interior Department. According to conservative estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey, there are over 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 114.36 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the NPR-A.

· In February, the Obama Administration finalized a plan to close over half of the NPR-A to energy production. In addition, bureaucratic delays have slowed construction of necessary roads, bridges and pipelines needed to transport the energy out of the Reserve once it is produced and the Administration’s new management plan establishes a “special area” around the entire southeastern boundary of NPR-A.

· Specifically, the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act would:

o Clearly state and affirm that the NPR-A is explicitly designated for the purpose of providing oil and natural gas resources to the United States.

o Nullify the plan released by the Obama Administration in February 2013 and require the Interior Department to issue a new integrated activity plan.

o Require that annual lease sales be held in the NPR-A in areas with the most oil and natural gas resources.

o Streamline the permitting process to ensure lease sales actually lead to energy being produced and transported out of the NPR-A and delivered to the continental U.S.

o Set firm timelines for infrastructure permits to be approved to ensure that bureaucratic delays do not prevent oil and natural gas resources from being transported out of the NPR-A.

o Require the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a right-of-way plan detailing how existing and future leases will be within 25 miles of an approved road or pipeline.

Title IV – The BLM Live Internet Auctions Act:

· The BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, introduced by Rep. Bill Johnson (OH-06), would modernize and update the bidding process for federal onshore oil and natural gas leases, bringing the process into the 21st century and saving taxpayer dollars.

· It gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to conduct Internet-based auctions for onshore leases to ensure the best return to the Federal taxpayer, reduce fraud, and secure the leasing process.

Title V – The Native American Energy Act:

· The Native American Energy Act, introduced by Rep. Don Young (AK-at large),would streamline burdensome and duplicative government regulations and remove the barriers erected by the Obama Administration that are blocking Indian tribes from developing energy resources on their own land and creating new jobs.

· In some Indian communities, the highest-wage jobs held by tribal members are those in the oil, natural gas, and mining industries. H.R. 1548 enhances the ability of tribes to create new jobs in energy industries on Indian lands.

· Specifically, the Native American Energy Act would:

o Protect Indian jobs by blocking ANY federal rule on hydraulic fracturing from taking effect on Indian Trust Lands unless it is with the consent of the Indian owners of the lands.

o Discourage unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits that are specifically designed to prevent Indians from producing energy on their own land and eliminate taxpayer compensation to those filing frivolous lawsuits to prohibit energy development on Indian lands.

o Requires that any environmental impact statement for a major federal action on a tribe’s land, required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to be available for public comment only by members of the affected Indian tribe and other individuals within the affected area.

o Allows the Navajo Nation to conduct their own mineral leasing without involvement of the Department of the Interior as long as the leasing is conducted under Navajo tribal leasing laws that received prior approval from the Secretary of the Interior.

Bill Information:

· Legislative Text of H.R. 1965

· Final vote results for House Roll Call No. 600

· All Congressional Actions on H.R. 1965

Committee Activity:

· Committee Report on H.R. 1965

· Committee Action on H.R. 1965

· Markup – Full Committee Markup on H.R. 1965 and other bills (7/24/2013)

· Hearing – Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1965 and other bills (5/22/2013)

Related Video:

Chairman Hastings: All-of-the-Above Energy Plan will Create Jobs, Lower Energy Costs for American Families (11/19/2013)

Related News:

· House Passes Bipartisan Bill to Create Jobs & Advance Onshore American Energy Production

· Chairman Hastings: All-of-the-Above Energy Plan will Create Jobs, Lower Energy Costs for American Families

· Committee Passes Bipartisan Legislation to Expand American Onshore Energy Production and Create Jobs

· Five Ways President Obama Can Support New American Energy Jobs

· Witnesses Highlight the Importance of Onshore Energy Development for Jobs, Economic Growth, & Energy Security

Legislation Introduced to Protect and Expand Energy Production on Federal Lands

http://naturalresources.house.gov/legislation/hr1965/

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

see our letter on:

Wir wünschen Ihnen ein angenehmes Wochenende. Ihr Team.

*****************************************************************************************************************
Udo von Massenbach – Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster – Jörg Barandat – Edith Suter

UdovonMassenbachMail

Edith.SuterJoergBarandat

IHS_Americas-New-Energy-Future.pdf

Dt. Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik (MBZ 16.11.2013).pdf