Managing the new oil bonanza

By Deborah Gordon, senior associate, Energy and Climate Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace - 02/11/13 12:00 PM ET

As President Obama continues to reconstitute his cabinet he should keep in mind that an understanding of the changing nature of oil will be essential for those in his top team well beyond the Secretary of Energy.

Tomorrow’s oils are not the same as twentieth century crude, or each other. Unconventional oils range from ancient tacky oils that resist flow to ultra-light petroleum liquids trapped in tight shale rocks to immature solids that must be retorted into oil. They require vastly different extraction methods, processing techniques, geographies, petroleum product slates, oil prices, energy markets, and trade patterns.

Policy guidance must be formulated to strike a balance between exploiting these energy assets, ensuring national security, and protecting the climate. This entails more than simply tapping the bounty of new supplies. The president and others in his team will need to acquire further knowledge to parse oils, economically and environmentally, given the current information vacuum surrounding them in Washington.

America is situated to become the world’s largest global oil producer — potentially surpassing Saudi Arabia and Russia within five years. But first, enormous investments are required to safely tap and restructure markets around newfound resources. The world is looking to the U.S. to manage new “opportunity” oils.

But do all oils convey equal opportunities? Probably not. Investment decisions are therefore crucial because it is difficult to change course once infrastructure is built.

Prioritizing some oils over others seemingly runs counter to President Obama’s vision to ensure energy supplies through an “all-of-the-above” approach. But when it comes to different oils, treating them as if they are interchangeable could be an expensive lose-lose proposition.

A coordinated federal policy approach to oil is complicated by the fact that no single government agency is in charge. Rather, responsibilities fall haphazardly on numerous departments including Energy, State, Defense, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — each with its own mission and many set to have new Administrators.

Given the combination of actors and complexity of oils, the chemistry of the Cabinet cannot be ignored. Oil infiltrates most federal Agencies’ missions regarding different facets of American security. From State’s focus on a secure and prosperous world to the Department of Energy’s mission to ensure security and prosperity by addressing America’s energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges. Defense sets its sights on deterring war and protecting the security of our country. Commerce promotes economic growth and sustainable development. Treasury promotes economic growth through job creation, investment, and economic stability. Transportation aims to provide fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation to meet our vital national interests. Interior supplies the energy to power America’s future while protecting our natural resources and heritage. And the EPA’s mission is to protect human health and the environment.

Given these interconnected — yet distinct — oil-related goals, President Obama will need to refine his Administration’s approach to oil by building on his 2011 Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.  Perhaps the first step is to convene an interagency committee as soon as cabinet members are confirmed to decide how best to approach oil in a way that ensures a safe, reliable, affordable, equitable, and sustainable future. U.S. national, energy, economic, and climate security rests on establishing a new global oil order.

The politics of oil obscures an honest assessment of different resources’ prospects and trade-offs. Oil has a long and complicated history in the United States, and it has been politically front and center since at least 1970 when the U.S. became a net oil importer. Every president since has pledged U.S. oil independence. But President Obama is the first to oversee oil production on such a significant scale, it expanded more in 2012 than in any year since the first commercial well was drilled in 1859.

Unprecedented leadership is required to develop a strategy that offers full disclosure about different oils, distinguishes between resource plays, prices the varying carbon contained in oil, implements increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, and stimulates innovations that shrink the environmental footprints of opportunity oils.

New oils present an amazing reversal of fortune for the world’s largest oil consumer. In a world chalked full of resource restrictions, this is an enviable position — but one that is too important to squander or use toward destructive ends. Now is the time for the president to refine his approach on oil.

Gordon is a nonresident senior associate in the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

View Comments

View the original article here

Georgia Will Execute An Intellectually Disabled Man Next Week Unless The Supreme Court Intervenes

Warren Lee Hill.

While a series of procedural rulings have delayed execution for Warren Lee Hill, he faces imminent capital punishment by the state of Georgia a week from tomorrow, in spite of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that says executing the severely mentally disabled is unconstitutional. Hill, who was deemed “mentally retarded” at trial (an unfortunate legal term), has exhausted his appeals, and only U.S. Supreme Court action can stop his execution this time.

