Posts
Palin said last night, "Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all." The Obama camp notes that Palin said once before that we can drill our way out of the current mess. "Asked by Invester’s Business Daily "Some politicians and presidential candidates say we can't drill our way out of our energy problem and that drilling in ANWR will have no effect. What's your best guess of the impact on prices?" Palin responded, "I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices. Energy being a global market, it's impossible to venture a guess on (specific) prices." [Investor’s Business Daily, 7/11/08]" To give you an idea of how weak this opposition research is, that is the lead point. Actually, I am pretty sure she pushed alternatives and we know she is responsible for a natural gas pipeline. Regardless, while this may be a got’cha, the bottom line is anyone who believes we are not courting disaster by failing to start exploiting all of our resources and doing so now, in addition to pushing alternatives, is either grossly misguided or moves in the same circles as the leftist elite. The cost of energy goes directly to the economic health of Middle America, and while $4 a gallon for gas is fine by Obama, it is putting the absolute screws to the majority of Americans. If the left wants to make that their lead, let's have at it. What's gone unmentioned is that the Palin signed into law a dramatic reform of the state's education financing system that equalizes aid to rural and urban districts, while significantly increasing funding for special needs students. From the publication Education Week: Gov. Sarah Palin and state lawmakers have gone ahead with an overhaul of Alaska’s school funding system that supporters predict will provide much-needed financial help to rural schools and those serving students with disabilities. So the Netroots and CNN allege that Palin cut special needs funding by 62 percent, by crediting her with the budget proposed by a political opponent. And the truth is that rather than a 62 percent cut, she's actually increasing special needs funding by 175 percent. If this opposition research and the talking points are looking a bit thin, wait, it gets thinner. Sierra Club Director Carl Pope Said "No One is Closer to the Oil Industry Than Governor Palin." "No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in comments reflecting the views of a cross section of environmental activists. They cite her eagerness to embrace expanded offshore oil development, her lawsuit against further protection of polar bears so as not to hinder oil drilling in Alaska's ice-filled waters and her ardent support to allow oil companies into the Alaska wildlife refuge. [Associated Press, August 30, 2008] . . . Well, there you go. If the Sierra Club Director says it, that’s good enough for an Obama talking point.
In response to Sarah Palin's speech last night, the Obama camp has downloaded its opposition research, which is vastly more spin than substance. Indeed, some of the attacks on Palin are ridiculous - from an alleged flip flop on her positions on energy to a claim that she has taken money from babies and cripples. If this is the best they've got, there is trouble in the left's utopian world.
You can find the entire list here. Its lengthy and a lot of it is spinning out of control. For example:
Another attack is to claim Gov. Palin kicks babies and steals crutches from Tiny Tim. The Obama Camp give a laundry list of funding for "crucial education, health care and senior" programs that Gov. Palin "opposed." The reality is that all the things that they list were on the budget of the outgoing Governor. Yes, she tossed that. The Weekly Standard tells the whole story:
The plan, enacted in the recently concluded session of the legislature, is based on recommendations issued by a legislative task force last year. It will phase in a greater flow of money to districts outside of Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city, over the next five years.
Advocates for rural and remote schools have lobbied for years for more funding, in particular noting the higher fuel, transportation, and other costs associated with providing education in communities scattered across the vast state.
A second part of the measure raises spending for students with special needs to $73,840 in fiscal 2011, from the current $26,900 per student in fiscal 2008, according to the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (emphasis added).
One of the major acts that Mayor Palin undertook in Wasilla was to propose the building of a $14 million sports center to be funded through a half percent sales tax increase. The ultimate decision makers on this were the citizens themselves in the penultimate form of democracy - a referendum. Yet the Obama Camp would have you believe that because the people of Wasilla decided that this would be a good idea, this amounts to Mayor Palin being a hypocrite on taxes and spending. As they write it, she massively increased the long term debt of the town and imposed a draconian tax increase.
Other swipes get even more remote. One of her appointees had, five years previously, been a lobbyist. At times, she had rubbed elbows with some of the same Alaska Republicans she later attacked. One Republican wished her ethics reform bill had been stronger. She actually reached across the aisle to get that passed. And of course troopergate gets mentioned prominently – without any of the context explained.
I do not have enough information to evaluate some of their charges – that she in fact has asked for quite a bit of pork as a Mayor. I do note the curious wording of the charge that Alaska has been seeking pork while she is the Governor. No kidding. Gov. Palin has no input into what Alaska’s Congressional delegation, the worst porkers in Congress, ask for on behalf of Alaska.
The last real laugher that I’ll include here is a charge that "Palin is Close to the Oil Industry." Now, as Governor, Sarah Palin is famous for tearing up the sweetheart deals that the oil industry had negotiated with the corrupt Republicans she had bounced from office. So one wonders how the Obama Camp can possibly justify this accusation:
I think the left is in trouble. In the absence of substance, they are obviously aiming to baffle us with bull patties about Sarah Palin from now til November. They have 90% of the media waiting to assist. We will see the outcome.
Showing posts with label ANWR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ANWR. Show all posts
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Opposition Research
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Palin On Drilling, Energy, Alternative Energy & A Biden Vote To Kill The Alaska Pipeline
I am not sure when this CNBC interview occurred - from the sounds of it a few weeks ago. In it, Gov. Palin discusses our nation's energy needs, the need for drilling, and the attempt by Congress 30 years ago to kill the Alaskan oil pipeline - and she specifically mentions Biden on this. She also talks about how dangerously unrealistic are those who believe we can forego the exploitation of our own resources for a green utopia today.
We've gotten billions of barrels of oil from Alaska and this pipeline over the years - and it has occurred with no adverse effects to the environment - well, discounting a drunk Captian on the Exon Valdez. Thanfully, Sen. Biden's vote did not carry the day thirty years ago or we would be in even more dire trouble today.
(H/T Stop the ACLU)
Monday, August 18, 2008
Bipartisan Support For The Pickens Plan
I blogged three weeks ago on Democrats and the Pickens Plan - a plan that includes everything from offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR to exploiting oil shale and natural gas. Its a kitchen sink plan with all of the above being in addition to pursuing development of alternative energy - something the left apparently hasn't yet grasped from their endorsements above. Unfortunately, all of the video was from Red Lasso which has now been shut down by law suits from the MSM. This you tube video from the Republicans via Hot Air makes the points just as well.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Gang Of Ten & The Road To Energy Hell
The Gang of Ten are a group of five Democrat and five Republican Senators who have come together around a plan for energy in America. They are obviously well intentioned. They are equally as obviously very misguided.
