Truth about US drilling
July 5, 2008
July 5, 2008: Today’s Townhall news story debunks the talking points against new drilling. Politicians are saying that oil companies already have leases they are not using. Here is a story that tells the truth:
When it comes to vilifying big evil corporations, the accusations made about oil companies never disappoint. The latest controversy centers on whether the government should allow more drilling for oil and natural gas on federal lands. A widely cited report (pdf) from the congressional Committee of Natural Resources gives all manner of statistics showing that oil companies aren’t using the land they already have under lease, and so don’t deserve any more favors. But a quick analysis shows that these claims are ludicrous.
According to the report,
Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%, yet gasoline prices have also risen dramatically[,]contradicting the argument that more drilling means lower gasoline prices. There is simply no correlation between the two.
The article goes on to say:
In the case of drilling, what happened is that the skyrocketing price caused oil companies to apply for more permits on the land currently permissible for development. Tracts that were unprofitable to explore at $30 per barrel became lucrative prospects at $100+. That is why the number of drilling permits skyrocketed along with the price of oil and gasoline.
What is especially ironic about the leftist refusal to believe in the law of demand—that more product can only be sold at lower prices, other things equal—is that critics of the Bush Administration had no problem with the concept when it came to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. During that debate, even members of Congress grasped the point that putting more barrels on the market tends to lower oil prices.
Read the entire article here.
Politicians are not getting it yet. You can help. Take Action Now!
Yes to Solar, but No to Drilling?
July 5, 2008
We support all forms of energy generation to help our independence. Besides the fact that it will make us stronger as a nation and take money out of the pockets of radical dictators in other countries, it will also provide jobs for our economy and help spur growth. Unfortunately, some people see it as “my way or the highway”. Take Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for example, who wants to cover our nations’ desert with solar panels, but does not support wind generation off the shore (though it wouldn’t be seen) from his family’s compound in New England, nor does he suppor the small foot print of ANWR (a place I would bet he’s never been).
The Heritage Foundation has a great article from July 2, 2008:
When companies want to drill or even just explore for valuable minerals and resources, the industry is destroying valuable American soil. On the other hand, when solar panels are proposed to cover the earth, it’s simply considered barren, worthless desert. At least that’s the logic coming from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., senior attorney for the National Resource Defense Counsel. He said on Monday on Larry King Live:
“We have the Scientific American just published a report that shows in 19 percent of the most barren desert lands in the desert Southwest, we have enough solar energy to provide all the electrical needs of our country. What we need now is a national policy that says, OK, let’s go out and get those electrons and get them into the marketplace.”
Fair enough. But shouldn’t the same rules apply to oil, uranium and other strategic mineral exploration? The science and technology used to explore and drill is done in an environmentally friendly way; and the proposed exploration area of ANWR is a perfect example of the barren land Kennedy mentioned. Take a look at some very telling pictures here.
So let me get this straight. Barren lands are good enough for solor, but not good enough for oil??? Someone explain that one to me!
Read the rest of this article here.
Compared to other liquids, gas is cheap
July 4, 2008
Everytime the price of gas goes up, this comparison is trotted out. This week on the Today Show’s fourth hour, Hoda and Kathi Lee compared other liquids to the price of gasoline. I’m pretty sure the facts came from a blog like Progue since they cited items from this list verbatim.
Think a $4 gallon of gas is expensive? Consider the prices of these other fluids that people buy every day without complaint.
- Lipton Iced Tea, 16 oz @ $1.19 = $9.52 per gallon
- Diet Snapple, 16 oz @ $1.29 = $10.32 per gallon
- Gatorade, 20 oz @ $1.59 = $10.17 per gallon
- Ocean Spray, 16 oz @ $1.25 = $10.00 per gallon
- Evian water, 9 oz @ $1.49 = $21.19 per gallon (!)
- Wite-Out, 7 oz @ $1.39 = $25.42 per gallon
- Brake fluid, 12 oz @ $3.15 = $33.60 per gallon
- Scope, 1.5 oz @ $0.99 = $84.48 per gallon
- Pepto-Bismol, 4 oz @ $3.85 = $123.20 per gallon
- Vicks NyQuil, 6 oz @ $8.35 = $178.13 per gallon
There’s only one problem with this analogy… our vehicles don’t run on White-Out or Scope! Let’s not get stupid.
Sarah Steelman, candidate for Governor in Missouri joins the Heroes!
