Consequences of Oil and Gas Bans

VP Biden and the whole democrat caucus perhaps need a short class on petroleum before they declare their war on oil and coal.

Enjoy Your Fossil-Fueled 4th of July! - American Experiment

A Federal Leasing and Development Ban Threatens America’s Energy Security and Economic Growth, Undermines Environmental Progress

API: Energy produced on federal lands and waters plays a critical role in America’s energy revolution, accounting for 12% of U.S. natural gas production and nearly a quarter of U.S. oil production.

According to a new OnLocation analysis, The Consequences of a Leasing and Development Ban on Federal Lands and Waters (Sept. 2020), U.S. energy leadership could be at stake if a federal leasing and development ban is enacted.*

Highlights from the analysis include:

Energy Security Impacts

  • U.S. oil imports from foreign sources could increase by 2 million barrels a day by 2030
  • Annual U.S. natural gas exports could decrease by 800 billion cubic feet by 2030
  • U.S. offshore natural gas and oil production could decrease by 68% and 44% respectively

Economic Impacts

  • U.S. GDP could decline by a cumulative $700 billion by 2030
  • Nearly 1 million jobs could be lost by 2022
  • U.S. households could spend a cumulative $19 billion more on energy by 2030
  • Over $9 billion in government revenue could be at risk

Environmental Impacts

  • National U.S. CO2 emissions could increase by an average of 58 million metric tons and keep rising to represent a 5.5% increase in the power sector by 2030
  • Current transition from coal to natural gas could be delayed, keeping half the coal capacity that would otherwise be retired by 2030
  • Total U.S. coal use could increase by 15% by 2030

Petroleum is an important substance across society, politics, technology including in economy. Besides, apart from fuel there are a lot of petroleum by products that show up in our modern life. Let’s look at some uses of petroleum below.

 

  • Agriculture
  • Detergents, Dyes, and Others
  • Plastics, Paints and More
  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Rubber

1. Agriculture

When we talk about agriculture we are talking about fertilizers. Here, petroleum is used in the production of ammonia which serves a source of nitrogen. The Haber process is used in this case. Pesticides are also made from oil. All in all, petroleum based products are used extensively in agriculture as it helps in running farm machinery and fertilize plants.

2. Detergents, Dyes, and Others

Distillates of petroleum that include toluene, benzene, xylene, amongst others are used to obtain raw materials that are further used in products like synthetic detergents, dyes, and fabrics. Benzene and toluene which gives polyurethanes is often used in oils or surfactants, and it is also used to varnish wood.

3. Plastics, Paints and More

Plastics are mostly made of petrochemicals. Petroleum-based plastic like nylon or Styrofoam and other are made from this element. Usually, the plastics come from olefins, which include ethylene and propylene. Petrochemicals are also used to produce oil based paints or paint additives. Petrochemical ethylene is found in photographic film.

4. Pharmaceuticals and Cosmetics

Petroleum by-products like mineral oil and petroleum are used in many creams and other pharmaceuticals. Tar is also produced from petroleum. Cosmetics that contain oils, perfumes are petroleum derivatives.

5. Rubber

Petrochemicals are also used in manufacturing synthetic rubber which is further used to make rubber soles on shoes, car tire and others rubber products. Rubber is primarily a product of butadiene.

Popular Products Made from Petroleum

Some products made from or contain petroleum are; wax, ink, vitamin capsule, denture adhesive, toilet seats, upholstery, CDs, putty, guitar strings, crayons, pillows, artificial turf, hair colouring, deodorant, lipstick, heart valves, anaesthetics cortisone, aspirin.

China to Sanction U.S. Defense Contractors over Taiwan

The One China Policy supported by previous administrations has been earnestly challenged by the Trump administration and rightly so. China has forcefully held dominion over Taiwan, an independent nation and since the Trump administration has approved arm sales to Taiwan, the tensions have increased substantially.

Context:

Jamestown: Events throughout 2020 have seen a measured but steady increase in tensions surrounding Taiwan. The government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to deny any legitimacy to the democratically-elected government of the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan. The PRC also continues to make menacing insistence upon unification on Beijing’s terms, in language that has grown more strident throughout the tenure of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping (China Brief, February 15, 2019; China Brief, November 1, 2019).