When evaluating energy plans within America today, there are certain criteria we can all look for at this point:
1. Does it open up the coast of the U.S. to exploration and exploitation? There are an estimated 115,000,000,000 barrels of oil on the OCS off both coasts.
2. Does it open up ANWR? There are an estimated 10,000,000,000 barrels of oil in ANWR.
3. Does it open up oil shale to exploration and exploitation? Our potential oil shale reserves dwarf the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It is estimated that we have between 800,000,000,000 – 2,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil tied up in domestic oil shale.
4. Does it allow us to exploit our natural gas reserves and to use these reserves appropriately. Our natural gas reserves are incredibly vast, with the two problems being the inability to exploit them within the continental U.S. and the inability to use them easily as a substitute for oil and gas.
5. Does it address the insane regulatory environment that, by allowing private law suits brought before hand-picked judges, adds years and millions to hundreds of millions to the cost of exploiting our resources.
6. Does it provide a strategy and plan for the development of alternative fuels via both funding for R&D and competitions? Dircected research is great, but I am so bitten by biased and politicized science at this point that I wonder if simple competitions aren't a better way to go.
7. Does the plan stop the subsidies for ethanol and end this insane push towards using arable land for the production of fuel rather than food? We have self-created a food crisis throughout the world by diverting food to fuel. Costs of food are skyrocketing and jungles are being deforested to set up Palm Oil plantations. Government subsidies and mandates for bio-fuel needs to end.
With the above in mind, Sen. Bob Corker and the "gang of 10" senators are pursuing a bipartisan comprimise that looks more like a road to hell paved with good intentions than a road that will lead to a reasonable energy posture for the U.S.
An outline of his plan from his official website is here. It provides for limited oil leasing off a portion of several states. It does not open up ANWR. It does not provide for oil shale exploration and development. It does nothing to alleviate the insane regulatory environment.
The plan does push for more nuclear development, but seems to address the economic side from the standpoint of subsidies, not reducing costs by reviewing the regulatory burden that has kept new plants from being built for the past several decades. According to recent estimates discussed in the WSJ, the cost of new nuclear plants may now be such as to make them cost prohibitive. Nuclear energy that, because of start up costs, produces energy at two to three times more per killowat hour than an oil or coal plant produces energy is not going to be viable.
The plan pushes for "flex fuel" vehicles, but someone needs to define "flex fuel" for me. If Sen. Corker has ethanol in mind - or any other biofuel that is going to take arable land out of the food production cycle - it is completely insane.
I do not know T. Boone Pickens plan for wind energy is viable, as I discuss in detail here. But the Pickens plan for exploitation and use of our natural gas resouces sounds promising indeed, including for use in place of gas as vehicle fuel. If this is part of Sen. Corker's definition of "flex fuel," then perhaps that portion of the bi-partisan plan at least makes some sense. If not, then no. Emphatically no.
Sen. Corker apparently called Instapundint and claimed that the new bill will open up the entire coast line to seismic exploration. That is not apparent from the plan description in the link from Sen. Corker's site. Regardless, allowing exploration is not enough and shouldn't even be on the table. We've explored ANWR, yet the billions of barrels of oil there still sit in the ground. Allowing exploration only is like saying to a starving person that they can go ahead and smell the food, just don't eat. Any viable plan must allow for exploration and exploitation, period.
This attempt at compromise apprears very weak indeed. As the old expression goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The collary to that is that the side of the road is apparently littered with useful idiots.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Part III: Why Exploit Our Domestic Oil Resources
Oil Shale – 800,000,000,000 – 2,000,000,000,000 barrels of oil How fast any of these assets could be brought on line is an issue. In some places, such as off the coast of California where drilling was halted three decades ago but some of the rigging is still in place, I have seen an estimate of one year though I can’t find the link now. As to ANWR, given that the drilling site has already been fully explored, most estimates show production becoming available in one to three years from start of drilling. The estimates of yield are 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day. As to the others, there still has to be exploration and ten years is probably a reasonable estimate. All of this assumes that drilling, even if approved, is not sidetracked by over-regulation and by private lawsuits brought under the EPA and ESA - all of which is discussed in Part II, above. Explanation: Methodology: Retail gasoline prices are the result of literally hundreds of factors including crude oil supply, global demand, refinery capacity, regulation, taxes, weather, the value of the dollar, etc. Therefore it is impossible to say with certainty what one individual action will do to the overall price. However, based on what we know about the impact of crude oil supply and prices it is possible to develop some potential ranges of impact on gasoline prices for certain policy changes. For example, using the methodology employed by Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats that suspending shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (between 40-77,000 barrels of oil a day) would reduce gas prices by at least 5 cents, bringing ANWR online (at least one million barrels of oil a day) could impact gasoline prices by between 70 cents and $1.60. On the Democratic side, there are two sets of figures to look at. The first comes from Charles Schumer. On the floor of the Senate, he stated a month ago that an increase in world supply of 1,000,000 barrels per day would immediately drop the price of oil by fifty cents. That was part of his call to somehow force Saudi Arabia to begin pumping an extra million barrels of oil per day. The second set of figures also comes from Senator Shumer. Apparently it is only if that oil is produced in Saudi Arabia would it impact the price of gas under the well worn rules of supply and demand. A million barrels of additional production from domestic sources would, according to Senator Schumer and essentially all of his Democratic colleagues, have nominal, if any impact on gas prices.
How does $300 a barrel oil in a decade strike you? That is the prediction of T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire octogenarian oil man, unless things change. His prior prognostications on the oil market have proven accurate over the years.
It does not take a PhD in economics to recognize that supply and demand is at the heart of the rising cost of oil – although if you wish to rely on an economist Thomas Sowell would be a good one to consult. [As an aside, the exchange rate of the dollar adds between 15% to 20% to the cost of a barrel of oil today over the exchange rate in 2000, but that is beyond the scope of this post.]. Because supply has stagnated while demand has risen, we are getting hit from two sides. One, the base price of oil is going to continuously rise with rising demand. Further, demand looks to trend ever upward for the forseeable future. Two, because the market is tight with demand at or exceeding supply, it will remain volatile, subject to high fluctuations, if there is any significant threat to supply, whether it be a threat from God, Gaia or man.