Among those who have advocated for Hill’s clemency are several jurors from Hill’s trial, disability groups, and President Jimmy Carter. Even the victim’s family has submitted an affidavit stating that they prefer clemency.

In its ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, the high court held that executing individuals deemed “mentally retarded” violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because their disability “places them at special risk of wrongful execution.” Wrongful convictions are already rampant in the U.S. criminal justice system, and the unique irreversibility of capital punishment is one of the reasons why the remedy is becoming increasingly unpopular and uncommon.

In spite of the Supreme Court’s holding, a harsh procedural technicality has allowed the state to skirt existing Supreme Court precedent. While all other states require a finding that the defendant is meets the mental disability criteria by a “preponderance of the evidence”or some other moderate standard of evidence, Georgia imposes the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard — the equivalent of legal certainty. Psychologists have attested that this is a standard that is almost impossible to attain when it comes to mental disability.

Unfortunately, the statute that permits this standard survived legal challenge in a narrow 4-3 ruling. In her dissent in that case, Georgia Supreme Court Justice Leah Sears articulates the clear inconsistency of this statute with the prohibition on executing the severely mentally disabled:

Despite the federal ban on executing the mentally retarded, Georgia’s statute, and the majority decision upholding it, do not prohibit the state from executing mentally retarded people. To the contrary, the State may still execute people who are in all probability mentally retarded. The State may execute people who are more than likely mentally retarded. The State may even execute people who are almost certainly mentally retarded.

In its decision in Atkins, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences.” It is now up to the justices to make clear that, by imposing an unattainable standard for proving “mental retardation,” Georgia is not enforcing this “constitutional restriction” at all.

View the original article here

How Health Care Cuts Could Impact Stocks

View the original article here

Biden says gun lobby’s depiction of Obama plan ‘a bunch of malarkey’

Vice President Joe Biden said Monday that those who claimed the Obama Administration was trying to take away guns from law-abiding citizens were spinning “a bunch of malarkey.”

“I know that’s a word you’ve never heard before, although it’s now in the dictionary,” Biden said at a roundtable discussion with law enforcement officers in Philadelphia. “That’s just simply not true. And to be very blunt with you, we’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media, to cover these discussions because the truth is that times have changed.”

Republicans in Congress and members of the gun lobby have criticized the president's gun-control measures proposed last month as an attempt to encroach on Second Amendment rights.

"Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals. Nor do we believe the government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families," NRA executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said at Senate testimony late last month.

Biden also pledged to bring the fight to rural areas, where instances of gun violence were less frequent than in cities and the tradition of gun ownership is strong. The vice president said he had read reports in a local newspaper that the administration had not done enough to reach out to rural voters.

“I’m coming, I’m coming,” Biden said. “The one thing I want to make clear is this is, this message of rational gun safety is a message that will be embraced by rural communities as well as urban communities simply because it makes sense.”

In fact, Biden scheduled a sit-down interview with Field & Stream magazine later this week, with the sportsman’s publication soliciting readers to submit questions on the administration’s gun proposals.

In Philadelphia, the vice president insisted that “we cannot wait” to implement new controls, invoking those lost in the Newtown, Conn. elementary school shooting.

“The images of those innocent little children being riddled with bullet holes has gripped the conscience of a nation and the nation is demanding that we act responsibly,” Biden said.

President Obama has called for sweeping new gun restrictions in the wake of the December massacre that left 20 children and six staff members dead. The president has proposed a renewed assault weapons ban, limits on magazine capacities and universal background checks.

The White House is intensifying efforts to rally Americans for their plan this week, with a slate of events focused on gun control. President Obama will posthumously award the Presidential Citizens Medal on Friday to the six teachers and administrators who died in the Newtown shooting, and is scheduled to travel to Chicago on Friday for a public event on gun violence.

First lady Michelle Obama will reportedly host the mother of a slain Chicago teenager at Tuesday night’s State of the Union. The first lady attended the funeral of that girl, 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, over the weekend.

View Comments

View the original article here

White House: Raising Medicare Eligibility Age Is Off The Table

The Obama administration has ruled out raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as a means of reducing spending, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced during a briefing on Monday.

The measure — which the President floated as part of a larger deal to reduce the deficit in 2011 — is widely supported by Republicans, but would only save the federal government a net $5.7 billion, while shifting an added $11.4 billion in health care spending to states, employers, and individuals.