Against this background, the PRC has reacted with both harsh rhetoric and saber rattling to enhanced U.S.-Taiwan diplomatic contacts in August and September, as well as a reported further round of impending U.S.-Taiwan arms sales (see discussion further below). One PRC English-language outlet opined in late September that “The U.S. has been releasing all kinds of supportive signals to Taiwan this year, with the level and frequency of their so-called interactions flagrantly enhanced… While [some in Taiwan] jump at such signals, they’d better think long and hard whether the signals are sweet poisons from the U.S. for Taiwan” (PLA Daily, September 25).

U.S. Diplomatic Visits to Taiwan

Recent years have seen a noteworthy increase in official and semi-official U.S.-Taiwan diplomatic exchanges. In March 2018 the Taiwan Travel Act (TTA) was signed into U.S. law, providing a statement of support for increased travel by high-level Taiwan officials to the United States. This was followed by unofficial “transit stop” visits in the United States by ROC President Tsai Ying-Wen (蔡英文) in 2018 and 2019, and a May 2019 meeting between U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton and his ROC counterpart David Lee (李大維) (China Brief, July 31, 2019). In early February this year ROC Vice President-elect Lai Ching-te (賴清德) traveled to the United States, where he met with senior U.S. political figures and attended the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington D.C. (Taiwan News, February 4). Although Lai had not yet assumed office at the time, and therefore visited in an unofficial role, the trip produced harsh condemnations in PRC state press (Xinhua, February 6). All of these visits by Taiwan officials have drawn similarly negative reactions from the PRC Foreign Ministry and state media, as with the “stern representations” presented over President Tsai’s stop in Hawaii in March 2019 (Xinhua, March 21, 2019).

These visits were reciprocated in summer and autumn this year by two visits made by U.S. officials to Taiwan. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar conducted a visit to Taiwan from August 9-12, described by his department as “the highest-level visit by a U.S. Cabinet official since 1979,” and “part of America’s policy of sending high-level U.S. officials to Taiwan to reaffirm the U.S.-Taiwan friendship” (HHS, August 4). Secretary Azar’s activities included a meeting with President Tsai; a visit to Taiwan’s Central Epidemic Command Center; and a speech at National Taiwan University (HHS, August 10; August 11; August 12). This trip was followed in mid-September by a visit from U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment Keith Krach, who traveled to Taiwan to attend a memorial service for former ROC President Lee Teng-hui (U.S. State Department, September 16).

***  Pentagon Approves $500 Million Taiwan F-16 Support Program ...

Bloomberg:

China will impose unspecified sanctions on the defense unit of Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., and Raytheon Technologies Corp. after the U.S. approved $1.8 billion in arms sales to Taiwan last week.

The sanctions will be imposed “in order to uphold national interests,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told reporters Monday in Beijing. “Boeing Defense” would be among those sanctioned, he said.

The State Department last week approved $1.8 billion in new weapons for Taiwan and submitted the package to Congress for a final review. The submission comes two months after the U.S. and Taiwan completed the sale of 66 new model F-16 Block 70 aircraft from Lockheed, and as tensions between the two superpowers continue to escalate ahead of the American election.

Boeing Defense is one of the broader company’s three business units, according to its website. Shares in Boeing, down almost 50% this year, dropped as much as 2.2% in U.S. pre-market trading.

A spokesperson for Boeing emphasized the firm’s relationship with China in the aviation space. Boeing has “worked together successfully with the aviation community in China for almost 50 years to support Chinese efforts to ensure a safe, efficient and profitable aviation system to keep pace with the country’s rapid economic growth.”

“It’s been a partnership with long-term benefits and one that Boeing remains committed to,” the spokesperson said in the emailed statement.

One China Principle

Representatives from Raytheon weren’t immediately available for comment outside of normal U.S. business hours.

Zhao condemned Lockheed’s F-16 Block 70 sale at the time, saying it violates the One China principle, interferes in China’s internal affairs and will have a “major impact” on U.S.-China relations. Taiwan’s presidential office thanked the U.S for the sale. In July, China — which considers Taiwan part of its territory and resists any recognition of its de facto independence — had announced sanctions on Lockheed Martin for a previous arms sale to the island.

U.S. arms manufacturers face strict limitations on what kind of business they can do with countries deemed by Washington to be strategic rivals, such as China. Lockheed generated 9.7% of its revenue in the Asia-Pacific region last year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, though that’s not broken down by individual countries.

China has previously threatened to sanction U.S. companies, including General Dynamics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc., on numerous occasions over arms sales to Taiwan. It also warned it could blacklist FedEx Corp., while Ford Motor Co.’s main joint venture partner in China was fined 162.8 million yuan ($24.3 million) last year, days after the U.S. put a ban on doing business with Huawei Technologies Co.