__________________________________________________________
Note: This is the third in a series of posts looking at our energy alternatives.
Part I – The Economics of Alternative Energy - an examination of the viability and cost effectiveness of wind, solar, geo-thermal, bio-mass, bio-fuel, and nuclear.
Part II - Oil & The Hostile Domestic Regulatory Environment - a look at the regulatory scheme put in place since 1970 that prohibits or otherwise limits our ability to exploit our domestic oil and natural gas.
As to demand, it has exploded. The rise in demand has varied from country to country, but worldwide it increased 15% in the 1990’s and has already increased 10% from 2000 to 2005. Much of that comes from China which is now importing about 4 million barrels of oil per day. That is 60% of its oil supplies and over four times the oil it was importing just 8 years ago. India’s figures, though lower, are growing at a similar percentage rate. And these economies are just starting to expand. World wide demand is going to grow.
Supply was able to roughly match demand through 2004. World oil production stagnated in 2005 and has not kept pace with this explosion in demand since. Thus, we get what some cynically call the Pelosi premium as markets adjusted post-2005 to the new supply and demand equation:
(From Freep via Gateway Pundit)
New sources of oil need to be found, but as the major oil fields play out, these are expected to be more expensive to exploit. That said, they do exist to be exploited, particularly in the U.S. where we are sitting on possibly trillions of barrels of reserves between ANWR, coastal sites and oil shale.
So what is our supply and what effect would that have on demand and the price of gas at the pump?
Estimates of recoverable oil from our domestic resources currently off-limits to exploration or drilling include the following:
Continental Shelf (East & West Coast) – 115,000,000,000 barrels of oil
ANWR – 10,000,000,000 barrels of oil
What would this increase in supply mean to oil and gas prices?
Using Republican figures, this would at least bring the cost of gas down to about $2.00 per gallon. Here was the basis for their assessment.
Here is the explanation of the above chart from Congressman Roy Blunt:
Someone is being less than honest with America. And given that two thirds of voters now favor expanded domestic drilling, I’d say the jury has reached a verdict on who is telling the truth.
Eventually, and the sooner the better, we need to move off of oil. The writing is on the wall, and unlike the 70’s and 80’s when the impetus to find cost effective alternative energy was overcome by the Saudis flooding the markets with cheap oil, I can’t see this one going away. The Saudis are producing near capacity already and demand is going to continue to rise. Even fully exploiting our own resources is only going to buy us time to develop alternatives. But, as I explained in detail in Part I linked above, alternative energy simply is not yet developed to the point that they can be substituted for oil and gas. Thus, not exploiting our oil resources in the absence of viable and cost effective alternatives is a recipe for economic disaster. While Obama may welcome high gas prices, Middle America is just beginning to suffer and our economic figures will eventually begin to show the pain.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Amateur Hour
Just for fun, I did the math. Properly inflating your tires can improve gas mileage by 3%. Of course, many people already keep their tires properly inflated, and many more are at least close to being properly inflated. Let's be generous and assume that one-half of the total possible savings would be realized if we all inflated our tires properly; that's a net gain of 1.5% fuel efficiency. You actually have to break into exponential notation to show the mathmatical relationship between the oil to be had from drilling our own resources and the pittance to be saved from tire inflation. This really is amateur hour.
We better hope this man is not as totally clueless as he appears when speaking extemporaneously.
_______________________________________________________
Obama cannot seriously believe what he is saying here. Even the crowd of Obama supporters, whose silence is defeaning, seem to understand that what Obama is saying does not pass the laugh test. Given that the latest CNN poll shows over two thirds of all Americans support offshore drilling and the exploitation of our own resource, it would seem there were a few of that two thirds in the audience.
This from Powerline:
Americans drive approximately 2,880 billion miles per year. If we average 24 mpg, we use around 120 billion gallons of gasoline in our vehicles. If, through perfect tire inflation, we improved our collective fuel efficiency by 1.5%, that would be 1.8 billion gallons. A barrel of oil produces around 20 gallons of gasoline, so the total savings available through tire inflation is approximately 90,000,000 barrels of oil annually.
How does this stack up against "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling?"
ANWR: 10,000,000,000 barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18,000,000,000 barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1,000,000,000,000 barrels . . .
The press will have a field day with this tomorrow. There is no way they can try to cover-up a gaffe of this magnitude on this important of an issue. So you know the press corps are sharpening their quills now. Just hold your breath and wait for it . . .
Monday, June 30, 2008
Interesting Posts From Around The Web - 1 July 2008
Slapstick Politics hosts a guest blogger who was particularly impressed by the precision of Scalia’s opinion in Heller. It is well worth a read to savor the taste of the seminal originalist opinion of our time. Iraq, Afghanistan, War & the Military Thunder Run has a superb roll-up from mil-blogs and other war related news. Oil & Economics From Markedmanner, oil hit another all-time high today. Supply is so tight that any problem with any large producer causes a big jump in the futures contracts. That combined with the weak dollar is causing tremendous problems. Obama Discriminations post on former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger who compares Obama’s pre-emptive race bomb with the tactics he observed from Joe McCarthy. Socialism Down under at a Western Heart, a good essay that takes a stab at defining the various classes of socialists and the left. Republicans Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion questions the efficacy of donating to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Their strategy is apparently to hide their affiliation and run against McCain. Who dreamed up this strategy, Howard Dean? Global Warming Aurora reports from down under that Kevin Rudd is preparing to tank Australia’s economy in the name of global warming. Read the post. It sounds quite dire. UK & Europe Blue Crab Boulevard blogs on political correctness gone absolutely stark raving bonkers in Sweden. Israel Soccer Dad has an exceptional post on the proposed deal to trade Samir Kuntar to Hezbollah for the remains of two dead Israeli soldiers. Angel at Woman, Honor Thy Self believes PM Olmert is foolish to make a trade of a terrorist who murdered a child for the remains of two Israeli soldiers. Solomnia is troubled by the same issue. Islam Ironic Surrealism has a chilling highlight reel from the film "Suicide Killers", by Pierre Rehov – a documentary at the culture, ideology and tactics that go into the making of Islamist suicide bombers. History A great post with lots of links of Pre-WWII Americana and more at the Irish Elk. Entertainment Under the Hill has a movie review of Wall-E. They love it. Humor Lot’s of oil. No Caribou. Looks like a great place for exploratory drilling – from Power and Control.