The proposal could also devastate the majority of seniors. While the richest Americans have fared well during the sluggish economic recovery, most Americans continue to struggle with falling wages and job uncertainty. According to a recent report from the Conference Board, 62 percent of workers between 45 and 60 plan to delay their retirements, a stark jump from 2010 — when 42 percent of workers planned a delay.

View the original article here

UPDATE 1-FDA rebuff deals big blow to Novo Nordisk's U.S. hopes

* FDA issues "complete response letter" for Tresiba, Ryzodeg

* Agency demands new clinical study on cardiovascular safety

* Novo CEO says "surprised and disappointed" by FDA move

* Novo shares expected to fall sharply on Monday

(Adds analyst comment, background)

COPENHAGEN, Feb 10 (Reuters) - U.S. regulators dealt a major blow to Novo Nordisk's hopes for its new long-acting insulin Tresiba by demanding the Danish drugmaker conduct additional clinical tests to assess potential heart risks.

Novo, the world's biggest insulin maker, said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had requested additional data from a dedicated cardiovascular outcomes trial before it would consider approving Tresiba and related product Ryzodeg.

The drugmaker - which is banking on Tresiba to keep it in the lead in diabetes care - said on Sunday it did not expect to be able to provide the data during 2013. Analysts said the FDA's stance could delay Tresiba until 2015 or 2016.

"They will have to make new studies and that will delay the launch of Tresiba in the U.S. by two to three years," Sydbank analyst Soren Hansen said.

"It is a really bad situation ... I expect the share will fall significantly on Monday."

The setback for Tresiba, also known as degludec, is good news for rival makers of insulin medicines, including France's Sanofi, whose Lantus product is under threat from Novo's newer ultra-long-lasting treatment.

Most investors had expected a green light from the U.S. watchdog, following a positive recommendation from an advisory panel to the FDA last November.

Optimism about Tresiba and Ryzodeg - which combines degludec with another formulation of insulin - was further boosted by approval in Europe, where the drugs won a final go-ahead last month. They have also been approved in Japan.

Tresiba and Ryzodeg have been widely tipped by analysts to become multibillion-dollar-a-year sellers worldwide.

CONFOUNDS EXPECTATIONS

The FDA's decision to issue Novo with a so-called "complete response letter" therefore confounded consensus expectations. Such letters are issued when the U.S. agency determines that an application cannot be approved in its existing form.

"We are surprised and disappointed to receive this letter, but we acknowledge this decision by the FDA and will work with the agency to determine the best path forward to completing the review," Novo Chief Executive Lars Rebien Sorensen said in a statement.

Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of Tresiba are not new, but Novo and most analysts had thought the issue had been resolved.

The FDA advisers meeting last year expressed concern about a trend toward higher incidence of adverse heart events with the new insulin than with older ones. However, the differences seen in 16 large clinical trials were not statistically significant.

In addition to calling for new trials on Tresiba's heart safety, the FDA said approval for Tresiba and Ryzodeg could not be granted until violations cited in a Dec. 12 warning letter had been resolved.

Novo said the FDA's decision not to grant approval at the present time was not expected to impact significantly its financial forecasts for the current year.

The big concern of investors, though, is that a lengthy delay in getting Tresiba launched in the world's biggest drugs market will seriously undermine Novo's ability to stay ahead of rivals such as Sanofi and Eli Lilly.

(Additional reportingby Ole Mikkelsen and Ben Hirschler; Editing by Maureen Bavdek and Dale Hudson)

View the original article here

Five Facts To Remember As Anti-Choice Activists Launch Attacks Against ‘Webcam Abortions’

Abortion opponents have rushed to introduce a slew of new abortion restrictions in the 2013 legislative session, attacking reproductive rights from all angles. But it’s not just about restricting access to existing medical procedures. Anti-choice activists are also looking ahead to the future, attempting to prevent medical technology from advancing to better accommodate women’s reproductive care.

