President Bush notified Congress of his intent to sign the U.S.-Colombia TPA on August 24, 2006. The U.S. and Colombia signed the Agreement on November 22, 2006. Both countries need to pass implementing legislation before the U.S.-Colombia TPA can enter into force.
Colombia: On a Path to Peace, Justice and Prosperity
Seven years ago, Colombia was nearly a failing state. Violence was rampant, investors were fleeing the country, and economic activity was plummeting. Since then, Colombia and the United States have worked together to combat violence and instability. Together we have made extraordinary strides in a few short years. U.S. assistance and tariff preferences under the Andean Trade Preference Act have been key elements of our joint strategy to promote peace, justice and prosperity. (Fact Sheet)
Why a Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement?
The U.S.-Colombia TPA is a tremendous opportunity for U.S. exporters. It will give U.S. companies improved access to a strong market and improve the business climate in Colombia as the country enacts the necessary domestic legal and business reforms required to implement the Agreement.
• The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA) will deliver economic opportunity to Colombians through sustained economic growth, increased investment, new employment, and anti-corruption reforms.
• The historic U.S.-Colombia partnership is yielding real results in Colombia’s stability:
o Violence in Colombia has plummeted – homicides down 40% in last 5 years.
o Over 9,400 individuals benefit from Colombia’s Protection Programs (a fifth are trade unionists).
o In 2008, the Government of Colombia increased the budget for the Prosecutor General's Office by $40 million – more than half will fund the Justice and Peace and Human Rights Units in pursuit of justice for victims of violence.
• 91 percent of Colombia’s exports to the United States enter duty-free under unilateral trade preference programs, while U.S. exports to Colombia face an average tariff exceeding 11 percent. • The CTPA levels the playing field for U.S. manufacturers, farmers, and service workers by opening up Colombia’s market.
• U.S. merchandise exports to Colombia exceeded $8.5 billion in 2007, a 28 percent increase from 2006. Colombia now ranks as our 26th largest export market.
• In 2007, U.S. farmers and ranchers shipped $1.2 billion in agricultural goods to Colombia, up 41 percent in a single year, making Colombia the largest export market for U.S. farm products in the Hemisphere outside of NAFTA.
• The FTA offers U.S. exports a permanent competitive advantage in the Colombian market. • Our market share in Colombia is falling—in 2007, U.S. merchandise held a 26.5 percent share of Colombia’s import market, a steady decline from 28.3 percent in 2005 and 34.4 percent in 2001. • Already, U.S. products are losing market share to competitors with whom Colombia has free trade agreements, such as Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil. U.S. products also face increasing competition from Colombia’s other fast-growing partners such as China and South Korea.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Jobs and Energy For America - ANWR
Top ten reasons to support ANWR development
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.
3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.
4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.
5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.
7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.
8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.
9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.
10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR.
1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.
2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are $4.2 billion. Royalty and tax estimates for the life of the 10-02 fields were estimated by the Office of Management and Budget from $152-237 billion.
3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.
4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.
5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 731,000 barrels a day.
7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2007, the US imported an average of 60% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $330 billion in oil imports. That’s $37.75 million per hour gone out of our economy! Factor in the cost to defend our imported oil, and the costs in jobs and industry sent abroad, the total would be nearly a trillion dollars.
8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.
9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.
10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The democratically elected Alaska State Legislatures, congressional delegations, and Governors elected over the past 25 years have unanimously supported opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Oil and Fuel Standards
Plan would hasten better fuel efficiency
Bush administration pushes for vehicle average of 31.6 mpg by '15
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:57 AM
By Ken Thomas
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The next generation of cars and trucks would need to meet a fleet average of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, according to a proposal the Bush administration announced yesterday. The measure seeks more-fuel-efficient vehicles in the face of high gasoline prices and concerns over global warming.
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters outlined the plan on Earth Day, setting a schedule that is more aggressive than the auto industry expected. The plan responds to a new energy law that requires new cars and trucks, taken as a collective average, to meet 35 mpg by 2020.
"This proposal is going to help us all breathe a little easier by reducing carbon-dioxide emissions from tailpipes, cutting fuel consumption and making driving a little more affordable," Peters said.