The most interesting posts from around the web, all below the fold . . .
__________________________________________________________
Art: The Declaration of Independence, John Trumbull
Second Amendment
As Transterrestrial Musings points out, a lot of people who support a robust Second Amendment right will pulling the lever for McCain in November. The reason – as I also pointed out here - an Obama presidency will likely see the Heller decision rendered a nullity. Power and Control thinks likewise.
Meryl Yourish is exercising her Second Amendment rights after the Heller decision.
Soob blogs on the thought process of gun control advocates, as demonstrated in the Fox News panel Sunday morning. Meanwhile, the Educated Shoprat blogs a case study in the practical benefits of a robust Second Amendment.
Carl at No Oil For Pacifists has a great post on the whining and lamentations of the left in the wake of the Heller opinion. The whine that really gets me comes from those who claim the 1939 Miller case was precedent for holding that the Second Amendment did not grant an individual right. The only people who can possibly spout such nonsense and believe it are people who have never read the case and have no understanding of the law.
In the UK, from whom we inherited the Second Amendment right, the Adam Smith organization ponders the erosion of their own rights.
Bizzyblog wonders how the media will spin the lowest two month death total for U.S. forces in Iraq from all causes since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Seven years after 9-11, the war on terror has been a great success on all major fronts. Four Right Wing Whackos have the new Dem line: "Success against the Taleban. Enemy giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!"
A great quote from John Adams posted at Power and Control.
A very good post from Callimachus giving his thoughts on the reality of war, total war, and the costs of finding war too brutal to fight to win.
On Jan. 5, Lance Cpl. Robert Crutchfield, home on leave, was shot in front of his girlfriend during a mugging and later died. Red Alerts is following the story and posts that the two thugs who committed this crime will face the death penalty.
From This Ain’t Hell, Dems latest attempts to tie the explosion in oil prices to some highly nebulous Bush big oil agenda. It does not seem to be working. Kollarow is blogging on polls showing the vast majority of Americans favor drill for oil offshore and in ANWR. Even 40% of Democrats are starting to think that a rig or two in ANWR is sounding pretty good. From Pam Meister, Drill Here, Drill Now. Freedom Now ponders our oil woes and Democratic obstructionism – not only at home, it seems, but abroad also.
Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion has a great blog addressing the canard repeated ad infinitum concerning there is no need to lift the moratorium on ANWR, offshore drilling or the exploration of oil shale when "Big Oil needs to drill in the 68 million acres they already have leased."
Eye on the World posts that Obama tosses Wessley Clark under the bus after Clark’s unconscionable comments on McCain’s service to our country yesterday. Clark is pure ambition unsaddled with ethics.
Comments Confederate Yankee, the saddest thing about Obama’s military experience is that "the only person he knows with the experience of getting a bomb on target is Bill Ayers."
Jammie Wearing Fool notes the new Democratic talking point: "so McCain was tortured, big deal." These people have a deficit of class matched by their deficit of sense. Gay Patriot also weighs in, and then notes "The more attacks I see from the left the more convinced I become that theirs is a party of hate." In truth, the default position for an increasing majority on the left is not to argue issues, but to demonize those whom they do not agree with. I think "party of hate" only scratches the surface.
Obama supports equal pay for women, just not in his campaign staff – per the Jawa Report.
Vocal Minority posts on Larry Elder, a black conservative, who responded to a query from a fellow African American. Elder explains in detail why he is supporting McCain over Obama. It makes for a good read.
Joshua Pundit posts on Iraq’s decision to sue the UN over the oil for food program – and there is an Obama connection.
Are Obama trolls gaming Google to get anti-Obama blogs shut down? It appears that way. The Irate Nation has the story. The Anchoress also blogs this, along with other stories.
See the Samizdata quote of the day, and then this on the triumph of collectivism in the U.S. and Europe.
I concur with Stop the ACLU that unions are no longer of benefit to our nation. The benefits unions provided to America ended long ago when the worst of employer abuses likewise ended. And with that thought in mind, please note that full and accurate information is the very coin of democracy – and literally so when it concerns the taxpayers coin. Apparently, unions in Washington do not see it that way.
Insanity in the UK posted by Dhimmiwatch. The UK is about to deport a Pakistani family that converted to Christianity even though they face a threat of death for that in their home country. This as the UK hosts a rogues gallery of the world’s worst terrorists that they cannot deport for precisely the same reason. Meanwhile, Shield of Achilles blogs on another honor killing of a young girl in the UK.
In the Netherlands, charges dropped by prosecutors against Geert Wilders for insulting Islam. Dinah Lord posts that the decision included the finding that the legislator's comments were part of a legitimate debate. That debate does not extend to the utterly ludicrous UN Human Rights Council which will now, per Europe News, entertain no discussion of Islam. Anyone who does not realize that this is an existential conflict isn’t paying attention.
Seraphic Secret has an articulate and chilling post on "jew hating savages of Paris" and wherein he makes the point that "Jews are the canaries in the coal mine of civilization."
Political InSecurity posts that MI-5 is warning that al Qaeda is planning suicide attacks in the UK using NHS ambulances.
From LGF - According to the study "Imams in Germany," up to 20 percent of preachers belong to the more conservative, fundamentalist strand of Islam. The study also discovered that only one fifth of imam’s possess academic qualifications."
IslamistWatch posts that surgical hymen restoration – i.e., to present as a virgin – are the rage in Europe among Muslim women. And it is on the welfare dime in the UK and Denmark because the women face threats of violence if they are not virgins when married.
Islam In Europe posts a comprehensive round-up of Islamist related news occurring in Europe.
RightTruth posts on a fascinating book by John Press, Culturalism. It poses the opposite of the insane doctrine of multiculturalism. "Culturism holds that majority cultures have a right to define, protect and promote themselves. By that light, preventing the building of mega-mosques is a reasonable culturist policy. Multiculturalism holds that all cultures are the same and that Britain has no core culture. That is obvious rubbish. Then they use the word racism to slander anyone who does not agree. Culturism is a word that can combat the abuse of Western nations with the words multiculturalism and racism." You could also call it common sense.