July 3, 2008
Sarah Steelman, the candidate for governor in Missouri, today released her energy plan, central of which is the repeal of the mandatory 10 percent ethanol in gasoline. Here’s what she says:
The campaign trail this week has certainly been exhilarating. In a single day, I made stops in St. Louis, Springfield and Joplin to address the rising costs of food and gasoline. In the three cities I delivered my energy proposal that would reduce these costs, and rallied support for drilling for oil in the United States, and specifically for an oil refinery right here in Missouri.
The increasing prices of food and gas, and Washington D.C.’s failure to address the situation, are of major concern all across Missouri. The obvious desire of Missouri citizens to see these pressing issues resolved is what inspired me to announce my bold new energy policy this week.
The pillar of my energy proposal is the repeal of Missouri’s 10 percent ethanol mandate. This government mandate is infringing on American families, especially those in Missouri, and capitalism as a whole. Since the mandate took effect in September 2007, gas prices have risen over 46 percent, and an additional 35% since the state mandate took effect in January 2008. A recent study found that the ethanol mandate will cost Missourians an additional $1 billion over the course of the next decade.
Our senior citizens with fixed incomes are now unable to make ends meet. Dairy farmers cannot afford to feed their livestock anymore. The mandate is clearly detrimental to our families and our economy. Although I support ethanol as a means for improving energy efficiency, I do not believe it should receive a government ordered advantage over alternative fuels. It is time to let the free market flourish, and rid our economy of government intrusion.
Go here to donate to her campaign.
Heritage Foundation’s morning bell echoes our sentiments
July 3, 2008
From the Morning Bell, 7/3/08:
…As long as energy costs remained low, the rest of the country didn’t pay these policies much attention. But now that energy prices are rising, people are beginning to notice: especially in more rural parts of the country. Rural Americans have to drive farther to reach life’s necessities such as work, groceries and medical care. They also tend to be less wealthy than people in urban areas, which means energy costs eat up more of their budget. The Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) found that people in rural areas spend as much as 16.02% of their monthly family income on gas, while people in urban areas of New York and New Jersey spend as little as 2.05%.
Americans have a choice. Despite the fact that decreased U.S. consumption will do nothing to curb overall world demand for oil, demonstrating to the world that we are serious about developing our own domestic energy supplies can significantly reduce energy prices today. Luckily, more and more Americans are getting the message. According to the Pew Research Center support for more “exploration, mining/drilling, construction of new power plants” has risen 12 points to 47% since just this February. In the meantime, support for more “energy conservation/regulation” fell 10 points to 45%. In Februrary of this year, Americans opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 42% to 50%. Today they support it 50% to 43%.
Pat McCrory of North Carolina supports offshore drilling
July 2, 2008
Here is a July 1, 2008 article from Reflector.com:
Eastern North Carolina would be one of the biggest beneficiaries of offshore oil drilling if the state was permitted to do so, Republican gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory said Monday morning.
Speaking during a campaign stop at the Greenville Convention Center, McCrory said pursuing offshore drilling permits would be one of his first acts as governor if he is elected in November.
The Charlotte mayor said he would meet with the Coastal Resources Commission to change coastal energy policies. He would then issue an executive order providing for safe, technologically sound deep-sea exploration and drilling before petitioning the federal government to permit North Carolina the right to drill off its coast.
Drilling could provide thousands of new jobs for the east and produce revenue which would go a long way toward balancing the state’s budget, he said.
“The east has a higher unemployment rate and lower per capita income than the rest of the state, but it does not have to be that way,” McCrory said. “With safe, environmentally sound drilling in the deep sea off our coast, we can create new high paying jobs, jobs that the people of our poor counties can fill.”
North Carolina could see the financial benefits of offshore drilling within 10 years, he said.
Gore still guzzling energy like a maniac
July 2, 2008
We really are for people using as much energy as they need. Afterall, it’s a free country. But what about if that person is someone who is preaching conservation? Isn’t that a little hypocritical? It’s like saying, “You conserve your energy so I have more to use.” Though this story is only slightly related to the gasoline crisis, it does point to some of the people who are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Al Gore [clueless] has been one of the leading faces on the man-made global warming crisis telling us to conserve and save the planet. But what is he doing? Newsmax broke this story today:
Former Vice President Al Gore is warning you and every other American we must drastically change our lifestyles and reduce our energy consumption. But Gore continues to fly private jets wasting thousands of gallons of carbon fuels — and a recent study of his home energy use found that Gore’s Tennessee home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month. Read the Full Story — Go Here Now.
