Rush Limbaugh Right on BP (NYSE:BP) Oil Leak?

All the scoffers were out when Rush Limbaugh at the beginning of the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill noted the ability of the Gulf of Mexico to absorb a lot of the oil spill naturally.

You would have thought there was no truth to the statement at all because of the obvious fact that most people either love Limbaugh or hate him.

The emotions got in the way and his detractors used his comments to attack him, but now that things are settling down and the smoke is clearing, there is a growing number of scientists and professors saying it's quite possible the damage alleged from the oil spill isn't going to be anywhere what was originally thought because of the microbes in the Gulf which evidence shows are devouring the oil.

This is why people are asking the question of where is the oil. The answer is it isn't there. It isn't settling on the ocean floor, approximately 40 percent is evaporating, and much of the rest is being greedily eaten by these tiny microbes.

What this does is also question the integrity of the environmentalists who have jumped on the bandwagon of devastation to further their dubious agendas.

Citing a Time article saying just these things, a British columnist said this:

"So the questions must be asked: how much of the hype that was generated by this incident served political purposes? And whose interests did it serve? The hysterical anti-oil eco-lobby? The anti-Obama camp in the first instance, and then the White House itself when the President turned public anger on BP? The US media which loves a scare story, particularly when it involves a “foreign” enemy?

"And who will be the ultimate losers? Obviously, those who hold shares in BP (around half of whom are American) and all the pension funds which rely on the value of those shares. But also, perhaps, the eco-lobby itself whose judgment and credibility are called into question once again."

Others have talked about the affect of the oil-eating microbes, another other factors, and one of our writers at Commodity Surge tackled it as well.

The emerging narrative based on actual facts is the alleged environmental damage, whether in the number of birds or wildlife killed, damage to beaches and wetlands or marshes, isn't in reality that much,

Eugene Turner, an LSU coastal scientist, who isn't a friend in any way to the oil industry, sums it up well, "We don't want to deny that there's some damage, but nothing like the damage we've seen for years."

The fervor point to media hype fueled by radical green organizations who have been losing donations and money for years, who attempt to hype any potential environmental disaster to the utmost in order to generate funding for the cause.

Too bad these scientists and professors didn't have the guts to come forward far before this, as it would have calmed things down and allowed an accurate assessment of the situation.

It is understandable from the point of view of the focus of the majority of people being on the oil leak, but now that's it has been stopped, it's incredible to see how quickly things are restoring themselves naturally.

Environmentalists Cause of BP (NYSE:BP) Disaster

Energy Policy:

To save the environment, a senator from Pennsylvania wants to shut off a major source of natural gas. Weren't the roads to the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon disasters paved with equally good intentions?

Environmentalism did not cause the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, but it did help make it possible, just as 1989's Exxon Valdez disaster, which the Gulf Oil spill has now eclipsed, was also ironically made possible by a desire to protect the environment.

The original plan when oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay on Alaska's North Slope was to build a pipeline directly to the northern border of the 48 contiguous states. Groups like the Sierra Club waged a major battle against both the Prudhoe Bay development and the pipeline.

They lost on the drilling but won a small victory in forcing the pipeline to not traverse the continent via a safer land route but to dead end at the port of Valdez, Alaska. The rest, as they say, is history.

Had the oil companies gotten their way, there would have been no tanker to be run aground by its captain on March 24, 1989, causing 10.8 million gallons of crude oil to be dumped into Alaskan waters.

Rest of Story

Scana (NYSE:SCG) and Mandated Environmental Improvements

Scana Electric Rate Increases

The need for Scana (NYSE:SCG) to increase its electricity rates by a huge 9.5 percent underscores the outrageous environmental requirements mandated by law which the consumer always has to pay for.

Hearings are set in this case with a subsidiary of Scana, South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. (SCE&G), which serves the South Carolina market

Politicians always try to hide behind their radical environmental agendas at times like these, transferring the pressure to the providers of energy who are perceived as the culprits in the situation when rates are raised, when if fact it's politicians with their agendas who are harming the average person on the street who has to pay for their endless regulations and folly.

Scana Electric Rate Increases

Commodities: EPA Wants to Charge Fees Livestock

Livestock as a commodity will suffer under asinine EPA initiative

The nuts are definitely running the asylum if the proposed, moronic, federal initiative to charge huge fees to farmers or ranchers for each animal they have actually passes.

Parameters for the fees would be farms with over 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200hogs. The price tag for each one: $20 for each hog; $87.50 per beef cattle; and $175 for each dairy cow.

A significant number of livestock owners have said if the proposal were to go forward, it would effectively bankrupt them, which is evidently what some of the nutty environmentalists want.

Not only would it bankrupt numerous farmers and ranchers, but the costs would raise consumer prices so high it would be extraordinary.

This is of course of the human-haters and earth worshippers want. They want to ram their vegan/vegetarian lifestyle down the throat of the rest of the citizens in the U.S.

The reason given behind this potential atrocity is the animals pollute the air with the belches and gas. I'm not kidding, that's what's behind this idiocy.

According to Ken Hamilton, executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, the average cost to just a medium-sized cattle ranch would be from $30,000 to $40,000 a year.

According to EPA spokesman Nick Butterfield, the fee would fall under the federal Clean Air act. With a straight face he added they're reviewing the comments of the public before any further steps are taken.

Comments of the public? Let's see. Do we want to pay higher prices for our meat? Do we want to resort to less safe meat from foreign countries? How about importing our milk from China? No? Ok. The public has spoken.

As a matter of fact, the energy and time I've had to take to waste my time writing about this drivel should be charged to the EPA. Where can I send them my invoice?

It looks like the EPA needs to be abolished if it's going to punish commodites, and ultimately people, through these horrible ideas.