Dutchblog Israel posts on the slow diminution of democracy as violence by Islamists comes to be seen as a justifiable method of political expression.
To call what is going on in the UK a decline in academic standards at the hands of the socialist Labour government is a grotesque understatement. MK has the story.
Dave in Boca has a fascinating post with a lot of personal insights on the al Dura affair and the circle the wagons irrespective of the facts approach being taken by the French media to protect a reporter who should be jailed for life for the bloodshed he has caused.
And see Shrinkwrapped’s exceptional essay on the al Dura affair and its reverberations. "The parallels between the Al-Dura blood libel and the Haditha slander suggest that the American elites are coming to closely resemble the Israeli elites in their ready acceptance of guilt and their aesthenic reactions to accusations of evil intent and atrocity against those who protect us."
A new Holocaust – only this one aimed at Christians in Muslim lands. Persevere has the story and links. DhimmiWatch has the story of the religiously motivated kidnapping and torture of Coptic Christians and Churches in Egypt. Christians Under Attack has the story of state discrimination against Christians in a province in Indonesia and attacks against converted Christians in Iran as the state ponders whether to start executing converts again.
Verum Serum reports on a Saudi marriage officiant who says that there is no minimum age for marriage – you can marry as young as one year old - though the groom should wait a few years before sexual intercourse. The Dhivehistan, a Maldives blog, posts on two pre-pubescent child brides in Yemen who have run away and both filed for divorce. In fairness to Yemen, this is a major story who many in the country are hoping will lead to a reexamination of the practice. The problem is that the Koran records the 50+ year old prophet taking a 6 year old bride and then having sex with her when she was 9.
At the Whited Sepulchre, a memo from a Jihadist Safety Consultant. It is hilarious.
From FireBase America, the Italians are fighting back. Compare that with a day in the life of a French Police Officer at the Covenant Zone.
Sake White has posted on the Islamic slave trade – a trade which has lasted over 14 centuries and, in some areas, continues today.
From Gates of Vienna: "Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun."
The Truth posts on the decision of the Canadian HRC to dismiss charges against Mark Steyn and Muslim unhappiness therewith.
The American Jingoist blogs on the shaky legal ground on which stands the Virginia Islamic Academy.
Elder of Ziyon posts on some real tin foil hat level paranoia – this time of the Persian variety.
Politics & Pigskins salutes the passing of George Carlin. At Blogs of War, Carlin doing his 7 Words You Can’t Say On Television routine.
D.C. Comics has revived Catwoman – with a spin. She is now a lesbian. Deansworld comments on the likelihood of success of this new marketing ploy.
Heh – KG has the New Zealand Navy.
The good folk at Vast Right Wing Conspiracy have felt the muse and been moved by Obama to write new lyrics for an old song, Hey, Hey, Hey, Another One Under The Bus . . .
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
McCain Finally Hitting The Nails On The Head On Energy Policy & Market Distortion
The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies not just of the current Administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America. So in the days ahead I plan to return to the subject in a series of discussions to explain my reform agenda. And I will set forth a strategy to free America once and for all from our strategic dependence on foreign oil. Read the entire speech. It is one of the best McCain has given. And he needs to repeat these points ad infinitum - particularly given that we have far too many Americans whose only education in economics seems from the polls to have come solely from the disingenuous populism and discredited marxism of the left. And it was good to see the President Bush stepping up to the plate and backing McCain, calling for Congress to end the moratorium. Obama, who has been hammering McCain and the Republicans on the economy, said his White House opponent's support of the moratorium in 2000 was "certainly laudable." Read the entire article.
McCain is doing much of what he needs to do on energy. He is calling for the building of new nuclear reactors, pumping billions into clean coal research, and for lifting the ban on drilling off the U.S. coasts. For this, he is being attacked for flip-flopping.
_________________________________________________________
John McCain has made major speeches over the past two days addressing our energy woes. The Houston speech was an abosoutely exceptional. It struck just the right notes and it educated. I particularly liked his remarks on market distortion - an area in which government has a central responsibility to police in a capitalist economy. Here are the highlights:
Energy policy has enormous implications for America's economic security, our environmental security, and, above all, our national security. . . .
When demand exceeds supply, prices always rise, and this has happened very dramatically in the demand for oil. Two powerful forces in the oil market today are China and India, nations in which a third of humanity is suddenly entering the industrial era -- with all the cars, construction, and consumption of oil that involves.
There is the further problem of speculation on the oil futures market, which in many cases has nothing to do with the actual sale, purchase, or delivery of oil. When crude oil became a futures-traded commodity in the 1980's, the idea was to afford a measure of protection against the historic volatility of oil pricing. It takes several weeks to ship oil from the Arabian Peninsula to the offshore port of Louisiana. And for the buyers, it helps to know that the price will not suddenly fall while the oil is in transit. A futures contract assures importers that they can sell the oil at a profit.
That's the theory, anyway. But we all know that some people on Wall Street are not above gaming the system. When you have enough speculators betting on the rising price of oil, that itself can cause oil prices to keep on rising. And while a few reckless speculators are counting their paper profits, most Americans are coming up on the short end -- using more and more of their hard-earned paychecks to buy gas for the truck, tractor, or family car.
Investigation is underway to root out this kind of reckless wagering, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. Where we find such abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. And to make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments. In all of these markets, reform must assure transparency, prevent abuse, and protect the public interest.
. . . At the time of OPEC's oil embargo, we imported roughly a third of our oil. Now we import two thirds. At that time, every day, we produced more than nine million barrels of oil domestically. Now America produces five million barrels a day. Five million barrels sounds like a lot until we compare the number with the oil we use, which comes to 20 million barrels, or a quarter of all the oil used every day across the earth.
Of that total, a little more than half comes from Canada, from Mexico, and from our own domestic production. That's a heavy reliance on these two nations. But there is a world of difference between relying on two democratic neighbors and partners in NAFTA, and relying on often hostile and undemocratic regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. When critics of trade talk about unilaterally renegotiating NAFTA, as my opponent has done, that's one more concern they might want to keep in mind.
. . . In oil, gas, and coal deposits, we have enormous energy reserves of our own. And we are gaining the means to use these resources in cleaner, more responsible ways. As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston. Yet for reasons that become less convincing with every rise in the price of foreign oil, the federal government discourages offshore production.
