Elizabeth Warren Transferred Her Oil and Gas Investments to Her Children To Protect Her ‘Green’ Political Profile

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

None of my usual comments or excerpts.  Just read it.  Or maybe just read 1/1024 of it.

Elizabeth Warren Transferred Oil-and-Gas Investments to Her Children To Protect Her ‘Green’ Political Profile

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Too funny, these were the first 2 comments when I went to read the linked article:

1.  Oh, to be green, Green and reap the rewards of clean, renewable, sociopolitically inoculated greenbacks.

2.  No worries. Walking Eagle just wants you to be green. She will keep limos and jets, because.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

51 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

None of my usual comments or excerpts.  Just read it.  Or maybe just read 1/1024 of it.

Elizabeth Warren Transferred Oil-and-Gas Investments to Her Children To Protect Her ‘Green’ Political Profile

A $121 bucks?  This is news? 

"Warren received $121 in royalty payments in 2017 from Chesapeake Operating, LLC, a subsidiary company of Chesapeake Energy, according to her tax return."

"The natural gas royalties Warren collected in 2017 is negligible " 

Ya think!

In fairness it is almost impossible to invest without some of it going into energy (diversified mutual funds /ETFs will contain at least some).

Edited February 3, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

21 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

This is news? 

The Wall Street Journal reports:

On her first day as President, Elizabeth Warren says she will “ban fracking—everywhere,” while putting a “total moratorium” on leases offshore and on federal lands. Ms. Warren has signed a pledge to refuse campaign contributions over $200 from the oil-and-gas industry. She’s a past sponsor of a Senate bill called the Keep It in the Ground Act.

So it’s worth noting that, for years, she and her husband reported modest income from natural-gas royalties in her native state of Oklahoma. Ms. Warren’s financial disclosure filed with the Senate in 2012 included $504 of income from “gas well royalty interests” in Latimer County. The next year it was $203. Drill a little deeper and the facts get even more interesting.

. . . . Property records offer further information, although the picture is hardly complete. A 2011 deed says Mr. Mann had sold his interest in “all of the oil, gas, and other minerals” under assorted pieces of land in Latimer County and Pittsburg County. The stated price was $5,000. The buyer? Alexander Warren, the Senator’s son. The deed is dated Aug. 19. It says the transfer of royalty was effective Sept. 1. Two weeks later, Sept. 14, Ms. Warren announced her Senate candidacy in Massachusetts.

There are more transfers in 2014, as Ms. Warren’s political profile was rising. “We are on the cusp of a climate crisis,” she told the Senate that March, “a point of no return that will threaten our health, our economy and our planet.” Two months later, deeds dated May 19 say Ms. Warren conveyed to her two children, Alexander and Amelia, her mineral rights for lands in Okfuskee County and Hughes County, amid the Woodford shale field in the state’s southeast.

One of those Hughes County parcels appears on oil-and-gas leases from June and July 2017, signed by Alexander and Amelia, along with Ms. Warren’s three brothers. The agreements allow exploration and drilling on an 80-acre plot in exchange for royalties on any potential output. The leases had an initial term of three years, so they would appear to remain in effect through this summer.

“Elizabeth and Bruce sold or transferred these mineral interests to her children several years ago,” a Warren campaign spokesman said. “Her children still own them. They generated a few hundred dollars a year.” How long did Ms. Warren and Mr. Mann receive these royalties? Were the amounts larger in the past? The campaign declined to say. For context, gas wells become less productive over time.

The Wall Street Journal notes that “there’s nothing wrong here: Many people hold mineral rights, and ownership can get fractured by inheritance. Fossil fuels make the world go round, powering everything from cars to MRI machines.”

What makes this curious is that it belies the purism of her presidential rhetoric. She speaks as if oil inevitably stains everything it touches. “We want to make real progress on climate?” Ms. Warren said at a November debate. “Then we have to start by attacking the corruption that gives the oil industry and other fossil-fuel industries a stranglehold over this country.” A month later she added: “The biggest climate problem we face is the politicians in Washington who keep saying the right thing but continue to take money from the oil industry.”

But back when she was a Harvard law professor, Ms. Warren and her husband cashed those gas checks—or at least they did until the month before she launched her Senate campaign. Once she entered public life, they apparently unloaded the inconvenient assets by transferring them to children, who then endorsed an oil-and-gas lease that would be politically toxic if it carried Ms. Warren’s signature.

Warren rails against oil and gas companies profiting from “pollution,” but it would appear she has no problem at all doing the same thing, even if it’s on a much smaller scale.  Maybe a reporter should ask her at what financial point profiting from pollution becomes unacceptable?  And in what way she thinks it acceptable for her to try to transfer “pollution” profits to her children just as she’s making a national name for herself as a green justice warrior?

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The Wall Street Journal reports:

On her first day as President, Elizabeth Warren says she will “ban fracking—everywhere,” while putting a “total moratorium” on leases offshore and on federal lands. Ms. Warren has signed a pledge to refuse campaign contributions over $200 from the oil-and-gas industry. She’s a past sponsor of a Senate bill called the Keep It in the Ground Act.

