This discussion talks about how anti fossil fuel extremists and outside entities are attacking PA natural gas industry and working to methodically shut down PA Natural Gas production.  Anti-fracking groups, climate change advocates and others  want to control your royalty or potential for royalty.

If this doesn't make you angry then check your pulse. The video was made before PA Governor Wolf got involved. You will not find any references to meetings he holds with Bloomberg listed on his website. That's because his staff covers it up so the public doesn't know.

On November 6, 2018, 8 Anti Fossil Fuel candidates were elected to the PA Congress and the left in the Pennsylvania Democrat Party wants to ban all fracking in the state. I

Views: 1794

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

This is some scary stuff! It will be interesting to see how soon the Severance Tax idea rears its' ugly head again. I am guessing sooner rather than later.

With an Impact Fee already in place, PA could become very expensive for the E&Ps to operate there, when considering an additional tax on production.

Wonder if any players will be looking to sell their position(s) in the Keystone State.

RE PA: Michael Bloomberg: Funding Environmental Mercenaries in Blue-State Attorneys General Offices

From RealClearInvestigations:

How Bloomberg Embeds Green Warriors in Blue-State Governments

By Jeff Patch, Real Clear Investigations
October 10, 2018

A New York University School of Law program funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg is placing lawyers in the offices of Democratic state attorneys general and paying them to prosecute energy companies and challenge Trump administration policies on energy and the environment.

Nine states and Washington, D.C., including New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania, are participating in the multimillion-dollar program funded by the media magnate and ex-New York City mayor, who re-registered as a Democrat this week amid expectations of a run for president in 2020.

The 14 current fellows in the program report to the attorneys general, but they are paid by NYU’s Bloomberg-funded State Energy & Environmental Impact Center. State AG offices hire these trained lawyers – who are not students but seasoned professionals with years of experience – as special assistant attorneys general. Under terms of the arrangement, the fellows work solely to advance progressive climate change policy at a time when Democratic state attorneys general have investigated and sued ExxonMobil and other energy companies over alleged damages due to climate change.


The center was launched in mid-August 2017 with a reported grant of nearly $6 million from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable entity controlled by the billionaire. It is billed as a non-partisan project to help “state attorneys general fight against regulatory rollbacks and advance clean energy, climate change [responses], and environmental values and protections.”


The full extent of the attorneys’ participation in many cases is veiled by attorney-client confidentiality. In an email last year to Democratic-held offices, Hayes wrote that “we are engaged with ethics experts and individuals in some of your offices to ensure confidentiality” of the program’s work. The email was provided to RealClearInvestigations by the office of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, a Democrat.

The center’s staff has made virtually no effort to engage Republican offices.


“The public’s expectation is that a state’s chief law enforcement official acts in an unbiased and objective manner,” said Harold Kim, the executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. “Regardless of the underlying issue, when political interest groups participate in embedding paid staff in a state attorney general’s office, that credibility is called into question.”

Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute suggested the NYU center is less likely to spur reform than an ideological arms race.

“It seems the only way to wake our usual constitutional watchdogs to the abuse is for conservative AGs to accept Federalist Society, National Rifle Association and National Right-to-Life chaired prosecutor positions to investigate those groups’ political opponents and advance their agendas,” he said.

On November 6, 2018, 8 Anti Fossil Fuel candidates were elected to the PA Congress.

The left in the Pennsylvania Democrat Party wants to ban all fracking in the state. It’s fringe, but all such oddball movements start out as fringe. Of particular note in this election season is that a group of these ban-fracking nutters have gotten themselves on the ballot in 15 PA House and Senate races around the state for the Nov 6, 2018 election..

As you might expect, most of the ban-frackers were running in counties in the Philadelphia orbit (Delaware, Chester, Montgomery, Philly itself).

There are some from outside (but still close to) Philly, in Northampton and Carbon counties. There are a few in Allegheny County (Pittsburgh area). There’s even one running in Centre County.







Out of 15 anti frackers running 8 were elected:

Kristin Seale– House District 168, Delaware County Kristin is a lifelong public servant, advocating for equal access to affordable healthcare, energy and a living wage. She has worked to advance energy efficiency in our state through her work at the Keystone Energy Efficiency Association’s Energy Education Fund. She has also played an active role in the fight against the Mariner East 2 pipeline. If elected, Kristin would become the first LGBT woman to serve in Pennsylvania’s legislature, bringing a strong, community-informed voice to the important decision making that impacts our public safety, public education, civil rights and social equity.