At the very least, one might assume, America had surely been building new refineries to achieve a more efficient delivery of gasoline to market, and thereby to lower the prices paid by the American people -- especially in the summer season. But the policymakers in Washington haven't got around to that, either. There's so much regulation of the industry that the last American refinery was built when Jerry Ford was president.
As for nuclear energy -- a proven energy source that requires zero emissions -- we haven't built a new reactor in 31 years. In Europe and elsewhere, they have been expanding their use of nuclear energy. But we've waited so long that we've lost our domestic capability to even build these power plants. Nuclear power is among the surest ways to gain a clean, abundant, and stable energy supply, . . .
Quite rightly, I believe, we confer a special status on some areas of our country that are best left undisturbed. When America set aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we called it a "refuge" for a reason.
But the stakes are high for our citizens and for our economy. And with gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. And I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.
We can do this in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection. And in states that choose to permit exploration, there must be an appropriate sharing of benefits between federal and state governments. But as a matter of fairness to the American people, and a matter of duty for our government, we must deal with the here and now, and assure affordable fuel for America by increasing domestic production.
We should set the highest goals for ourselves for the years and decades to come, and I am a believer in the technologies that one day will free us from oil entirely. But to get there at all, a more pragmatic approach will serve us better. In the short term, we must take the world as it is and our resources where they are -- even as we press on with new and cleaner sources of energy. We must be bold in our plans to break our strategic dependence on oil, and over the next two weeks, I'll be offering a vision that will be bold. But we must also address the concerns of Americans, who are struggling right now to pay for gasoline, groceries, and other necessities of life.
What is certain in energy policy is that we have learned a few clear lessons along the way. Somehow all of them seem to have escaped my opponent. He says that high oil prices are not the problem, but only that they rose too quickly. He's doesn't support new domestic production. He doesn't support new nuclear plants. He doesn't support more traditional use of coal, either.
So what does Senator Obama support in energy policy? Well, for starters he supported the energy bill of 2005 -- a grab-bag of corporate favors that I opposed. And now he supports new taxes on energy producers. He wants a windfall profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas. If the plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Jimmy Carter's big idea too -- and a lot of good it did us. Now as then, all a windfall profits tax will accomplish is to increase our dependence on foreign oil, and hinder exactly the kind of domestic exploration and production we need. I'm all for recycling -- but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970's.
Oddly enough, though, Senator Obama doesn't want to lower the gas taxes paid by consumers, which would be the most direct and obvious way to give Americans a break at the gas station. Even in tough times for our economy, when folks are struggling to pay for gas and groceries, tax relief just isn't change he can believe in.
Along with the harm that America's dependence on foreign oil has inflicted on our economy, there remain other costs that are even greater and harder to count. The massive wealth we have spent over the years on foreign oil is not flowing to the most upstanding citizens of the world. When trillions of dollars are transferred to other nations in exchange for oil, the consequences are serious and pervasive. But they can be understood in three simple ways.
The first takes the form of a current accounts deficit that has drained vast sums out of the American economy. We are borrowing from foreign lenders to buy oil from foreign producers. In the world's capital markets, often we are even borrowing Saudi money for Saudi oil. For them, the happy result is that they are both supplier and creditor to the most productive economy on earth. For us, the result is both dependency and debt. Over time, in interest payments, we lose trillions of dollars that could have been better invested in American enterprises. And we lose value in the dollar itself, as our debt portfolio undermines confidence in the American economy.
As bad as all that is, the second consequence is worse by far. Oil revenues are enriching the enemies of the United States, and potentially limiting our own options in containing the threat they present. Iran alone receives more than 66 billion dollars a year from oil sales, even as that regime finances terrorists, threatens Israel, and endangers the peace of the world with its designs on nuclear weapons. Moreover, by relying upon oil from the Middle East, we not only provide wealth to the sponsors of terror -- we provide high-value targets to the terrorists themselves. Across the world are pipelines, refineries, transit routes, and terminals for the oil we rely on -- and Al Qaeda terrorists know where they are. Osama bin Laden has been quite explicit in directing terrorists to attack the oil facilities on which so much of America's economy depends. They have come close more than once. And we are one successful attack away from an economic crisis of monumental proportions.
Even if our economy were somehow immune to this threat, the vast wealth we shift to the Middle East, Venezuela, Angola, and elsewhere would still have a third harmful and perverse effect. It would continue to enrich undemocratic, unjust, and often corrupt regimes. Some of the most oil-rich nations are also the most stagnant societies on earth. And among the many luxuries their oil wealth affords them is the luxury of ignoring their own people. In effect, our petrodollars are underwriting tyranny, anti-Semitism, the brutal repression of women in the Middle East, and dictators and criminal syndicates in our own hemisphere.
At a speech in Missouri today, McCain called for building 45 new nuclear plants and extensive funding to make better use of our most abundant energy resource through "clean coal" research.
Democrats are in disarray on the energy issue, to put it tactfully. Gateway Pundit has a superb summation. Obama's response to McCain and his proposals was rather incredible:
"But his decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades," the Illinois senator said in a statement.
"Much like his gas tax gimmick that would leave consumers with pennies in savings, opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America only has three percent of the world's oil.
"It's another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil."
Obama is pushing for a "windfall tax" on oil companies' record profits and for federal investment of 150 billion dollars over 10 years in renewable and green energies.
McCain is finally responding to the pain Americans are feeling from the incredible rise in oil prices. That is appropriate. For that he is being attacked as a "flip flopper" since he has changed his opinions on these issues. But “as Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’”
Lord Keynes's question needs to be put to Democrats. What we are hearing from them are ideologically driven opinions that they refuse to change, regardless of any change in facts. Going from $2 a gallon gas several years ago to $4 a gallon gas today is a changed fact. Iraq of 2006 in comparison to Iraq of 2008 is a world of changed facts. Changing positions on changed facts is not flip-flopping. But what do you call Obama's refusal to acknowledge the changed facts on either our energy woes or our success in Iraq? I do not know what you call it, but I know what you wouldn't call it. Effective leadership.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Time to Fill Up The Tank With Bug Dung?