New cars and trucks would have to meet a fleetwide average of 31.6 mpg by 2015, or about a 4.5 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2015. By 2015, passenger cars would need to achieve 35.7 mpg; trucks, 28.6 mpg.
The rules were designed to push companies to boost fuel efficiency across their entire lineup. Manufacturers would have different requirements for cars and trucks of different sizes, based on vehicle sales. Collectively, the fleet of new vehicles would need to meet the rules.
Among individual manufacturers, passenger cars built in 2015 by General Motors would need to average 34.7 mpg; Ford's cars, 35.5 mpg; and Toyota's cars, 34.6 mpg.
For light trucks, GM would need to reach 27.4 mpg by 2015; Ford, 28.8 mpg; and Toyota, 28 mpg.
The plan is expected to save nearly 55 billion gallons of oil and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the life of the new vehicles built between 2011 and 2015. It would add an average cost of $650 per passenger car and $979 per truck by 2015.
Environmental groups and their allies in Congress, who have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the requirements, said they were mostly encouraged by the proposal.
"After years of fighting a fuel-economy increase, the Bush administration is showing faith in the American auto industry's ability to reform," said Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., who sought the higher standards.
Automakers opposed increases to the regulations in previous years but supported a compromise version of the legislation in Congress. The changes would require the industry to implement more than half of the fuel-efficiency requirements by 2015 and push them to build more gas-electric hybrid cars and diesel-powered trucks and sport-utility vehicles.
"Congress has set an aggressive, single, nationwide standard and automakers are prepared to meet that challenge," said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co. and others.
In keeping with the new law, however, automakers will continue to receive a 1.2 mpg credit for producing flexible-fuel vehicles that that run on ethanol blends, but the credit will begin phasing out in 2014.
Congress sought the tougher standards last year, arguing that an increase in fuel efficiency would help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and the nation's dependence upon imported oil. The law, which ushers in the first major changes in three decades, requires the nation's fleet of new vehicles to increase its efficiency by 10 mpg from its current average of 25 mpg, or a 40 percent increase.
The fleet of new passenger cars is currently required to meet a 27.5 mpg average; SUVs, pickup trucks and vans must hit a target of 22.5 mpg. Among the current fleet, passenger cars average about 31.3 mpg while light trucks get about 23.1 mpg.
Bush administration pushes for vehicle average of 31.6 mpg by '15
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 2:57 AM
By Ken Thomas
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The next generation of cars and trucks would need to meet a fleet average of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015, according to a proposal the Bush administration announced yesterday. The measure seeks more-fuel-efficient vehicles in the face of high gasoline prices and concerns over global warming.
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters outlined the plan on Earth Day, setting a schedule that is more aggressive than the auto industry expected. The plan responds to a new energy law that requires new cars and trucks, taken as a collective average, to meet 35 mpg by 2020.
"This proposal is going to help us all breathe a little easier by reducing carbon-dioxide emissions from tailpipes, cutting fuel consumption and making driving a little more affordable," Peters said.
New cars and trucks would have to meet a fleetwide average of 31.6 mpg by 2015, or about a 4.5 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2015. By 2015, passenger cars would need to achieve 35.7 mpg; trucks, 28.6 mpg.
The rules were designed to push companies to boost fuel efficiency across their entire lineup. Manufacturers would have different requirements for cars and trucks of different sizes, based on vehicle sales. Collectively, the fleet of new vehicles would need to meet the rules.
Among individual manufacturers, passenger cars built in 2015 by General Motors would need to average 34.7 mpg; Ford's cars, 35.5 mpg; and Toyota's cars, 34.6 mpg.
For light trucks, GM would need to reach 27.4 mpg by 2015; Ford, 28.8 mpg; and Toyota, 28 mpg.
The plan is expected to save nearly 55 billion gallons of oil and reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the life of the new vehicles built between 2011 and 2015. It would add an average cost of $650 per passenger car and $979 per truck by 2015.
Environmental groups and their allies in Congress, who have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the requirements, said they were mostly encouraged by the proposal.
"After years of fighting a fuel-economy increase, the Bush administration is showing faith in the American auto industry's ability to reform," said Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., who sought the higher standards.