Summer Lee– House District 34, Allegheny County Summer was born and raised in North Braddock, a community which has historically suffered from pollution caused by the the Edgar Thomson Steel Mill. She will prioritize defeating a fracking well proposed at the steel mill, and pushing for a statewide ban on fracking. She is a dedicated organizer, activist, and advocate for social justice. She will work to improve air and water quality in Allegheny County. 

Elizabeth Fiedler– House District 184, Philadelphia Elizabeth is a former reporter for WHYY where she covered community affairs and politics — she’s spent ten years asking tough questions of people in power and listening to Pennsylvanians who’s voices are not being heard in Harrisburg. A mother of two, Elizabeth knows that fighting climate change is the most important thing we can do to ensure the health and well-being of our children and grandchildren.

Melissa Shusterman– House District 157, Chester County Melissa is a Phoenixville-area small business owner who would advocate strongly for women’s rights and equal opportunities. She supports increased funding to the Department of Environmental Protection, a moratorium on fracking in the Delaware River Basin, and stricter laws to protect our air, water, and land. 

Katie Muth– Senate District 44, Chester and Montgomery County Katie is one of the founders of Indivisible Mid Montco, working to bring the change communities around Pennsylvania are advocating for to the hallways of Harrisburg. The Mariner East 2 pipeline cuts through her district, and she supports calls to stop the pipeline and all other fossil fuel infrastructure.

Leanne Krueger-Braneky– House District 161, Delaware County Since she was first elected four years ago, Rep. Krueger-Braneky has been one of the few environmental champions in Pennsylvania’s legislature. She has questioned subsidies for fossil fuel during budget hearings, pushed policies that invest in cleaner industries, and served as an advocate for small businesses

Sara Innamorato– House District 21, Allegheny County Sara started a company to work with the local and city government in Lawrenceville, developing events and initiatives around technology, food access, social justice and women’s rights. She runs SWPA, empowering women to run for elected office. She will prioritize the health of our environment to address air and water pollution in Allegheny County. 
Tim Kearney– Senate District 26, Delaware County Tim Kearney is the mayor of Swarthmore, and an experienced public servant, a husband, a father, and a small business owner and architect. Thanks to Tim, Swarthmore is a leader in environmental protection and sustainability practices, fair and equitable policing practices, and LGBTQ equality.

Thank you Josie for starting this thread. Now maybe we all can now understand what it is all about.  Not all of us knows where to get this information let alone understand what it all means.

And by the way we finally received the money that we were trying to track down. No  explanation was given. But missing check was supposed to have a stop payment put on it and money carried forward to the next month,  which came today. A small amount for sure but it could have been a much larger amount!

Granddad Ladd

I would include in the 'watch list' a UN Lapdog Agency....the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This is where many of the 'studies' involving AGW (Anthropogenic-{man made}-Global Warming) originate. If you take the time to peruse their papers, you will find many of the author's have ZERO science education background. Many are Political and/or Communications majors.....who (and with what education background) the hell made them a scientist?

Science is the act of proving, OR equally as important, disproving, a scientific theory. There is no right or wrong among true scientists, just the ingrained desire to seek the truth. The folks at the IPCC must have missed that day in class.

The Alarmist's battle plan is to publish poorly written studies, with no basis in Scientific Methodology, then use their Socialist media partners to disseminate that as the truth. No rebuttal studies ever gain any traction in the main stream media.

Control the Carbon.....this is a way to punish well-developed countries by taxing the amount of CO2 produced. Now, if you think those 'carbon tax revenues' will ever trickle down to the poor, as a published stated goal.....not going to happen.

Trump was correct in pulling the USA out of the Paris Climate Agreement. The USA (Obama) pledged to actually curtail our CO2 emissions by 25% now, while virtually every other signatory made nebulous promises to do so in the future....India and China would start in 2030? 

Old Timer

That is exactly right but the perils may not have been sufficiently highlighted.

When the Yamal LNG plant is finally done, the 27 million tonnes per year output will come at an investment cost of about $30 billuon.

This is somewhat comparable to the combined 3 LNG plants on Australia's Curtis Island in terms of cost and capacity.

In contrast, Tellurian's Driftwoot project in Louisiana will produce the same at half the cost.

(See the new LNG plant proposed for NEPA. Astounding event).

ANYTHING that stifles American hydrocarbon production -  now the biggest in the world - will find support across countries, industries, ideologies that might suffer due to American abundance.

Wolfe was originally aided in his first election with a $10 million dollar donation from Marxist Tom Steyer.