Silicon Valley is experimenting with bacteria that have been genetically altered to provide 'renewable petroleum' Read the entire article. Also from the Times was this interesting tidbit: . . . [A]t Tsukuba University in Japan, Professor Makoto Watanabe believes he has made a breakthrough in his lifelong search for a species of alga that “sweats” crude oil, a scientific leap he ambitiously imagines turning his country from a thirsty energy importer to an oil exporter. Read the entire article.
Here's a renewable fuel source to get behind - genetically modified bacteria that defecate near pump ready petrol.
________________________________________________________
This from the Times:
. . . genetic[ly] alter[ed] of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.
Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls “renewable petroleum”. After that, he grins, “it’s a brave new world”.
Mr Pal is a senior director of LS9, one of several companies in or near Silicon Valley that have spurned traditional high-tech activities such as software and networking and embarked instead on an extraordinary race to make $140-a-barrel oil (£70) from Saudi Arabia obsolete. “All of us here – everyone in this company and in this industry, are aware of the urgency,” Mr Pal says.
What is most remarkable about what they are doing is that instead of trying to reengineer the global economy – as is required, for example, for the use of hydrogen fuel – they are trying to make a product that is interchangeable with oil. The company claims that this “Oil 2.0” will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.
. . . Inside LS9’s cluttered laboratory – funded by $20 million of start-up capital from investors including Vinod Khosla, the Indian-American entrepreneur who co-founded Sun Micro-systems – Mr Pal explains that LS9’s bugs are single-cell organisms, each a fraction of a billionth the size of an ant. They start out as industrial yeast or nonpathogenic strains of E. coli, but LS9 modifies them by custom-de-signing their DNA. “Five to seven years ago, that process would have taken months and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he says. “Now it can take weeks and cost maybe $20,000.”
Because crude oil (which can be refined into other products, such as petroleum or jet fuel) is only a few molecular stages removed from the fatty acids normally excreted by yeast or E. coli during fermentation, it does not take much fiddling to get the desired result.
For fermentation to take place you need raw material, or feedstock, as it is known in the biofuels industry. Anything will do as long as it can be broken down into sugars, with the byproduct ideally burnt to produce electricity to run the plant.
The company is not interested in using corn as feedstock, given the much-publicised problems created by using food crops for fuel, such as the tortilla inflation that recently caused food riots in Mexico City. Instead, different types of agricultural waste will be used according to whatever makes sense for the local climate and economy: wheat straw in California, for example, or woodchips in the South.
Using genetically modified bugs for fermentation is essentially the same as using natural bacteria to produce ethanol, although the energy-intensive final process of distillation is virtually eliminated because the bugs excrete a substance that is almost pump-ready.
The closest that LS9 has come to mass production is a 1,000-litre fermenting machine, which looks like a large stainless-steel jar, next to a wardrobe-sized computer connected by a tangle of cables and tubes. It has not yet been plugged in. The machine produces the equivalent of one barrel a week and takes up 40 sq ft of floor space.
However, to substitute America’s weekly oil consumption of 143 million barrels, you would need a facility that covered about 205 square miles, an area roughly the size of Chicago.
That is the main problem: although LS9 can produce its bug fuel in laboratory beakers, it has no idea whether it will be able produce the same results on a nationwide or even global scale.
“Our plan is to have a demonstration-scale plant operational by 2010 and, in parallel, we’ll be working on the design and construction of a commercial-scale facility to open in 2011,” says Mr Pal, adding that if LS9 used Brazilian sugar cane as its feedstock, its fuel would probably cost about $50 a barrel.
Are Americans ready to be putting genetically modified bug excretion in their cars? “It’s not the same as with food,” Mr Pal says. “We’re putting these bacteria in a very isolated container: their entire universe is in that tank. When we’re done with them, they’re destroyed.” . . .
The professor's algae produce oil that not only yield more energy than they consume, but are vastly more efficient in generating biofuels than are corn or rapeseed.
None of this means we shouldn't start drilling in ANWR and off our coasts. But at the same time, we should be sure that projects such as these are being financed. There was a lot of interest in alternative fuels during the last major jump in oil prices - which made the Saudis step in to up production so that we would not find a methadone for their heroin, as it were. But I think they overplayed it this time, reducing production since 2005 even as demand was rising. They are, I understand, now planning to expand production on a significant scale. But if we are smart, as a nation, we will insure that projects such as these receive all the funding they need to make their products a viable and cost effective alternative once they are perfected.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
McCain, Dems, Oil & The American Economy
Oil prices made their biggest single-day surge on Friday, soaring $11 to $138.54 on the NYME. That followed a $5.50 increase the day before, taking oil futures more than 13 percent higher in just two days. The price is being driven by world supply that has stalled at production of 85 million barrels of oil a day since 2005 while demand has skyrocketed since then with the growing economies of India and China. As to supply, the U.S. is sitting on or next to the largest energy reserves in the world, yet we do not exploit them primarily because Democrats are wedded to the radical environmental lobby. It is a lobby whose overriding motivation seems to be to punish America for its consumption of energy and a lobby that sees economic development as an evil to be halted. Who can forget Barack Obama’s answer to our energy problem – to lower our standard of living until it is acceptable to some unnamed foreign cabal. Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy: ANWR Exploration - House Republicans: 91% Supported House Democrats: 86% Opposed Read the entire post. But now this on McCain from Reuters: Republican U.S. presidential candidate John McCain said on Wednesday he would support incentives to encourage states to develop potential oil fields but would not try to force them to exploit potential resources, especially in environmentally sensitive areas. Read the entire article. McCain is in la la land on this. While not mentioned above, his stand on establishing new nuclear plants is laudable. Beyond that, his emphasis on keeping areas pristine irrespective of the pain the majority of Americans are feeling shows he is as completely out of touch as the people he is running against. Not to mention that in an election year heavily favoring Democrats, that is simply ludicrous. And while I find it hard to fault McCain for his devotion to federalism on most issues, this is not one of them. States should not be the arbiters of a national energy policy. Congress has the authority to legislate this under the commerce clause and they should do so. And in the interests of not wanting to trigger a bout of Tourette’s, we won’t mention cap and trade. Someone needs to give McCain a dose of reality – and perhaps introduce him to Rep. Blunt.
John McCain's postition are better, though insufficiently so. His position on the development of nuclear plants is good. Yet his stand against drilling in ANWR is ludicrous and his position on drilling elsewhere, that he would leave it to individual decisions by states, is far too weak under the current circumstance.