So it’s worth noting that, for years, she and her husband reported modest income from natural-gas royalties in her native state of Oklahoma. Ms. Warren’s financial disclosure filed with the Senate in 2012 included $504 of income from “gas well royalty interests” in Latimer County. The next year it was $203. Drill a little deeper and the facts get even more interesting.

. . . . Property records offer further information, although the picture is hardly complete. A 2011 deed says Mr. Mann had sold his interest in “all of the oil, gas, and other minerals” under assorted pieces of land in Latimer County and Pittsburg County. The stated price was $5,000. The buyer? Alexander Warren, the Senator’s son. The deed is dated Aug. 19. It says the transfer of royalty was effective Sept. 1. Two weeks later, Sept. 14, Ms. Warren announced her Senate candidacy in Massachusetts.

There are more transfers in 2014, as Ms. Warren’s political profile was rising. “We are on the cusp of a climate crisis,” she told the Senate that March, “a point of no return that will threaten our health, our economy and our planet.” Two months later, deeds dated May 19 say Ms. Warren conveyed to her two children, Alexander and Amelia, her mineral rights for lands in Okfuskee County and Hughes County, amid the Woodford shale field in the state’s southeast.

One of those Hughes County parcels appears on oil-and-gas leases from June and July 2017, signed by Alexander and Amelia, along with Ms. Warren’s three brothers. The agreements allow exploration and drilling on an 80-acre plot in exchange for royalties on any potential output. The leases had an initial term of three years, so they would appear to remain in effect through this summer.

“Elizabeth and Bruce sold or transferred these mineral interests to her children several years ago,” a Warren campaign spokesman said. “Her children still own them. They generated a few hundred dollars a year.” How long did Ms. Warren and Mr. Mann receive these royalties? Were the amounts larger in the past? The campaign declined to say. For context, gas wells become less productive over time.

The Wall Street Journal notes that “there’s nothing wrong here: Many people hold mineral rights, and ownership can get fractured by inheritance. Fossil fuels make the world go round, powering everything from cars to MRI machines.”

What makes this curious is that it belies the purism of her presidential rhetoric. She speaks as if oil inevitably stains everything it touches. “We want to make real progress on climate?” Ms. Warren said at a November debate. “Then we have to start by attacking the corruption that gives the oil industry and other fossil-fuel industries a stranglehold over this country.” A month later she added: “The biggest climate problem we face is the politicians in Washington who keep saying the right thing but continue to take money from the oil industry.”

But back when she was a Harvard law professor, Ms. Warren and her husband cashed those gas checks—or at least they did until the month before she launched her Senate campaign. Once she entered public life, they apparently unloaded the inconvenient assets by transferring them to children, who then endorsed an oil-and-gas lease that would be politically toxic if it carried Ms. Warren’s signature.

Warren rails against oil and gas companies profiting from “pollution,” but it would appear she has no problem at all doing the same thing, even if it’s on a much smaller scale.  Maybe a reporter should ask her at what financial point profiting from pollution becomes unacceptable?  And in what way she thinks it acceptable for her to try to transfer “pollution” profits to her children just as she’s making a national name for herself as a green justice warrior?

Okay but that is such a trivial amount of money.

[Otis11 + 551]

6 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Okay but that is such a trivial amount of money.

Then why transfer it to her kids? Why not sell it on the open market in a way that doesnt invoke questions?

Or even just forfeit it? Donate it to green peace or the Sierra Club so they can try and become activists with it...

That's what she claims to want...

 

(Agreed, its trivial, and that was my first though too - so what? $121? But then why sell it to her kids??? Seems like theres more to it. Might be last well on lleaseand they expect substantial future growth, etc)

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Okay but that is such a trivial amount of money.

The principle is important, regardless of the amount. Also the timing of the transfer says a lot. 

[frankfurter + 562]

35 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

The principle is important, regardless of the amount. Also the timing of the transfer says a lot. 

and what principle might that be?  since when has an American stood on principle? 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

8 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Okay but that is such a trivial amount of money.

True, but it is the ‘principle of the matter’. To claim to be ‘green’ yet having a history (and failing to reveal it) while profiting, however marginally, beings in to question your credibility.

As her claim to be a native American, this showcases her lack of transparency.

Basically, she lies, or fails to tell the truth, as it suits her.

[Boat + 1,323]

You right wingers are off the chain again. You can be a green and invest/responsibly. I want the US to supply all its energy. But no flaring, no exporting our kids oil for today’s profit and of course little refining over and above our nations consumption. No foreign country FF infrastructure over and above consumption. That means you Trump/Canada.

Quit trying to make this argument about for or against. That is so Republican 1950. Grow a little sophistication.

[Boat + 1,323]

Do you dump red politicians because they support wind? Your party would be dead. Texas  Kansas, Oklahoma, N Dakota and S Dakota are all wind leaders in the US. Those states don’t get any redder.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

6 hours ago, Boat said:

Do you dump red politicians because they support wind? Your party would be dead. Texas  Kansas, Oklahoma, N Dakota and S Dakota are all wind leaders in the US. Those states don’t get any redder.

Talk about either or. You're the one making false equivalences here.