Automakers opposed increases to the regulations in previous years but supported a compromise version of the legislation in Congress. The changes would require the industry to implement more than half of the fuel-efficiency requirements by 2015 and push them to build more gas-electric hybrid cars and diesel-powered trucks and sport-utility vehicles.
"Congress has set an aggressive, single, nationwide standard and automakers are prepared to meet that challenge," said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co. and others.
In keeping with the new law, however, automakers will continue to receive a 1.2 mpg credit for producing flexible-fuel vehicles that that run on ethanol blends, but the credit will begin phasing out in 2014.
Congress sought the tougher standards last year, arguing that an increase in fuel efficiency would help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and the nation's dependence upon imported oil. The law, which ushers in the first major changes in three decades, requires the nation's fleet of new vehicles to increase its efficiency by 10 mpg from its current average of 25 mpg, or a 40 percent increase.
The fleet of new passenger cars is currently required to meet a 27.5 mpg average; SUVs, pickup trucks and vans must hit a target of 22.5 mpg. Among the current fleet, passenger cars average about 31.3 mpg while light trucks get about 23.1 mpg.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Borowitz Report - Bitter Americans
Poll: Majority of Americans Bitter, Clingy
Numbers Could Help Obama
With less than a week to go before the Pennsylvania primary, a new poll released today hints that Sen. Barack Obama’s controversial remarks in which he called Pennsylvania voters “bitter” may actually be helping him with a key constituency: bitter voters.According to a new poll released today by Newsweek, 54 percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania describe themselves either as “bitter,” “sometimes bitter” or “bitter most of the time.”Drilling down beneath those numbers, the results of the poll get even better for Obama, especially when the respondents answered the question, “When you are bitter, what do you cling to?”According to the poll, 35 percent said they clung to “religion,” 34 percent said they clung to “guns,” while 28 percent said they clung to “antipathy towards people who are different from me.”In a sign that voters who describe themselves as bitter are ready to mobilize in support of Sen. Obama’s presidential bid, over a million bitter voters took to the streets of Philadelphia today in support of the Illinois senator.The demonstration, which organizers were calling The Bitter Man March, suggests that bitter voters had found something new to cling to.According to Tracy Klujian, 35, a bitter florist from suburban Philadelphia, “When I’m not too busy clinging to guns or religion, I’m going to cling to Barack Obama.”Elsewhere, in a new effort to relate to voters, Sen. Hillary Clinton did five Jell-o shots at a bar in Pittsburgh.
Numbers Could Help Obama
With less than a week to go before the Pennsylvania primary, a new poll released today hints that Sen. Barack Obama’s controversial remarks in which he called Pennsylvania voters “bitter” may actually be helping him with a key constituency: bitter voters.According to a new poll released today by Newsweek, 54 percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania describe themselves either as “bitter,” “sometimes bitter” or “bitter most of the time.”Drilling down beneath those numbers, the results of the poll get even better for Obama, especially when the respondents answered the question, “When you are bitter, what do you cling to?”According to the poll, 35 percent said they clung to “religion,” 34 percent said they clung to “guns,” while 28 percent said they clung to “antipathy towards people who are different from me.”In a sign that voters who describe themselves as bitter are ready to mobilize in support of Sen. Obama’s presidential bid, over a million bitter voters took to the streets of Philadelphia today in support of the Illinois senator.The demonstration, which organizers were calling The Bitter Man March, suggests that bitter voters had found something new to cling to.According to Tracy Klujian, 35, a bitter florist from suburban Philadelphia, “When I’m not too busy clinging to guns or religion, I’m going to cling to Barack Obama.”Elsewhere, in a new effort to relate to voters, Sen. Hillary Clinton did five Jell-o shots at a bar in Pittsburgh.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
McCain-Lieberman
Lieberman willing to star at Republican convention
By Manu Raju
Posted: 04/15/08 08:06 PM [ET]
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee, is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September.
Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman’s appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.
McCain has yet to ask Lieberman to speak, either in primetime or elsewhere, at the convention. But if McCain thinks it will help make his case for the White House, as some of his allies suspect, Lieberman would be willing to speak on his behalf.
“If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will,” Lieberman said in a brief interview.
Lieberman said he doubts McCain will ask him to give a keynote address, but acknowledges the subject has yet to come up in the two senators’ discussions.