While China has often invoked the threat of putting U.S. companies on a blacklist — or list of “unreliable entities” — in response to various actions by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration over the past year, it has yet to name any, at least publicly.

Delicate Time

For Boeing, China’s action comes at a delicate time. The company, reeling from the hit to air travel from the coronavirus pandemic, is trying to get its besieged 737 Max plane back into the air after two fatal crashes saw it grounded around the world. China was the first place to ground the plane, and also has the world’s biggest 737 Max fleet.

Europe’s top aviation regulator said earlier this month the plane will be safe enough to fly again before the end of this year, while U.S. Federal Aviation Administration chief Steve Dickson flew the Max in September and said the controls were “very comfortable.” More detail here.

No Strategic Break Between the Taliban and al Qaeda

Beginning with the trade during the Obama administration of Bowe Bergdahl for 5 Taliban commanders from Gitmo, the United States is still in peace negotiations with the Taliban and a peace framework has been signed and violated several times of no consequence.

However, there is news to report with confirmation.

The United States has confirmed that Husam Abd-al-Ra’uf, a senior al Qaeda leader also known as Abu Muhsin al-Masri, was killed by Afghan forces during a raid in Ghazni province earlier this month.

Chris Miller, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, described Abd-al-Ra’uf’s “removal…from the battlefield” as “a major setback to a terrorist organization that is consistently experiencing strategic losses facilitated by the United States and its partners,” according to Reuters. Miller touted the raid further, saying it “highlights the diminishing effectiveness of the terrorist organization.”

However, Miller implied just last month that characters such as Abd-al-Ra’uf were either unimportant, or didn’t even exist. In an op-ed published by the Washington Post on Sept. 10, Miller claimed that Ayman al Zawahiri was al Qaeda’s “sole remaining ideological leader.” As FDD’s Long War Journal pointed out, that isn’t true. Zawahiri’s role was never purely ideological, and he isn’t the sole remaining al Qaeda leader, ideological or otherwise. A number of al Qaeda veterans remain active in the network’s hierarchy, including, until recently, Abd-al-Ra’uf.

Abd-al-Ra’uf’s demise is undoubtedly significant. He was a veteran jihadist, whose career began in the 1980s. He was a trusted subordinate for Zawahiri and served al Qaeda in senior roles, including in its propaganda arm, As Sahab. But it is debatable whether his death, as well as other setbacks, add up to “strategic losses” for al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere, as Miller claims. It is likely that Abd-al-Ra’uf trained and oversaw many other al Qaeda men throughout his lengthy career. And the U.S. has been unable to produce consistent, reliable estimates of al Qaeda’s strength inside Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda fights for the Taliban in Ghazni and elsewhere

There has been no strategic break between the Taliban and al Qaeda. Abd-al-Ra’uf was reportedly killed in the village of Kunsaf, which is controlled by the Taliban. If the Taliban’s men did not betray the Egyptian, and there is no evidence that they did, then yet again a senior al Qaeda leader was found in Taliban country. This is an apparent violation of the Feb. 29 withdrawal agreement between the U.S. State Department and the Taliban. The State Department has repeatedly vouched for the Taliban’s supposed counterterrorism assurances, including that al Qaeda wouldn’t be allowed to operate on Afghan soil. But nearly eight months after that deal was signed, Abd-al-Ra’uf was located in a Taliban-controlled area.

Al Qaeda has a long-established presence in Ghazni. FDD’s Long War Journal can trace al Qaeda operations in Ghazni back to 2008.

Aafia Siddiqui, dubbed “Lady al Qaeda” in the press, was among the al Qaeda figures captured or killed during raids in Ghazni in 2008. There have been multiple operations targeting al Qaeda in Ghazni since then.

Al Qaeda’s role in the fighting in Ghazni is referenced in the files recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound. In a June 19, 2010 memo to bin Laden, Atiyah Abd al Rahman wrote that al Qaeda had “very strong military activity in Afghanistan.” Rahman, who served as bin Laden’s key lieutenant, listed Ghazni was one of eight provinces in which al Qaeda “groups” had been “the same for every season for many years now.” Rahman was killed in a drone strike the following year.

In subsequent letters that were also written in 2010, bin Laden ordered his operatives in northern Pakistan to relocate into Afghanistan. Ghazni was one of several provinces that the al Qaeda founder considered hospitable for his men. Operational evidence confirms that al Qaeda was still operating in Ghazni years later.