You Appalachian Basin folks are facing severe economic, long term harm if you are unable to both educate and motivate your neighbors of this massive theft of your communal bounty.

Your enemies are cunning, resourceful, and HIGHLY motivated to see you - collectively - fail.

Government for Rent – How Special Interests Finance Governors to Pursue Their Climate Policy Agenda

This is a very long article and too long to post. GMS will not allow. Click this and it will come up in a new window:

View Full Document as PDF

Pennsylvania's Wolf is right in the middle of this but very secretively.....Wolf is a very slimy snake...and to be feared.

Law enforcement climate schemers get exposed by TV ads


(Washington, DC)  Climate Litigation Watch, a project of the public interest law firm Government Accountability & Oversight, P.C., has released new television ads running in five states, informing Marylanders, New Mexicans, Oregonians, Pennsylvanians and Virginians of recently unearthed details of their states’ attorneys general involvement in a national scheme to place privately funded special prosecutors in state AG offices to pursue issues of concern to the donor.

Each ad shows specific records obtained from each state, and cites to troubling aspects of the unprecedented arrangement, from New Mexico’s promise to use the privately funded prosecutors “to identify ‘pressure points’ on which litigation can be used to most effectively influence policy” on matters of concern to the donor — while the parties agreed to not draw media attention to their deal — to the apparent violations of state law in Oregon and Virginia.

By statute, these “Special Assistant Attorneys General” have the same authority as the AG; by agreement, they are expressly to pursue an ideological agenda, using the state’s top law enforcement office in a mercenary fashion, as a tool to investigate individuals, businesses and organizations who oppose that agenda.

The ads are based on a recent report, “Law Enforcement for Hire”, which cites to hundreds of source documents, many revealed for the first time and all obtained after more than two years of investigation, document requests and, in numerous cases, litigation. Citing to key records from each AG’s office, the exposés lay out the tie-ups between a “Center” funded by New York billionaire activist Michael Bloomberg, and various state AGs across the country.  Each AG specifically requested the outside group provide attorney salaries and benefits, as well as other “services that may be available to your offices on individual matters”, including still more attorneys, and public relations advocacy, to “advance progressive…legal positions” on specific issues.

These arrangements cry out for legislative oversight of how law enforcement came to be used in this way, and how AGs could claim they had no relevant statutory professional responsibility limitations.

The ads can be seen on YouTube or


New Mexico




Bloomberg.....Soros....the Billionaire Boys Club of man made climate change research.....they fund a significant amount $$$$$$ to any 'scientist' seeking a grant rather than get a real job.

There is only one catch- the results MUST lineup with their current Global Warming narrative....and you can't let a little thing like REAL science get in the way....just make extraordinary claims. Truth and scientific method are irrelevant to the work being done by junk's all about headlines for the main stream media re: Global Warming.....the sheep will believe it....Bad Science and all.

PA. House Flipping Democrat Portends Trouble for O&G Industry

The results of Tuesday’s elections, with the House of Representatives flipping to Democrat control, is a disaster. That is our considered opinion. And not just because we’re died-in-the-wool conservatives and believe in freedom and the rule of law. But for what it portends for the oil and gas industry. Some on our side, the pro-fossil fuel side, think everything’s just fine with Dems in control of the House. They say the oil and gas industry likes “divided government” because it ensures any changes that happen will happen slowly. We’re not convinced. Why? We look at the actual words of those seizing (and we use that word intentionally) power come January. The House, under Democrat tyranny, is gearing up to hold hearings on everything, including so-called “climate change” and Trump’s efforts to roll back egregious Obama regulations related to “climate change.” Dems plan to use the power of subpoena to try and stop efforts to right-size and eliminate unnecessary regulations in agencies like the EPA. We think the oil and gas industry, whether they admit it or not, is in for the fight of its life come January 1. We hope we’re wrong. We fear we are not.

Here’s why we’re pessimistic about regulatory interference by Democrats in oil and gas beginning next year:

After almost a decade of oil-friendly Republicans controlling Congress, the energy sector faced a dramatically different political landscape Wednesday.

Where Republicans pushed an end to the oil export ban and the relaxing of environmental regulations around drilling, the new Democratic-led House is expected to be more interested in combating climate change than boosting oil and gas production.

Even before the election, Democrats made clear they planned oversight hearings into President Donald Trump’s efforts to cut regulations around oil and gas drilling and other industrial activity. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who is expected to chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said last week that Democrats would “focus on the need to address climate change by looking at its impacts on our communities and economy, and by holding the Trump administration accountable for dangerous policies that only make it worse.”