A Lieberman aide said even though there are no plans for the Independent to give a speech at the convention, it is a “likely possibility” he will address the Republican audience in some form.
Appearing before the Republican convention carries some risk for Lieberman. His Democratic colleagues could seek retribution by taking away his gavel on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee next Congress.
Lieberman has had a long leash this Congress because his decision to caucus with Democrats — despite losing Connecticut’s 2006 Democratic primary — allows them to hold their narrow 51-49 majority. If Democrats pick up more seats as expected in November, and Lieberman angers Democrats along the campaign trail, some privately expect there might be an attempt to deny him his bid to retain his chairmanship.
One Democratic leadership aide said losing his chairmanship could happen in that scenario, but “the bar would have to be very high.”
That’s because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a close relationship with Lieberman.
Unlike a number of Democratic colleagues who backed Lieberman’s challenger Ned Lamont after the 2006 primary, Reid offered words of praise for the senator, saying he would not “turn on Joe.” Reid called Lieberman and promised him a chairmanship if he won reelection, a move that angered some Lamont supporters.
Even though Reid may not need Lieberman next Congress to claim a Senate majority, he told Lieberman in private conversations that he would protect his seniority.
“I can tell you Sen. Reid had talked to me a few times and said he knows there will be talk if we get more than 51 Democrats next year,” Lieberman told The Hartford Courant this month. “As far as he is concerned, I will retain my seniority, et cetera, no matter how many Democrats there are next year.”
Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman, said he would not comment on the senator’s private conversations, but acknowledged that the two men spoke.
When asked Tuesday if Lieberman’s chairmanship was at risk next Congress, Reid said succinctly: “No.”
“We have one difference of opinion, maybe two with Sen. Lieberman,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a prominent supporter of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential candidacy. “As a whip, I can tell you time and again, he’s been there when we’ve needed him.”
Lieberman, a staunch Iraq war supporter, has taken the Democratic Party to task for its push to withdraw from Iraq, likening that approach to surrendering to al Qaeda. He has called for aggressive action against Iran and pushed measures that some Democrats have likened to war-mongering.
He continues to criticize the Democratic candidates for their foreign policy positions, and says the party has jettisoned its tradition of being strong on defense by pandering to its liberal base.
Making those points to a Republican audience in front of national primetime viewers would make a strong case for McCain’s candidacy, which is based largely on his national security experience, Republicans say.
“I think it would be a great idea,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain’s closest Hill ally. “If you looked at economic issues and social issues, I bet you we disagree a vast majority of the time. But when you look at what the primary job of what a United States senator is in the age in which we live, we have pretty much universal agreement — and that’s to protect the homeland.”
“I think Sen. Lieberman would be a very powerful spokesperson,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.), a former general chairman of the Republican National Committee. “I think he really is someone who helps Sen. McCain break through to independent voters.”
Lieberman’s presence could potentially anger some social conservatives because of his positions supporting abortion rights and other liberal values. But Lieberman’s arguments that McCain is best suited to lead the country at a time of war would override those objections, said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a hero of the religious right.
“If he’s talking about security issues, Iran, Joe is fabulous on those issues,” Brownback said.
But the extent of his criticism on Democrats could bring back memories of 2004, when Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller gave a scathing keynote speech attacking Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the party’s presidential nominee. Miller, who was planning to retire from the Senate at the end of 2004, had little to lose by crossing his party.
Kerry declined to comment on Lieberman, but called Miller’s speech “hysterical and inaccurate.”Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said he doubts Lieberman would give a Miller-like speech.
“I don’t think he’s going to act like that if he does that,” Brown said. “But of course, I would be disappointed if he does that.”
By Manu Raju
Posted: 04/15/08 08:06 PM [ET]
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), the Democratic Party’s 2000 vice presidential nominee, is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September.
Republicans close to the McCain campaign say Lieberman’s appearance at the convention, possibly before a national primetime audience, could help make the case that the presumptive GOP nominee has a record of crossing the aisle. That could appeal to much-needed independent voters.
McCain has yet to ask Lieberman to speak, either in primetime or elsewhere, at the convention. But if McCain thinks it will help make his case for the White House, as some of his allies suspect, Lieberman would be willing to speak on his behalf.
“If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will,” Lieberman said in a brief interview.