Like we said, if people want to use energy and pay for it, that’s their business. But when they tell us we are using too much, and we need to cut down because we are heating the planet, and then continue to ignore their own warnings and use limitless amounts of energy, something needs to be said. It is hypocritical. My guess is he’s covering himself by purchasing carbon credits. But as most intelligent people can figure out, those are a scam. NewsBusters eloguently explains it.
Are speculators betting that politicians won’t open drilling?
July 2, 2008
As the battle for lower gas prices heats up, Democrats stubornly refuse to help lower them by increasing supply. They seem to be stuck on the conservation angle thinking we can conserve our way out of this. There are even some on that side who say prices need to be even higher so that companies will be forced to look into alternatives to internal combustion engines. But even if it happens, what will this change in technology cost the average American?
Not everyone can go out and by the latest car just because it is better for the environment. Look at the number of Toyota Prius hybrids that are out there and look at who’s driving them… Not the poor, that’s for sure. So how will this new technology get into the hands of the common man? If the HDTV or cellular hands-free laws are any examples, it would mean that government subsidies to help people buy new cars would probably be introduced.
What puzzles me is, where do people think the government gets its money for these government giveaways? Many people think taxing the rich is how they will get the money. Problem is, the rich are rich because they know how to protect the money they earn. Ironically, congressmen and senators are some of the richest people in our country. Do we really think they are going to tax themselves? Look at your paycheck and see all the taxes that are being taken out. Even if you get money back at the end of the year, I guarantee you that if you total your income, subtract your take home and your refund, you will see how much in taxes you are actually paying… and we’re pretty sure it will not be zero. Look at your phone bill or your utility bill or cellular bill and you will see that the rich are not the only ones paying taxes. Look at the gas pump and realize that anywhere from 18 to 54 cents a gallon goes to some type of government tax. The point is, no matter that politicians tell you they are making the rich pay for them, it is YOU who are paying for these programs.
Oil has reached another high today, jumping over $2 a barrel. Is this going to lower gas prices? Certainly not. This can only indicate that gas prices will go higher. And as much as it hurts to say this, Democrats are to blame. We need to do something now!
GreenWatchAmerica has another petition to send to John McCain to open up drilling. He is still a state senator and can introduce legislation that could help ease prices at the pump.
Several blogs reveal that Democrats don’t want lower gas prices!
July 1, 2008
Today after googling “democrats for lower gas prices” we found the following two sites. Unfortunately, the articles actually reported the opposite. According to Harry Reid’s (cluess representative) Give ‘Em Hell Harry user comments, they actually want HIGHER gas prices. So this is what you will get if you vote Democrat this fall, I am sorry to say. To their credit, there is a petition to have a 90 day moratorium on the federal gas taxes, but this is only a temporary solution. And if it is good to do for 90 days, why not forever???
As a side note, Rush Limbaugh played a clip of Harry Reid talking about how burning coal and fossil fuels are hurting us… We disagree. It fuels the economy.
According to AboveTopSecret.com Blog, on June 11, 2008, Democrats voted no on a new bill to open drilling. Why? Because it was introduced by Republlicans?
As oil prices go UP, UP, UP, the Heritage Foundation says drilling now can lower oil prices TODAY!
July 1, 2008
Posted July 1, 2008 – Heritage Foundation posted this today:
Current Harvard economics professor and former chief economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan Martin Feldstein explains in the Wall Street Journal how announcing that the U.S. will allow oil development on currently banned lands, could lower oil prices right now:
The relationship between future and current oil prices implies that an expected change in the future price of oil will have an immediate impact on the current price of oil.
Thus, when oil producers concluded that the demand for oil in China and some other countries will grow more rapidly in future years than they had previously expected, they inferred that the future price of oil would be higher than they had previously believed. They responded by reducing supply and raising the spot price enough to bring the expected price rise back to its initial rate.
Hence, with no change in the current demand for oil, the expectation of a greater future demand and a higher future price caused the current price to rise. Similarly, credible reports about the future decline of oil production in Russia and in Mexico implied a higher future global price of oil – and that also required an increase in the current oil price to maintain the initial expected rate of increase in the price of oil.
Once this relation is understood, it is easy to see how news stories, rumors and industry reports can cause substantial fluctuations in current prices – all without anything happening to current demand or supply.
Read the rest of the article here.