The industry also will face the unfriendly fire without key allies, such as Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, who lost to political newcomer Lizzie Fletcher, and Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Dallas, who lost to former NFL player Colin Allred. They and other Republicans will be unable to stop Democrats from haling energy executives to committee rooms explain their role and influence in the Trump administration’s rollback of regulations.

“I am concerned in the simple fact that we have a lot of Democrats who subscribe to President Obama’s conviction that oil and gas is evil energy, and I’m certain they will go after Texas’ major industry,” said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, the outgoing chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. “I think that’s a huge mistake, and we will fight it.”

During the midterm campaign, climate change was a frequent topic for Democratic candidates as they sought to distinguish themselves from their Republican opponents. But with Democrats failing to achieve the so-called “Blue Wave” they had hoped for, there are questions how seriously Democratic leaders such as presumptive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are going to address the issue.

Democrats will have the power to hold hearings, conduct investigations and pass bills in the House. But with Republicans still controlling the White House and Senate, Democrats face a difficult time enacting legislation into law without GOP support.

“It’ll be noisier. There will be hearings o-rama. But in terms of action, not so much,” said Robert McNally, president of the Rapidan Energy Group, a consulting firm outside Washington. “We don’t see them rolling President Trump, but the pace of deregulation at EPA will probably slow down because officials will be much busier dealing with subpoenas.”

For now, most expect the partisan gridlock that has pervaded Washington over the past decade to continue. But a couple energy issues have increased odds for action with a Democratic majority in the House, McNally said.

Congress is already weighing so-called NOPEC legislation authorizing the Attorney General to sue nations within the Organizaton of Petroleum Exporting Countries for manipulating oil prices, a move opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, the energy industry lobby. And members of both parties are watching for signs of further interference by Russia in U.S. politics, with an eye towards increasing sanctions. One potential target of sanctions would be the Nordstream 2 pipeline project, connecting Russian gas with European gas markets.

Lee Fuller, executive vice president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which represents smaller oil and gas producers, said Democrats undoubtedly will come under pressure from their constituencies to take action against climate change and rein in oil and gas development. But, he added, “How many other things do they want to pursue and how much time do they have?

“I think we’re going to have to see it sort out over the next several months. There’s people who want to spend all their time impeaching Trump.” (1)

News flash for the dolts in the House who think they can impeach Trump: He’s here for the next two, and likely for the next six, years. Get over it. Medicate yourselves (some more). And deal with it.

Not everyone believes Democrat control of the House is the end of the world. The following is a Forbes column from David Blackmon, someone who has worked in o&g for decades, and someone whose opinion we highly respect.

As a general rule, a divided federal government is the best kind of federal government where the oil and gas industry is concerned. This is an industry that places a high degree of importance on regulatory and statutory certainty, and a divided government tends to result in a slower pace of change in these areas.

The unified, Republican-controlled government of the past two years produced a rapid pace of change, though much of it has actually been favorable for the industry, as the Trump Administration has gone about revising and repealing a raft of Obama-era actions. But that work is now mostly done, although the ultimate resolution for the EPA’s Waters of the United States rule and various methane-related measures at EPA and the Department of the Interior remain somewhat up in the air for now.

Congress was able to agree to include energy-related provisions in its omnibus spending bill last December, but has done little related to energy since. The lame duck session of the current 115th congress that will convene for four weeks between now and December 31 will have to try to deal with a broad range of potential legislation, as the GOP majorities will likely try to cram in as much as they can before they give way to the 116th congress in January.

Most crucial for oil and gas is the FY 2019 appropriations bill for the Departments of Interior and Energy, which was extended through December 7 as part of the “mini-bus” appropriations bill passed at the end of September. DOI and DOE, together with the EPA, do the most to regulate oil and gas activities at the federal level, and the appropriations bill always impacts how their actions will be carried out in the coming year. The lame duck session will also most likely pass the annual “tax extenders” legislation that includes a few oil and gas-related provisions. This bill also includes provisions related to biofuels and other renewable energy sources and typically attracts broad, bi-partisan support.

Another key bit of legislation that won’t receive much media attention will be the re-authorization of DOI’s Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), a popular program whose sources for funding expired at the end of September, although the program itself remains in place. While there is broad, bipartisan support for the program’s continuance, the debate will be over whether to continue to require its funding to be reauthorized every year, or to award it permanent funding status via an automatic draw from the revenues collected from the oil and gas exploration activities in the Gulf of Mexico and other federal waters.

