InvestingDaily.com

Account Information

  • My Account

    Manage all your subscriptions, update your address, email preferences and change your password.

  • Help Center

    Get answers to common service questions, ask the analyst or contact our customer service department.

  • My Stock Talk Profile

    Update your stock talk name and/or picture.



Close
FEATURED STRATEGY

Turn a $500 Stake into Nearly $2 million – In Just Over a Year

Turn a $500 Stake into Nearly $2 million – In Just Over a YearI know that may sound impossible to believe. But it’s exactly the opportunity a small group of people get each year. And it’s all thanks to a set of alerts so simple, you can read and execute them in your trading account in five minutes or less. We’ve put together a special website that has all the details. Check it out here.

 

 

Obama’s Parting Shots at Fossil Fuels

By Robert Rapier on December 22, 2016

The Obama Administration is going out with a bang. Mindful of the changes President-elect Trump has in store for the energy sector, President Obama’s team has been busy trying to push through regulations and executive orders that make it more difficult for Trump to accomplish his agenda.

Earlier this month, and despite a request from Alaska’s congressmen that there be no further limits on oil and gas leasing off its shores, President Obama issued an executive order that created the “Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area,” which removed 40,300 square miles of the Outer Continental Shelf off western Alaska from oil and gas leasing.

This week, the President announced an indefinite ban on offshore oil and gas drilling across large areas of Atlantic and Arctic waters. As the New York Times reported:

“Mr. Obama invoked an obscure provision of a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, which he said gives him the authority to act unilaterally. While some presidents have used that law to temporarily protect smaller portions of federal waters, Mr. Obama’s declaration of a permanent drilling ban on portions of the ocean floor from Virginia to Maine and along much of Alaska’s coast is breaking new ground.”

Obama is certainly taking aggressive action, but many of these decisions will end up overturned. The rationale seems to be that it will take President Trump some time to undo these actions, which will slow the speed of fossil fuels development once he takes office.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also been rushing through many new regulations aimed at the extraction industries. Back in 2010, Congress asked the EPA to investigate the safety of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). In 2015, the EPA issued its draft report for the investigation, finding that there was no evidence that fracking had “led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.” This report was cheered by the fossil fuel industry, but generated a backlash from environmentalists who insist fracking contaminates water supplies.

Now the EPA has issued its final report — Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States. Environmentalists were quick to note that the EPA had deleted its previous claim as to the lack of evidence of widespread water contamination, and was now reporting that “hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances.” Many news stories highlighted this apparent “reversal” by the EPA.

To clarify, the EPA did not reverse its position. What the authors did was give examples of how fracking could contaminate water. For instance they wrote that “injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources” can cause contamination. And that disposing of fracking wastewater directly into surface water could contaminate drinking water. Yeah, no joke. I should also point out that jumping from a car traveling at 70 miles per hour could cause bodily harm. But that isn’t a valid argument for banning cars.

Further, these contamination possibilities were noted in the previous draft report, and are not disputed by anyone. Of course if you inject fracking fluids directly into an aquifer you are going to contaminate it. But we don’t actually do this, so it says nothing about the safety of fracking, nor does it demonstrate any link between fracking practices and groundwater contamination.

In fact, the EPA sought to cast doubt without actually assessing potential impacts on drinking water resources, citing “data gaps and uncertainties.” To put it another way, the EPA still didn’t report any widespread impact on water supplies, but suggested that it just hasn’t found the evidence yet.

The EPA’s final report on hydraulic fracturing wasn’t that much different from the draft report. But an earlier phrase that there was no evidence of widespread impact on water supplies was deleted (even though that conclusion was unchanged), and the report selectively used hypotheticals to show how fracking “could” contaminate water supplies.

But I think the motive here is the same as the one for putting areas off limits to drilling. This is the Obama Administration putting down one more speed bump for the oil and gas industry while it still can.   

Some of those speed bumps will be removed during Trump’s first 100 days in office. We see the midstream sector especially benefiting from the new administration. To find out who we think will benefit the most, consider subscribing to The Energy Strategist and MLP Profits.     

(Follow Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.)

 


You might also enjoy…

 

Here’s What’s Really Going to Crush the Market

Most folks understand the basic concept of inflation… things cost more money. But tragically, most don’t understand the real implications of what it means for their financial future. 

Or just how dangerous it’s becoming right now. Today.

And there are two reasons for that…

First, the U.S. government’s calculations barely take into account two of the things you and I are paying more and more for every day: energy and food.

Second, since inflation really hasn’t been an issue for the past 30 years here in the U.S., most analysts won’t dare to say it’s on the rise because they’ll suffer professionally. 

But I’ve made a name for myself by always saying what needs to be said. Which is why I’ve prepared a new special report that’ll give you simple instructions on how to protect yourself from the coming storm.

And better still…

It gives you the full story on the six types of investments that are destined to soar 275%… 375%… even up to 575% over the next few years as the winds of inflation flatten the U.S. economy.

You can get your free copy here.

Stock Talk — Post a comment Comment Guidelines

Our Stock Talk section is reserved for productive dialogue pertaining to the content and portfolio recommendations of this service. We reserve the right to remove any comments we feel do not benefit other readers. If you have a general investment comment not related to this article, please post to our Stock Talk page. If you have a personal question about your subscription or need technical help, please contact our customer service team. And if you have any success stories to share with our analysts, they’re always happy to hear them. Note that we may use your kind words in our promotional materials. Thank you.

You must be logged in to post to Stock Talk OR create an account.

Create a new Investing Daily account

  • - OR -

* Investing Daily will use any information you provide in a manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. Your email address is used for account verification and will remain private.

Stock Talk

  1. avatar
    Michael Salter Reply December 22, 2016 at 7:32 PM EDT

    Just confirms what a jerk Obama is. Hopefully, sanity will prevail and America will bve great again despite the damage inflicted by the Obama administration.