Even though telemedical abortion services — which rely on new technology to allow doctors to meet with patients over video conferences, and distribute abortion pills with a remote control — can help expand reproductive care to women who wouldn’t be able to access it otherwise, abortion opponents are scaling a coordinated attack against it. Decrying “webcam abortions” as an unsafe medical procedure, despite the significant evidence to the contrary, anti-abortion lawmakers are increasingly advocating legislation to outlaw the practice. Here are five facts to keep in mind as the anti-choice community gears up for this fight:

1. Telemedicine is increasingly becoming a routine medical practice, and abortion is the only type of telehealth procedure that is tightly restricted. Telehealth, which first began being used in the 1960s to treat astronauts in space, has advanced over the past few decades to become a standard medical practice. In the past five years, telemedicine’s reach has quadrupled to treat 10 million Americans. The federal government has adopted the practice to treat chronically ill veterans. According to the chief executive officer of the American Telemedicine Association, abortion is the only area where lawmakers have restricted telemedicine. As Jordan Goldberg, the state advocacy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, explained to Bloomberg, “There is a very clear division: Women are different, women who are attempting to access medication abortion are different.”

2. Nearly 95 percent of women who have telemedical abortions feel “very satisfied” with the procedure. Several studies have proven that telemedical abortions are safe and effective. Despite anti-choice activists’ insistence that women must be face-to-face with their doctors, there is no difference between the women who visit a doctor’s office for a follow-up appointment after an abortion and the women who simply call to follow up instead. And 94 percent of women who terminate a pregnancy with the help of video technology report they feel “very satisfied” with their procedure.

3. Restricting telemedical abortions disproportionately hurts low-income women in rural areas. Women who live in rural areas typically lack access to nearby abortion providers, and low-income women in particular often can’t afford the transportation to the closest health clinic. That problem is exacerbated by the mounting number of restrictions imposed on abortion providers, which narrows the pool of available abortion doctors even further. But after Iowa piloted the nation’s first telemedical abortion program, rural women’s abortion access significantly increased.

4. Allowing health clinics to practice telemedicine decreases the number of second-trimester abortions. If women in rural areas have more readily available options to access the reproductive care they need, they won’t have to put off having an abortion until they can travel to a surgical abortion clinic. The case study in Iowa proved that expanding telemedical abortion services can help lower second-trimester abortions. While abortion is still a very safe procedure when it is performed in the second trimester, earlier abortions do have a slightly lower chance of complications — and, of course, women who decide to terminate a pregnancy should not be forced to wait months to have the voluntary medical procedure.

5. Most of the states that are restricting telemedical abortions don’t offer those services in the first place. At least ten states have banned the use of telehealth services to provide abortion care over the past several years, and another five are considering passing legislation to do so this year. But Bloomberg points out that telemedical abortions weren’t even being offered in the majority of those states the first place; Iowa is the sole state where lawmakers are considering a ban that would restrict a procedure that is already in place. The anti-choice community — led by Americans United for Life, the anti-abortion group that drafted the language for the telemedicine bans — is working proactively to prevent the expansion of telemedical abortion services, particularly through indirect abortion restrictions that would require doctors to show women an ultrasound in person.

View the original article here

‘The Walking Dead’ Open Thread: Don’t Cast Me Out

This post discusses plot points from the February 10 episode of The Walking Dead.

If the first half of the Walking Dead’s third season was about defining morality as care for your group, the midseason premiere took a step back to ask “what makes you part of the group?” In both the prison and Woodbury, the consequences of war shook the foundations of group structure, revealing seemingly unbreakable bonds to be fragile and calling into question the leadership structures everyone had been taking for granted.

The episode picks up right where the midseason finale left off, with Darryl and Merle set to fight for their lives and Woodbury’s amusement. The Governor’s decision to pit the brothers against each other gives Merle an opportunity to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he’s a Woodbury man. Reassuring whispers to Darryl aside, it’s not clear whether he would have committed fratricide in a bid to rejoin the Governor’s team had it not been for Rick, Maggie, and Glenn’s assault weapon-equipped intervention.

But it turns out the Prison Expeditionary Force’s efforts were for naught. A rescued Merle proves as poisonous as he was in Season One — his racism reemerges, asking Darryl if he had “gone native” when he sees Michonne with the group, and he sets about spilling everyone’s Woodbury secrets (Andrea is there!) in the fashion most likely to set off a civil war. Rick, rightly recognizing the threat to be too grave, kicks Merle to the curb, but loses Darryl in the process. That Darryl won’t abandon the brother who almost killed him for the group that saved his life shows just how circumstantial the group bonds are. Blood trumps from the moment, though it seems from the preview that Darryl and Merle won’t be having an easy time of it alone in the walker-infested wilderness.