The other big energy-related outcome from the mid-term elections was the failure of several of anti-oil and gas ballot propositions at state and local levels around the country. Most notable among these was Colorado’s Proposition 112, which would have enacted a 2,500 foot setback rule that was defined in such a way that it would have effectively shut down oil and gas development in the state. With pretty much every major newspaper and political leader in both parties opposing it, Prop 112 failed dramatically, receiving just 42% of the vote.

Also failing was Alaska’s Ballot Measure 1, which would have placed onerous new permitting rules and fees on the industry that is far and away the largest funding source for the state’s government. That initiative received just 36% favorable votes.

With the outcome of Tuesday’s mid-term election, resulting Democratic control of the House of Representatives and Republican control of the Senate, the prospects for any bi-partisan agreement on significant energy-related legislation, or indeed, even the passage of actual appropriations bills, for the next two years are dramatically reduced. This new reality, combined with the Trump Administration’s lack of desire to enact new regulations that would hamper energy development of any kind, is likely to create a largely status-quo federal policy environment through the end of 2020.

“The government which governs least governs best” is a quote that is often attributed to President Thomas Jefferson, though that attribution appear to be erroneous. The actual source for the quote more likely comes from an essay published in 1849 by Henry David Thoreau titled “Resistance to Civil Governance (Civil Disobedience).”

Regardless of which public figure actually first said it, as a general rule, the oil and gas industry endorses its logic. The country’s voters, by creating a once-again divided federal government, just signaled their endorsement of it as well, at least for the next two years. (2)

We sincerely hope Blackmon is right, and that we’re wrong.

(1) Houston (TX) Chronicle (Nov 7, 2018) – In Washington, politics around oil, climate change in flux

(2) Forbes/David Blackmon (Nov 8, 2018) – The Mid-Term Elections Were Generally Good For Oil And Gas

Judge blocks construction of Keystone XL pipeline Published 8:24 p.m. MT Nov. 8, 2018 | Updated 1:46 p.m. MT Nov. 9, 2018

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris issued an order Thursday blocking construction of the $8 billion Keystone XL Pipeline until further environmental analysis is conducted.

The decision comes as TransCanada is preparing to build the oil pipeline beginning in northern Montana, with pipe being shipped to the state by train and trucked to locations along the line.

TransCanada released a statement Friday saying it is reviewing the judge's decision.

"We remain committed to building this important energy infrastructure project," said Terry Cunha, communications manager for TransCanada.

President Donald J. Trump criticized the order.

President Donald Trump talks with reporters Friday before departing for France. He called a Montana's judge's decision blocking a permit for Keystone XL "a disgrace."

President Donald Trump talks with reporters Friday before departing for France. He called a Montana's judge's decision blocking a permit for Keystone XL "a disgrace." (Photo: Evan Vucci, AP)

"Well, it was a political decision made by a judge," he said Friday as he headed to Europe to observe the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. "I think it’s a disgrace. It’s 48,000 jobs. I approved it; it’s ready to start."

Environmental groups that sued TransCanada and the U.S. Department of State in federal court in Great Falls called the decision to overturn the Trump administration-issued permit a landmark ruling.

More: Army of attorneys spar over Keystone pipeline in Great Falls court

In his decision, Morris said the government's analysis fell short on:

» The effects of the current oil prices on the viability of the pipeline.

» The cumulative effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

» A survey of potential Native American resources.

» And updated modeling of potential oil spills and recommended mitigation measures.

"The Department must supplement new and relevant information regarding the risk of spills," Morris wrote.

As for climate change, Morris noted that the department denied the permit in 2015 and relied heavily on the United State's role in climate leadership. That was under the Obama Administration.

Then, under the Trump administration, the department approved the permit, dismissing concerns about climate change.

The Trump Administration decision approving the project noted that “there have been numerous developments related to global action to address climate change, including announcements by many countries of their plans to do so” since the 2015 decision.

Morris said that statement fell short of a factually based determination, let alone a reasoned explanation, for the course reversal.

-u.s. district court judge brian morris of great falls.jpg_20151102.jpg

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris (Photo: File image)

“An agency cannot simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations that it made in the past, any more than it can ignore inconvenient facts when it writes on a blank slate," Morris wrote.

The reversal required a "reasoned explanation" but instead the State Department discarded prior factual findings related to climate change, the judge said.

Keystone XL Pipeline would transport up to 830,000 barrels per day of crude oil from Alberta, Canada and the Bakken Shale Formation in Montana to existing pipeline facilities near Steele City, Neb., from which the oil would be delivered to Cushing, Okla., and the Gulf Coast.