_______________________________________________________
To the extent there is a silver lining in this skyrocketing of oil prices, its that Americans are in fact consuming less fuel and that demand is subsiding. According to Charles Krauthammer, Americans are driving 4% less than we used to and auto manufacturers have found their SUV’s are about as unpopular today as Bush at a KOS convention. Yet it would seem that the dark clouds far outweigh the silver lining.
The cost of energy is going to bite the U.S. economy and bite hard. As the NYT reported yesterday, businesses are largely eating the costs to the degree that they can, at the moment, but that will play itself out over time, probably sooner rather than later. And virtually everything in our economy and the world economy is effected by the price of fuel. Coupled with - and in large part contributing to - the skyrocketing cost of food, it is hard to imagine a more regressive circumstance in terms of squeezing the poor and the middle class.
Indeed, in the Krauthammer article linked above, he speaks approvingly of high oil prices and notes he has long suggested artificially raising gas prices in the U.S. through tax as a means to curb consumption. He cites approvingly to Britain, which has taxed its gasoline to insanity. But the U.S. is not Britain. Britain is a small country. The U.S. is huge and the average daily distances traveled by Americans are simply beyond the comprehension of most Brits. While $10 a gallon gas in Britain today is a major problem, in America, it would be utter disaster.
This does not have to occur. While the Democrats are busy trying to repeal the laws of supply and demand, while they are embracing unproven and cost inefficient alternative energy sources, and while China is drilling some 70 miles off the Florida coast while we cannot, the reality is that we have sufficiently vast energy resources in America to be energy independent. Just authorizing the exploration of these resources would probably tamp down the speculation that is contributing, perhaps significantly, to the cost of oil today.
Somebody desperately needs to get a handle on McCain and talk some sense into him. His positions are simply far too weak to take advantage of what should be the single winning domestic issue for Republicans in November. As Powerline pointed out the other day:
Coal-to-Liquid - House Republicans: 97% SupportedHouse Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration - House Republicans: 90% SupportedHouse Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration - House Republicans: 81% SupportedHouse Democrats: 83% Opposed
Refinery Increased Capacity - House Republicans: 97% SupportedHouse Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
"I do believe that we should drill for it," he said when discussing oil exploration at a town hall meeting in Rochester, Michigan. "But I am a federalist and I believe in the rights of states to make those decisions."
He said he believed the U.S. government could do more to encourage states to develop their resources. "I think we can offer more incentives to states like California and Florida and more of a larger share of revenues and taxes from oil they may exploit," McCain added. "But I can't tell people in California what to do with their coast."
"I can't say we must drill in the most pristine environments," he added.
. . . New offshore energy exploration is now allowed only off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, and in some Alaskan waters. A presidential order bans offshore drilling everywhere else.
That is not likely to change after the U.S. election in November. If elected, Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would likely extend the offshore moratorium, which is set to expire in June 2012.
McCain has favored a more flexible approach, giving the states more say on whether they want drilling off their shores.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers has said McCain "supports the aim of the moratorium to protect ecologically sensitive areas but believes there are some (offshore) areas that can and should be developed for their energy potential."
Senate Republicans introduced legislation recently that would attempt to boost domestic oil production by allowing governors to petition to have the moratorium on offshore drilling lifted for their states and would give states a greater share of royalties.
All three of the candidates oppose opening the spigot to the huge oil reserves that are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Alaska refuge is the main target of oil industry, which is eager to tap its possible 16 billion barrels of crude. . . .
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Schumerian Hypocrisy & A McCain Problem
Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising. Amazing. This man has yet to vote to allow one drop of oil to be pumped in America, he ignores the law of supply and demand, and he blames oil prices on a combination of greedy oil companies (who do not set the price) and a Bush administration that seeks to actually increase supply. And then he turns around and claims that forcing Saudi Arabia to increase their supply by the amount we would get from drilling in ANWR will drop oil prices significantly. This truly is hypocrisy of Schumerian proportions. ". . . One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton hadn't vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators - including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain - have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market. Read the entire article. I also ran across a great post at Astute Blogger on our self inflicted energy woes. I highly recommend it.
Senator Chuck Shumer finally figures out that the price of gas is determined by the law of supply and demand. And yet it was only a few weeks ago he was trying to repeal that law.
________________________________________________________
Several weeks ago, the President addressed what needs to happen to bring down oil prices. We need to exploit our own vast resources, as discussed in a prior post here. That includes drilling in ANWR.
Nancy Pelosi responded by stating that all Republicans want to do is "veto (a Democratic sponsored plan to sue OPEC) and drill." Well, . . . yeah. Suing OPEC has no hope of winning and, indeed, has nothing but potentially catastrophic downsides. Demand has far outpaced existing world supplies such that small blips in the market cause huge market swings.
And seemingly within minutes of the President's speech, Chuckie Shumer shows up on the news claiming that drilling in ANWR would not appreciably effect gas prices. Most estimates of ANWR production put it as becoming available in one to three years from start of drilling and pumping about 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day.
So what is Shumer's latest effort? I missed it two weeks ago, but fortunately George Will didn't:
Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately."
Unfortunately, the story does not end there. John McCain fancies himself Teddy Roosevelt reborn and is equally bound and determined to stand in the way of drilling, at least in ANWR. He does so out of the desire to protect an untouched wilderness, presumably rather than for the more socialist and punitive goals of the radical environmentalists who comprise a key special interest group of the Democratic party. But Teddy Roosevelt did not live in an age where energy is the lifeblood of the economy and where his America was potentially facing major economic hardship because rising world demand is effecting the costs of supplies the U.S. could access. Somebody needs to straighten Mr. McCain out on this one. Pristine wilderness is wonderful. Americans who are having trouble making ends meet so a caribou does not have its view of the sea obstructed by a few oil rigs is a far higher priority.
At any rate, to contine with George Will's article today:
So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline.
"Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who've voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground, and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The US Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - 10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in a year.
Drilling is under way 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than US companies are.
ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware) and drilling along its coastal plane would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles Airport.
Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There hasn't been a significant spill from an offshore US well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the last 25 years, 0.001 percent - that is one-thousandth of 1 percent - has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore - and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
. . . In September 2006, two US companies announced that their "Jack No. 2" well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress' response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