Lieberman said he doubts McCain will ask him to give a keynote address, but acknowledges the subject has yet to come up in the two senators’ discussions.
A Lieberman aide said even though there are no plans for the Independent to give a speech at the convention, it is a “likely possibility” he will address the Republican audience in some form.
Appearing before the Republican convention carries some risk for Lieberman. His Democratic colleagues could seek retribution by taking away his gavel on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee next Congress.
Lieberman has had a long leash this Congress because his decision to caucus with Democrats — despite losing Connecticut’s 2006 Democratic primary — allows them to hold their narrow 51-49 majority. If Democrats pick up more seats as expected in November, and Lieberman angers Democrats along the campaign trail, some privately expect there might be an attempt to deny him his bid to retain his chairmanship.
One Democratic leadership aide said losing his chairmanship could happen in that scenario, but “the bar would have to be very high.”
That’s because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a close relationship with Lieberman.
Unlike a number of Democratic colleagues who backed Lieberman’s challenger Ned Lamont after the 2006 primary, Reid offered words of praise for the senator, saying he would not “turn on Joe.” Reid called Lieberman and promised him a chairmanship if he won reelection, a move that angered some Lamont supporters.
Even though Reid may not need Lieberman next Congress to claim a Senate majority, he told Lieberman in private conversations that he would protect his seniority.
“I can tell you Sen. Reid had talked to me a few times and said he knows there will be talk if we get more than 51 Democrats next year,” Lieberman told The Hartford Courant this month. “As far as he is concerned, I will retain my seniority, et cetera, no matter how many Democrats there are next year.”
Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman, said he would not comment on the senator’s private conversations, but acknowledged that the two men spoke.
When asked Tuesday if Lieberman’s chairmanship was at risk next Congress, Reid said succinctly: “No.”
“We have one difference of opinion, maybe two with Sen. Lieberman,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a prominent supporter of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) presidential candidacy. “As a whip, I can tell you time and again, he’s been there when we’ve needed him.”
Lieberman, a staunch Iraq war supporter, has taken the Democratic Party to task for its push to withdraw from Iraq, likening that approach to surrendering to al Qaeda. He has called for aggressive action against Iran and pushed measures that some Democrats have likened to war-mongering.
He continues to criticize the Democratic candidates for their foreign policy positions, and says the party has jettisoned its tradition of being strong on defense by pandering to its liberal base.
Making those points to a Republican audience in front of national primetime viewers would make a strong case for McCain’s candidacy, which is based largely on his national security experience, Republicans say.
“I think it would be a great idea,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), McCain’s closest Hill ally. “If you looked at economic issues and social issues, I bet you we disagree a vast majority of the time. But when you look at what the primary job of what a United States senator is in the age in which we live, we have pretty much universal agreement — and that’s to protect the homeland.”
“I think Sen. Lieberman would be a very powerful spokesperson,” said Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.), a former general chairman of the Republican National Committee. “I think he really is someone who helps Sen. McCain break through to independent voters.”
Lieberman’s presence could potentially anger some social conservatives because of his positions supporting abortion rights and other liberal values. But Lieberman’s arguments that McCain is best suited to lead the country at a time of war would override those objections, said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a hero of the religious right.
“If he’s talking about security issues, Iran, Joe is fabulous on those issues,” Brownback said.
But the extent of his criticism on Democrats could bring back memories of 2004, when Georgia Democratic Sen. Zell Miller gave a scathing keynote speech attacking Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the party’s presidential nominee. Miller, who was planning to retire from the Senate at the end of 2004, had little to lose by crossing his party.
Kerry declined to comment on Lieberman, but called Miller’s speech “hysterical and inaccurate.”Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said he doubts Lieberman would give a Miller-like speech.
“I don’t think he’s going to act like that if he does that,” Brown said. “But of course, I would be disappointed if he does that.”
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Conoco Supplying Gas To The US
ConocoPhillips willing to build gas pipeline from Alaska
By John Porretto, AP Business Writer
HOUSTON — Oil exploration and production company ConocoPhillips (COP) said Friday that it has proposed to develop a multibillion-dollar pipeline that would transport natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states and Canada.
The company said it's "prepared to make significant investments, without state matching funds, to advance this project."