The U.S. portion of the line would run 875 miles through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska. The rest of the 1,200-mile line is in Canada.

About 250 miles of the pipeline would be buried across six counties in Montana beginning on the border with Canada in Phillips County. TransCanada already as begun delivering pipe to Montana in expectation of construction beginning in 2019.

The Indigenous Environmental Network,  North Coast Rivers Alliance, Northern Plains Resource Council and other groups sued TransCanada and the U.S. State Department in March to block the decision to issue a presidential permit allowing construction.

"I would call it a landmark ruling because it overturns a presidential decision purporting to find that a transboundary project is in the public interest," Stephan Volker, a Berkeley-based attorney for the plaintiffs, told the Tribune. "And Judge Morris correctly ruled it was not in the public interest because Secretary Kerry had found in a detailed ruling several years ago it was not in the public interest."

John Kerry was secretary of state when the Obama administration denied the presidential permit for the pipeline.

A presidential permit is required when a project crosses an international boundary. The secretary of state makes a recommendation, then the president decides.

"We have never had a ruling against a president overturning a substantive finding a project is in the public interest," Volker said. "That finding is required for transboundary projects. So it's unique to this kind of national project that affects multiple countries."

Dena Hoff, a Glendive farmer and member-leader of the Northern Plains Resource Council, called the ruling a victory for rule of law and common sense stewardship of land and water.

"All Americans should be proud that our system of checks and balances can still function even in the face of enormous strains," Hoff said.

The Fort Peck tribes of Montana have opposed the current location of the pipeline crossing on the Missouri River in Valley County, Montana because they say if there was an oil spill it could taint their downstream water system.

More: Montana tribes seek Keystone route change

The pipeline would cross the Milk River 1.6 miles west of Nashua, and the Missouri River just west of the mouth of the Milk. That location is 57 miles upstream from the intake of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System.

The intake of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System which serves the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and Dry Prairie Rural Water System in Valley, Roosevelt, Sheridan, and Daniels counties is located off Highway 13 in Roosevelt County 57 miles downstream from where the Keystone XL Pipeline will cross the Missouri River at its confluence with the Milk River.Buy Photo

The intake of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System which serves the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and Dry Prairie Rural Water System in Valley, Roosevelt, Sheridan, and Daniels counties is located off Highway 13 in Roosevelt County 57 miles downstream from where the Keystone XL Pipeline will cross the Missouri River at its confluence with the Milk River. (Photo: TRIBUNE PHOTO/RION SANDERS)

TransCanada says the pipeline will be safe. At the Missouri River, the pipeline depth would be 54 feet below the lowest surveyed river elevation, and heavier-walled pipe with anti-corrosion coating would be used.

"Pipelines are the safest and most cost-effective form of overland crude oil transportation," according the environmental impact statement that was completed on the project.

The Obama Administration, citing climate change, had denied the permit, saying it wasn't in the national interest.

In approving the pipeline, the Trump Administration said the project would support U.S. priorities relating to energy security, economic development and infrastructure.

The environmental groups argued it would push the earth beyond its carrying capacity for carbon dioxide, and asked how that could be in the public's interest.

In the same case, Morris directed the government in August to supplement the 2014 final supplemental environmental impact statement to consider another alternative route through Nebraska.

More: Great Falls judge orders new federal review of Keystone XL pipeline

But the court had yet to decide on vacating the presidential permit granting permission to cross the international border between Canada and the United States at Montana.

Morris’s 54-page order overturns the Trump Administration’s approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline and issues an injunction preventing construction of the project until additional analysis occurs.

How Do You Make the Bureaucratic Climate Deceivers Accountable?

Attempts to bring the deceptive science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) into the political and public arena fail for an important reason. Understanding that reason offers the only chance to hold the creators and perpetrators accountable. I know of only one person who understood and took the steps necessary, but so far only proved that the adage that you can’t fight City Hall was correct. I was proud to be associated with that effort and continue to push, including with this article. The challenge is ongoing, as the system defends itself. It is difficult because most have no idea how nasty the system gets when attacked and what weapons they will use to destroy an individual. I call it ‘the system’ because it is a headless, amorphous mass, collectively known as the Bureaucracy.

Recently, someone made a second attempt to challenge and get answers but received a standard, predictable, response. The response says, our response is correct because we did the original work. It parallels the IPCC trick of saying we know CO2 causes a temperature increase because our models show it.