Back at the prison, Carol greets Darryl’s decision like a death (“He’s gone? He’s gone?”) It wasn’t just their cute, ongoing flirtation — Carol saw him as a kindred abused soul, damaged and controlled by Merle in the same way she was by her late, unlamented husband Ed. “Men like Merle get into your head,” she says. “If Ed walked through that door right now, breathing, and told me to go with him, I’d like to think I’d tell him to go to hell.” For Carol, Darryl’s decision makes her question whether her new family’s connection is strong enough to help her past the mental shackles put up by domestic abuse.

Tyrese and his group have a less introspective dilemma, locked away by strange, seemingly unstable people. There’s a beautiful scene of what looks like Tyrese and co. bonding with Hershel, only to end with Carl locking the door on what’s revealed to be the visitors’ cage. These four battered survivors, who increasingly resemble a “darkest timeline” mirror to Rick’s group, recognize how precarious their situation is. Two start advocating for armed revolution, but Tyrese won’t hear of it. “It’s survival of the fittest,” they say, but Tyrese simply says “this isn’t what we do.” Tyrese may be the last man on Earth whose moral code hasn’t been warped by the apocalypse, seeing his group as only a part of humanity rather than the only part worth saving.

So when Rick denies his bid to join the broader prison group in spite of Hershel’s advice, it stings. But it’s increasingly unclear how much sway Rick’s decisions hold anymore, as he collapses into hallucination-induced ramblings in the midst of the confrontation. Together with his earlier “phantom voices on the phone” episode, his vision of (presumably) Lori on the balcony suggests a growing break with reality that might require a reassessment of his role as group leader.

A similar reassessment is already underway in Woodbury, where an icily furious Governor broods in his office, refusing to take control of an increasingly terrified, anarchic population. So Andrea steps into the void, delivering an impassioned impromptu speech about Woodbury as a communal and moral ideal that seems to unite the residents. As the Governor, who just moments ago had dismissed “a visitor here, just passing through,” looks on, it seems as if he’s starting to see her a partner, the needed velvet glove for his hardening fist. As in the prison, the stage in Woodbury is set for big changes, with potentially explosive consequences as the conflict between the groups deepens.

View the original article here

Cincinnati Archdiocese Plans To Fire Principal For Supporting Marriage Equality

The Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio is planning to fire the assistant principal at Purcell Marian High School for supporting marriage equality. On his personal blog last month, Mike Marosi wrote, “I unabashedly believe that gay people SHOULD be allowed to marry,” supporting his position with his Catholic faith. For that, he was placed on administrative leave on February 4, with the expectation that he would be fired if he didn’t recant the statements, which he has no intentions of doing.

Moroski has acknowledged that he violated the Archdiocese’s social media policy, but he denies that he has violated the terms of his contract, which require that he  ”comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.” Though he knows the Roman Catholic Church does not approve marriage equality, he argues that speaking his conscience was in line with that obligation. He posted the following statement on his blog:

As a proud Catholic, I’m heartbroken that my belief that all committed, loving couples should be able to make a public pledge to take responsibility for each other for a lifetime has led to this ultimatum. The expressions of solidarity I have already received from Catholic priests, sisters and justice leaders in the community strengthen my faith during this difficult time. Due to my formation in Catholic grade school, high school and three Catholic universities – not to mention my marriage to the best Catholic I know, my relationship with numerous clergy and a devout Catholic family – I have firmly rooted my life in the Gospel principles of love and justice.

After twelve years of working with teenagers whose respect I have earned, I simply can’t teach them the wrong lesson now and deny my convictions. I would not be able to look them in the eye. I have tried to instill a sense of faith and fortitude in all of them regarding issues of justice for my entire adult life. I did not turn down the Archdiocese’s terms in spite of my faith. I turned them down because of my faith.

A Change.org petition is calling on the Archdiocese not to follow through on firing Moroski. The Archdiocese has said it will not comment on a personnel matter.

View the original article here