In Feb. 2017, Afghan troops killed Qari Saifullah Akhtar, a senior al Qaeda leader who also doubled as the emir for Harakat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI), a Pakistan-based terror group. Later that year, in Dec. 2017, the U.S. killed Omar Khetab (a.k.a. Omar Mansour), the “second senior leader” in AQIS, al Qaeda’s regional branch. In Mar. of 2019, the Afghan military claimed it killed 31 AQIS fighters in the district of Giro. In Sept. 2019, Afghan forces raided a warehouse that Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) used to house explosives for operations jointly conducted with Taliban.

Should al Qaeda help the Taliban recapture much of Afghanistan after America’s planned withdrawal from Afghanistan in the spring of 2021, and there is no real break between the two, then that could be considered a strategic victory for the group.

Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD’s Long War Journal.

Trump’s Re-Election Could Bring Several New Cabinet Secretaries

Axios reports:
If President Trump wins re-election, he’ll move to immediately fire FBI Director Christopher Wray and also expects to replace CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, two people who’ve discussed these officials’ fates with the president tell Axios.

The big picture: The list of planned replacements is much longer, but these are Trump’s priorities, starting with Wray.

Wray and Haspel are despised and distrusted almost universally in Trump’s inner circle. He would have fired both already, one official said, if not for the political headaches of acting before Nov. 3.

Why it matters: A win, no matter the margin, will embolden Trump to ax anyone he sees as constraining him from enacting desired policies or going after perceived enemies.

Federal Agencies Struggle To Quantify Data Consolidation ...

Trump last week signed an executive order that set off alarm bells as a means to politicize the civil service. An administration official said the order “is a really big deal” that would make it easier for presidents to get rid of career government officials.
There could be shake-ups across other departments. The president has never been impressed with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, for example. But that doesn’t carry the urgency of replacing Wray or Haspel.
The nature of top intelligence and law enforcement posts has traditionally carried an expectation for a higher degree of independence and separation from politics.

Be smart: While Trump has also privately vented about Attorney General Bill Barr, he hasn’t made any formal plans to replace him, an official said.

Trump is furious that Barr isn’t releasing before the election what Trump hoped would be a bombshell report by U.S. Attorney John Durham on the Obama administration’s handling of the Trump-Russia investigation.
Durham’s investigation has yet to produce any high-profile indictments of Obama-era officials as Trump had hoped.
“The attorney general wants to finish the work that he’s been involved in since day one,” a senior administration official told Axios.

Behind the scenes: “The view of Haspel in the West Wing is that she still sees her job as manipulating people and outcomes, the way she must have when she was working assets in the field,” one source with direct knowledge of the internal conversations told Axios. “It’s bred a lot of suspicion of her motives.”

Trump is also increasingly frustrated with Haspel for opposing the declassification of documents that would help the Justice Department’s Durham report.
A source familiar with conversations at the CIA says, “Since the beginning of DNI’s push to declassify documents, and how strongly she feels about protecting sources connected to those materials, there have been rumblings around the agency that the director plans to depart the CIA regardless of who wins the election.”

As for Wray, whose expected firing was first reported by The Daily Beast, Trump is angry his second FBI chief didn’t launch a formal investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business connections — and didn’t purge more officials Trump believes abused power to investigate his 2016 campaign’s ties to Russia.

Trump also grew incensed when Wray testified in September that the FBI has not seen widespread election fraud, including with mail-in ballots.
A senior FBI official tells Axios: “Major law enforcement associations representing current and former FBI agents as well as police and sheriff’s departments across the country have consistently expressed their full support of Director Wray’s leadership of the Bureau.”

Trump soured on Esper over the summer when the Defense secretary rebuffed the idea of sending active-duty military into the streets to deal with racial justice protests and distanced himself from the clearing of Lafayette Square for a photo op at St. John’s church.

Trump indicated to Axios then that he “really wasn’t focused on” firing Esper. One senior official cautioned that others who want the Pentagon job could be driving speculation to undercut Esper. But one source, who discussed options with Trump, told Axios he urged the president to wait until post-election to replace him.
Chief Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement that Esper “has always been and remains committed to doing what is best for the military and the Nation.”

Trump 2.0 would bring more loyalty tests

Chris Liddell, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy coordination, is heading the White House’s transition effort, including vetting potential new Cabinet officials, two White House officials told Axios.