To properly frame the topic, imagine a "red" politician in Texas railing against wind, claiming it was destroying the environment, killing birds etc. While personally profiting from wind farms! That's what Fauxahontas is doing

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

14 hours ago, Boat said:

You right wingers are off the chain again. You can be a green and invest/responsibly. I want the US to supply all its energy. But no flaring, no exporting our kids oil for today’s profit and of course little refining over and above our nations consumption. No foreign country FF infrastructure over and above consumption. That means you Trump/Canada.

Quit trying to make this argument about for or against. That is so Republican 1950. Grow a little sophistication.

Are you running for the highest political office? There is a significant difference between you, a private citizen, having an opinion, and a presidential candidate lying to the people during her campaign.

Most people are not concerned with your character, but are very concerned about her’s.

This is so ‘common sense’ 2020. Grow another brain cell!

Edited February 5, 2020 by Douglas Buckland
Spelling

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Are you running for the highest political office? There is a significant difference between you, a private citizen, having an opinion, and a presidential candidate lying to the people during her campaign.

Most people are not concerned with your character, but are very concerned about her’s.

This is so ‘common sense’ 2020. Grow another brain cell!

Unthinkable!  Name one who hasn't.  

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

13 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Unthinkable!  Name one who hasn't.  

So because ‘every one is doing it’, it is acceptable?

The problem is not so much the ‘doing’ as it is the ‘getting caught’ and being shown as a two-faced liar while running for office.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

So because ‘every one is doing it’, it is acceptable?

The problem is not so much the ‘doing’ as it is the ‘getting caught’ and being shown as a two-faced liar while running for office.

You know I think trump is dishonest so we can just stop. Trump has been caught with far more than $121 worth of dishonesty.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

25 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

You know I think trump is dishonest so we can just stop. Trump has been caught with far more than $121 worth of dishonesty.

We were discussing Warren, not Trump.

[Otis11 + 551]

17 hours ago, Boat said:

You right wingers are off the chain again. You can be a green and invest/responsibly. I want the US to supply all its energy. But no flaring, no exporting our kids oil for today’s profit and of course little refining over and above our nations consumption. No foreign country FF infrastructure over and above consumption. That means you Trump/Canada.

Quit trying to make this argument about for or against. That is so Republican 1950. Grow a little sophistication.

First, for the record, I'm not a right winger. (Not sure if you were including me on that comment or not, but thought I'd clarify)

With that settled... if it's not a problem then why sell it to her kids? If it's just responsible investing why not just leave it alone and keep it?

[Boat + 1,323]

11 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Talk about either or. You're the one making false equivalences here.

To properly frame the topic, imagine a "red" politician in Texas railing against wind, claiming it was destroying the environment, killing birds etc. While personally profiting from wind farms! That's what Fauxahontas is doing

Apparently you don’t know Texas politics. Radio shock jocks in particular. Railing against wind and solar is normal. Just like the hate for illegal immigrants while they build their homes and mow their yards. Look, Republicans don’t own hypocrisy, I just pick on them for fun to have a little more balance.

[Boat + 1,323]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Are you running for the highest political office? There is a significant difference between you, a private citizen, having an opinion, and a presidential candidate lying to the people during her campaign.

Most people are not concerned with your character, but are very concerned about her’s.

This is so ‘common sense’ 2020. Grow another brain cell!

Ending fracking like Warren wants to is silly and let’s face it, she is almost as whacko as Trump reviving coal. But your right, neither of those politicians deserve office.

[PE Scott + 563]

31 minutes ago, Otis11 said:

With that settled... if it's not a problem then why sell it to her kids? If it's just responsible investing why not just leave it alone and keep it?

Objectively, I had the same thought. Or, sit on the mineral rights and protest any type of compulsory pooling in order to "keep it in the ground" as she suggested.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

42 minutes ago, Boat said:

Ending fracking like Warren wants to is silly and let’s face it, she is almost as whacko as Trump reviving coal. But your right, neither of those politicians deserve office.

Trump ‘deserved’ the office as enough people elected him to it. You are entitled to your opinion, and your vote, but those did not change the reality.

[J.mo + 165]

3 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Trump ‘deserved’ the office as enough people elected him to it. You are entitled to your opinion, and your vote, but those did not change the reality.

I truly think people have forgotten how that works. 

Democrats also think you can be a boy and a girl at the same time and physical testing is sexist. However if there is no such thing as gender then how shall the term sexist be used? 

Idk man. These people confuse me. 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/health/california-gavin-newsom-moves-pause-student-fitness-tests-citing-bullying-concerns.amp

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

7 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

7 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

You know I think trump is dishonest so we can just stop. Trump has been caught with far more than $121 worth of dishonesty.

We were discussing Warren, not Trump.

classic whataboutism!

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

On 2/5/2020 at 6:21 AM, PE Scott said:

Objectively, I had the same thought. Or, sit on the mineral rights and protest any type of compulsory pooling in order to "keep it in the ground" as she suggested.

I like that people here want politicians to walk the talk. I assume you demand the same of the politicians you support. If so, I am 100 % in agreement. If not I call hypocrite.