Many people contacted me over the years as they learned about the corruption. They cannot believe what is going on, although the descent into chaos, corruption, criminality, and the complete failure of the politicians to deal with it in most countries, are opening eyes. Lord Acton spoke of power corrupting. We now see the extent to which people will go to obtain that power. The emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009 disclosed behavior designed to deceive, distort, and falsify an outcome, yet nobody even lost their jobs or were held accountable. The answer to how and why is simple; the Bureaucracy protected them. The solution is clear but difficult to implement.

When Maurice Strong established the IPCC, he did it through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). This UN organization is a composite of UN bureaucrats and the bureaucrats of weather offices of each UN member nation. He did it this way because he knew the bureaucrats would control the science and the politicians in their respective nations. However, there is another element of this that makes exposure of the deception complicated.

In most countries’, citizens are not allowed to interrogate bureaucrats directly. You cannot cross-examine them and can only obtain information through a politician or a Freedom of Information (FOI) process. The recent attempt to get information using an FOI occurred in New Zealand and illustrated the problem. The person used FOI and received the following answer.


Thank you for your email of 5 October 2018 requesting the following under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA): Please provide the evidence that proves that human generated carbon dioxide is the cause of dangerous global warming. / seek evidence not assertions. The evidence of anthropogenic (human-made) climate change is clearly established and credible, although we note that science does not attempt to provide “proof’. Scientific evidence allows us to choose the best explanation among all available alternatives. The available evidence on carbon dioxide and climate change is publicly available, and we have therefore refused this request under section 18(d) of the OIA. The evidence is best summarised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Fifth Assessment Report was completed in November 2014 and is available at the following link: The IPCC reports represent the global expert assessment of knowledge on climate change, which the New Zealand Government accepts. The Fifth Assessment Report states that it is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by humans. The best estimate is that all the warming over the period 1951-2010 was anthropogenic. These statements can be found on page 17 of the following document:—SPM—FINAL.pdf.. With regard to the OIA, you might also find it helpful to read a document prepared by the office of the Ombudsman,

Making official information requests: a guide for requesters. (www.ombudsman. parliament,nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/2465/original/making_oi_requests_-_guide for_requesters.pdf). Yours sincerely.

The answer cites the IPCC Fifth Report (AR5) as justification for the policies they recommend to the government. The problem is the New Zealand bureaucrats who provided this answer are members of the IPCC. It is a truly incestuous situation, but that is the situation in all countries, just as Strong planned.

The person who handled the situation correctly was Australian engineer, Malcolm Roberts. He came to the climate issue through a wider interest in banking control and corruption. Malcolm was involved with an Australian group, the Galileo Movement, that worked to explain the fundamentals of the science. I worked with Malcolm on his recognition that a critical issue is a difference between computer-generated data and empirical data.

Malcolm realized that the only way to get to the bureaucrats was to become an elected official. He ran as a State of Queensland candidate for the Australian Senate and won. His maiden speech addressed the issue of climate change and the lack of empirical data. He then arranged for a public discussion on climate, or at least the climate the public doesn’t hear. I was invited along with Tony Heller to appear in a public presentation. Tony and I followed that with presentations in Melbourne, and Sydney.

In Australia, climate change is the purview of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). This is a strange situation because it is apparently a private company with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABM) as one of their clients. What appears like an arms-length situation is the opposite; they are paid to tell their clients what they want to hear.

One of the most significant problems in society in general but particularly in government came up years ago after a presentation to Alberta Municipality representatives. Somebody asked for the one piece of advice I could give to help decision making. I replied, “Stop hiring consultants that tell you what you want to hear.” All this does is perpetuate bad practices and inappropriate responses while eliminating any chance of finding better solutions.

It is a weakness of humans that we seek people who are going to bolster our views when we need to hear the opposite. We always retain the right to assess the new information.

I am grateful for the opportunity Malcolm gave me. It reinforced the importance of empirical data, but also that a major solution was to confront the bureaucrats directly.

The response from CSIRO was almost identical to the one from the New Zealand bureaucrats. They cited the work of the IPCC. This is no surprise because their employer, the ABM, is a part of the IPCC. In subsequent Senate hearings, Senator Roberts exposed their complete lack of understanding of the IPCC, its structure, limitations, and total dependence on computer models.

One thing Malcolm Roberts and I disagree about is what happened to him after he began his work as a Senator. In 2017, he lost his seat because he held dual citizenship and that is illegal when you run for the Senate. There is no doubt the evidence shows he broke the rule. The problem I have is it was all too convenient for somebody to dig out this arcane excuse to get rid of him. Time and again we see how bureaucracies get what they want. They are the deep state and unaccountable, but that must change.