He’s working closely with White House counsel Pat Cipollone and Johnny McEntee, who runs the Office of Presidential Personnel and has been conducting “loyalty tests” to weed out “Never Trumpers” from the administration.
In 2016, Trump famously blew up his own transition process. The officials said Liddell is determined to avoid a repeat. Liddell declined to comment.
Politico first reported on Trump’s transition team.

Don’t forget: The transition between first and second terms is traditionally a time when presidents who win re-election accept resignations and switch out their teams.

Former chiefs of staff to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, speaking on David Marchick’s “Transition Lab” podcast, said their administrations didn’t prepare enough for a “robust transition” between terms.
Bush’s former chief Josh Bolten said he’d advise Trump to “rethink all of your personnel and know what your priorities are.”

White House spokesman Judd Deere told Axios: “We have no personnel announcements at this time nor would it be appropriate to speculate about changes after the election or in a 2nd term.”

Brace for Impact by Facebook Around Election Day

FB: As the U.S. braces for election-related unrest next month, Facebook executives are implementing emergency measures reserved for “at-risk” countries in a company-wide effort to bring down the online temperature.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the social media giant plans to limit the spread of viral content and lower the benchmark for suppressing potentially inflammatory posts using internal tools previously deployed in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

ZUCKERBERG: FACEBOOK WILL RESTRICT LESS CONTENT AFTER US ELECTIONS

The tools, now a key component of Facebook’s strategy to prepare for the contentious U.S. election, would only be activated in “dire circumstances” and instances of violence, people familiar with the matter told the Journal.

The measures would loosen the threshold previously established for content deemed dangerous on the platform, and would slow down the dissemination of specific posts as they begin to gain traction, the Journal explains. An internal adjustment would also be applied to news feeds to control the content available to users.

“Deployed together, the tools could alter what tens of millions of Americans see when they log onto the platform, diminishing their exposure to sensationalism, incitements to violence and misinformation, said the people familiar with the measures,” the Journal writes. “But slowing down the spread of popular content could suppress some good-faith political discussion, a prospect that makes some Facebook employees uneasy, some of the people said.”

Facebook spokesman Andy Stone told the Journal that the company has  “spent years building for safer, more secure elections,” and that their strategy is based on “lessons from previous elections, hired experts, and built new teams with experience across different areas to prepare for various scenarios.”

The move comes days after Facebook censored a story from The New York Post detailing allegedly corrupt business deals by Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden — which prompted harsh backlash from President Trump and Republicans who have long criticized the platform’s role in regulating content.

At the time, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that the company would impose fewer restrictive rules on content following the conclusion of November’s election, but that they had implemented policy changes to address any uncertainty and the perpetuation of disinformation for the time being, according to BuzzFeed News.

FACEBOOK AND TWITTER REDUCING DISTRIBUTION OF NEW YORK POST HUNTER BIDEN STORY

“Once we’re past these events and we’ve resolved them peacefully, I wouldn’t expect that we continue to adopt a lot more policies that are restricting of a lot more content,” Zuckerberg said.

*** Facebook: Russian ads sought to sow political division ...

Adding more details:

Company higher-ups have said these tools are the nuclear option and will only be used in the event of election-related violence or other dire circumstances, people familiar with the planning told the outlet. Some employees at the company said they were uneasy about these measures and particularly concerned that they could suppress legitimate political discussions and viral content, according to the Journal.

Mark Zuckerberg Promises That Facebook Will Not Interfere ...

Facebook established its toolkit for humanitarian intervention after facing widespread criticism for mishandling violent hate speech against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. As far back as 2014, human rights activists implored Facebook to crack down on inflammatory rumors and calls for violence against the minority Rohingya population. After years of violence, mass exodus, and thousands of deaths, Facebook admitted in 2018 that it had been “too slow to act” and wasn’t “doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.” The company pledged to better prepare for future crises and promptly banned several high-profile figures that were named by the United Nations as complicit in the genocide.

Facebook announced last month that it would not accept new political ad submissions a week before election day and plans to ban all political ads indefinitely once the polls close. It also said it will label any premature declarations of victory by either candidate (though, really, we all know which one they’re worried about) and include “specific information…that the counting is still in progress and no winner has been determined.” Facebook’s VP of global affairs and communications, Nick Clegg, recently said that, to date, the company’s rejected 2.2 million ads and withdrawn 120,000 posts in total across Facebook and Instagram that were trying to “obstruct voting” in the 2020 presidential election. More here.