ConocoPhillips spokesman Charlie Rowton said the company's best estimate for the entire project, including the pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to Chicago, is between $25 billion and $42 billion.
The pipeline would provide an important avenue for bringing Alaska's massive stores of natural gas to U.S. markets that rely on it for fueling home heaters and other uses. It would move about 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.
The North Slope has 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas, and is believed to hold many more times that in undiscovered reserves. But there is no method for shipping natural gas and the staggering cost of such a project has left the resource stranded thousands of miles from markets.
Now with natural gas prices high, a national market eager for cleaner-burning energy, Alaska seeking new participants in its energy industry and mature North Slope oil fields ripe for conversion to gas production, the time may be finally right for the long-desired project, said Marty Rutherford, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
The state's Alaska Gasline Inducement Act calls for competitive proposals from energy companies for the right to launch what residents hope will be the next Alaska pipeline boom.
In a statement, ConocoPhillips Chairman and Chief Executive Jim Mulva said the company hopes to work directly with the state to advance the project as quickly as possible.
"We also expect to approach other parties to explore ways through which their participation could add value to this effort," Mulva said.
Specifically, Rowton said ExxonMobil and BP would be logical participants as the project moves forward. "We think it makes sense for their to be other owners," he said.
ConocoPhillips said it is already gathering data to support the pipeline permit application.
During the initial phase of the project, Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals will provide construction and design support, the company said.
Do you see the numbers? $25-42B to build the pipeline. Yet the Democrat party wants to tax excess profits, whatever that means. Those profits go toward projects like this one. They're expensive and risky but will enable us, along with other efforts, to become energy independent. Now what would the democrats do with the excess profits? More social engineering, more redistribution of wealth and more interference with market forces? (Tim)
By John Porretto, AP Business Writer
HOUSTON — Oil exploration and production company ConocoPhillips (COP) said Friday that it has proposed to develop a multibillion-dollar pipeline that would transport natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states and Canada.
The company said it's "prepared to make significant investments, without state matching funds, to advance this project."
ConocoPhillips spokesman Charlie Rowton said the company's best estimate for the entire project, including the pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to Chicago, is between $25 billion and $42 billion.
The pipeline would provide an important avenue for bringing Alaska's massive stores of natural gas to U.S. markets that rely on it for fueling home heaters and other uses. It would move about 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.
The North Slope has 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas, and is believed to hold many more times that in undiscovered reserves. But there is no method for shipping natural gas and the staggering cost of such a project has left the resource stranded thousands of miles from markets.
Now with natural gas prices high, a national market eager for cleaner-burning energy, Alaska seeking new participants in its energy industry and mature North Slope oil fields ripe for conversion to gas production, the time may be finally right for the long-desired project, said Marty Rutherford, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
The state's Alaska Gasline Inducement Act calls for competitive proposals from energy companies for the right to launch what residents hope will be the next Alaska pipeline boom.
In a statement, ConocoPhillips Chairman and Chief Executive Jim Mulva said the company hopes to work directly with the state to advance the project as quickly as possible.
"We also expect to approach other parties to explore ways through which their participation could add value to this effort," Mulva said.
Specifically, Rowton said ExxonMobil and BP would be logical participants as the project moves forward. "We think it makes sense for their to be other owners," he said.
ConocoPhillips said it is already gathering data to support the pipeline permit application.
During the initial phase of the project, Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals will provide construction and design support, the company said.