The simplest way is to cut their funding, but they quickly scream interference when it happens. Bureaucrat James Hansen who started the deception with his testimony in 1988 made such a claim in 2007, but his boss at NASA GISS refuted his claim. A Canadian headline said, “Canadian scientists say the government is muzzling them and they want it to stop.” The first sentence gives it all away.

Hundreds of union activists representing Canada’s scientists held protests in cities across the country this week, demanding the federal government end what they see as rampant political interference of scientific research.


They are all unionized government employees. It is virtually impossible for them to practice science. Once they created the deception of human-caused global warming and sold it as confirmed to the politicians, they were on a treadmill. Any evidence that contradicted the theory was going to be ignored, altered, or falsely contradicted. Once they chose to prove the theory rather than disprove it, they were no longer practicing science. Their protest was a response to a new government who dared to suggest the science was different than what the UN IPCC presented. The bureaucrats won as they have on every occasion to date.

get this:

Alan Tomalty

2030 seems to be the magical year for the UN. The global warming alarmists and the IPCC have given us until 2030 when the world is supposed to become uninhabitable because of too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Now there is a new UN document that is called the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.

It will be adopted at the UN conference in Marrakech December 10 and 11 , 2018. This has nothing to do with International Refugees. They are covered by the UN Global Compact on Refugees which was adopted in 2016. The differences can be explained by this UN document called the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted on 19 September 2016.

The UN bureaucracy seems to move fast these days.

However this all started with the Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development. It then morphed in 1992 into
the Agenda 21 document which was the forerunner of the Sustainable Development document mentionned a couple paragraphs below.

In that document was laid the plans for a true global government. One of the reasons why it floundered was of course money, AMONG OTHER EVEN MORE FRIGHTENING REASONS. I quote one of its objectives

“The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new
and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for
the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate
sustainable development. ”

Some more juicy tidbits.
“Facilitate, in a timely way, the integration of all countries into the world economy
and the international trading system; ”
“This partnership commits all States to engage in a continuous and constructive
dialogue, inspired by the need to achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy”
“Economic policies of individual countries and international economic relations both have great
relevance to sustainable development………………… if commodity prices and the terms of
trade of developing countries remain depressed. The record of the 1980s was essentially negative on
each of these counts and needs to be reversed. ”

Sustainable development is bullshit; clear and simple. my words

“Continue to apply compensation mechanisms for shortfalls in commodity export earnings of developing countries in order to
encourage diversification efforts”

“Cooperate in research to develop methodologies and identify threshold levels of atmospheric
pollutants, as well as atmospheric levels of greenhouse gas concentrations, that would cause
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and the environment as a
whole, and the associated rates of change that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally;”

DON’T FORGET THAT THIS WAS JUNE 1992 AND WOULD HAVE TAKEN AT LEAST A YEAR BEFORE THE FINAL DRAFTING. So it is now clear that less than 4 years after the IPCC was born, the UN was hell bent on declaring CO2 a pollutant.

When the UN bureaucrats realized that Agenda 21 wouldn’t fly it was replaced by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

This document came out of the UN office for Sustainable Development. The new Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration referred to in the 1st paragrah above ; makes regular mention of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which in turn mentions
as one of its key goals
Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

The whole list of its goals are



Goal+3.+Ensure+healthy+lives+and+promote+well being+for+all+at+all+ages








Goal+11.+Make+cities+and+human+settlements+inclusive,+safe,+resilient+and sustainable


Goal+13.+Take+urgent+action+to+combat+climate+change+and+its+impacts ???????????????????????????????????????







Oh don’t forget the other big scam of the United Nations ; the 1992 Montreal Protocol on the Ozone Hole which banned many CFC’s and is still in process of banning other gases and which is just finishing up its’ 30th meeting in Quito Ecuador on 5-9 november 2018.




Local Groups

Latest Activity

farmgas replied to Old Timer's discussion 'CONVERSATIONS'
1 hour ago
Old Timer replied to Old Timer's discussion 'CONVERSATIONS'
1 hour ago
farmgas replied to Old Timer's discussion 'CONVERSATIONS'
5 hours ago
Old Timer replied to Old Timer's discussion 'CONVERSATIONS'
5 hours ago

Blog Posts

Forgotten Men and Women of Canadian Energy Industry Protest

Posted by Thomas J Shepstone on January 4, 2019 at 10:37am 0 Comments

The forgotten men and women of the Canadian energy industry are mad as hell and not taking it anymore. They’re protesting in their trucks and it’s spreading.

Whenever I go to New York City, which is as seldom as…



© 2019   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service