Do you see the numbers? $25-42B to build the pipeline. Yet the Democrat party wants to tax excess profits, whatever that means. Those profits go toward projects like this one. They're expensive and risky but will enable us, along with other efforts, to become energy independent. Now what would the democrats do with the excess profits? More social engineering, more redistribution of wealth and more interference with market forces? (Tim)
Conoco - What A Gas
BP and ConocoPhillips Join on the Alaska Gas Pipeline
Work to Begin Immediately on New Joint Pipeline Effort to Bring Alaska Gas to Market
ANCHORAGE, April 8, 2008 - BP [NYSE: BP] and ConocoPhillips [NYSE: COP] today announced they have combined resources to start Denali – The Alaska Gas Pipeline. The pipeline will move approximately four billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to markets, and will be the largest private sector construction project ever built in North America. The project combines the financial strength, arctic experience and technical resources of two of the most capable and experienced companies in the world. BP and ConocoPhillips plan to spend $600 million to reach the first major project milestone, an open season, commencing before yearend 2010. Following a successful open season, a process during which the pipeline company seeks customers to make long-term firm transportation commitments to the project, the companies intend to obtain Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and National Energy Board (NEB) certification and move forward with project construction. The FERC and NEB certificates are the critical permits that provide government authorization to construct a pipeline. “This project is vital for North American energy consumers and for the future of the Alaska oil and gas industry. It will allow us to keep our North Slope fields in production for another 50 years,” said Tony Hayward, BP Group Chief Executive. “The Alaska gas pipeline will be an historic project and we are pleased to be working with ConocoPhillips to move it forward.” “Our goal of bringing Alaska’s North Slope gas to market is becoming a reality. Denali – The Alaska Gas Pipeline project will deliver natural gas to meet North America’s growing energy needs,” said Jim Mulva, ConocoPhillips chairman and chief executive officer. “ConocoPhillips is pleased to be working with BP on this project; our companies have a long history of successfully developing projects on Alaska’s North Slope, in Canada, and around the world. The time is right to start moving this project forward.” The project consists of a gas treatment plant on Alaska’s North Slope and a large-diameter pipeline that travels over 700 miles through Alaska, and then into Canada through the Yukon Territory and British Columbia to Alberta. Should it be required to transport gas from Alberta, the project will also include a large diameter pipeline from Alberta to the Lower 48 states. BP and ConocoPhillips will seek other equity partners, including pipeline companies, who can add value to the project and help manage the risks involved. The companies already have assigned staff to the joint project team which will be ramping up over the coming months. A new project headquarters in Anchorage will be identified and a new company formed to manage the project. The project will provide jobs and business opportunities. ConocoPhillips’ previously announced intent to conduct summer field work in Alaska will be rolled into the joint effort.
Work to Begin Immediately on New Joint Pipeline Effort to Bring Alaska Gas to Market
ANCHORAGE, April 8, 2008 - BP [NYSE: BP] and ConocoPhillips [NYSE: COP] today announced they have combined resources to start Denali – The Alaska Gas Pipeline. The pipeline will move approximately four billion cubic feet of natural gas per day to markets, and will be the largest private sector construction project ever built in North America. The project combines the financial strength, arctic experience and technical resources of two of the most capable and experienced companies in the world. BP and ConocoPhillips plan to spend $600 million to reach the first major project milestone, an open season, commencing before yearend 2010. Following a successful open season, a process during which the pipeline company seeks customers to make long-term firm transportation commitments to the project, the companies intend to obtain Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and National Energy Board (NEB) certification and move forward with project construction. The FERC and NEB certificates are the critical permits that provide government authorization to construct a pipeline. “This project is vital for North American energy consumers and for the future of the Alaska oil and gas industry. It will allow us to keep our North Slope fields in production for another 50 years,” said Tony Hayward, BP Group Chief Executive. “The Alaska gas pipeline will be an historic project and we are pleased to be working with ConocoPhillips to move it forward.” “Our goal of bringing Alaska’s North Slope gas to market is becoming a reality. Denali – The Alaska Gas Pipeline project will deliver natural gas to meet North America’s growing energy needs,” said Jim Mulva, ConocoPhillips chairman and chief executive officer. “ConocoPhillips is pleased to be working with BP on this project; our companies have a long history of successfully developing projects on Alaska’s North Slope, in Canada, and around the world. The time is right to start moving this project forward.” The project consists of a gas treatment plant on Alaska’s North Slope and a large-diameter pipeline that travels over 700 miles through Alaska, and then into Canada through the Yukon Territory and British Columbia to Alberta. Should it be required to transport gas from Alberta, the project will also include a large diameter pipeline from Alberta to the Lower 48 states. BP and ConocoPhillips will seek other equity partners, including pipeline companies, who can add value to the project and help manage the risks involved. The companies already have assigned staff to the joint project team which will be ramping up over the coming months. A new project headquarters in Anchorage will be identified and a new company formed to manage the project. The project will provide jobs and business opportunities. ConocoPhillips’ previously announced intent to conduct summer field work in Alaska will be rolled into the joint effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
