About Me

Name: theoilpatchplug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

High Gas Prices -Issue #1 with Americans (source :The Heritage Foundation)

Skyrocketing gas prices are rapidly changing Americans’ priorities. Voters routinely identify energy costs as either the second or third most important issue. Considering that any economist will tell you that high energy prices are a major cause of recent economic sluggishness, and that the economy has been the No. 1 issue on voters’ minds for some time, the cost of energy has quickly become a defining issue for the nation.

High energy costs were a big reason why liberal efforts to institute a carbon tax failed earlier this month in the Senate. Now emboldened conservatives are moving to further help American consumers by pushing for the lifting of government bans on energy development. In April 2007 only 41% of Americans favored drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Today, 57% of Americans favor drilling in coastal and wilderness areas currently off limits.

The typical liberal response to calls for more domestic oil production is that drilling will not help lower prices signifcantly. For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, “Even by their own standards, drilling in ANWR by the year 2030 would save 1 penny off the price per gallon.” While the estimated 10 to 13 billion barrels of oil currently off limits in ANWR may not drive down the price of oil by itself, liberals are vastly underselling the potential domestic energy possibilities currently off limits thanks to federal bans. Just last week liberals in Congress rejected a proposal to allow drilling for oil 50 miles of the U.S. coast. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be found along the U.S. outer continental shelf.

And there is also plenty of energy currently banned from production onshore, too. The Department of Interior estimates onshore energy in the West and Alaska contains 31 billion carrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That 31 billion barrels of oil represents U.S. imports from Saudi Arabia for 50 years and the 231 trillion cubc feet of natural gas is enoug to supply all of America’s households for 46 years.

Then there is the granddaddy of them all: the oil shale in Green River Formation, which goes through Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. According to a RAND Corp. study , there are 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels worth of oil shale in the Green River Formation. That is more than triple the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. At $95 a barrel, it was not economically viable to develop these resources, but at $130 it definitely is. Furthermore, Shell Oil scientists have already conducted small-scale field tests that if replicated on a large scale would make developing the oil shale profitable at $20 a barrel. Are liberals in Congress anxious to see this oil help American consumers? No. Just last week they voted to extend their ban on oil shale development.

The other liberal objection to increased domestic energy production is that the additional supplies will not affect prices for a decade. We will let Jay Leno respond: “Democrats said it would not do any good because it would not produce oil for 10 years. You know, same thing they said 10 years ago.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Friends Video

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Killing a Great Nation for Power & Control, IBD Editoral

 The big jump in the consumer price index on Friday scared a lot of people. But the sad fact is, much of inflation's recent rise is due to the upward spiral of energy prices. And guess whose fault that is?

Answer: Congress, of course. By refusing to drill for more oil — that is, more and cheaper energy to run our economy — the Democrat-led Congress has put us in an inflationary box.

In May, the consumer price index rose 0.6% — higher than expected, and a gain of 4.2% from a year ago. When you exclude food and energy, inflation was just 0.2% for the month and 2.3% from last year.

Since the end of 2002, overall inflation has risen about 18.3%. But energy is up 92%. With energy accounting for 10% of the CPI, it's not hard to see why inflation's rising.

In short, our current inflation problem turns out to be an energy problem. And the problem can be described thusly: When demand for something grows, you must also grow supply — or prices rise.

Take food. Recent rises in food prices, most economists agree, are a function of fast-growing prices for energy. Key input costs for food — fertilizer, fuel for tractors and other farm equipment, transporting food to market — are keenly sensitive to energy prices. Food and energy rise in lock step.

Yes, inflation has heated up. But it's largely because Congress has refused to drill for the plentiful oil that lies within our nation's boundaries and has chosen to subsidize the use of food to make very expensive energy. This is economically silly.

Going after the billions of barrels of oil in Alaska, under our Rocky Mountains and beneath our coastal seas would break the back of energy prices (see accompanying editorial, right).

By the way, some have tried to argue that the Federal Reserve now needs to hike interest rates to rein in inflation. But this, too, is wrong. The rises in energy and food prices have common causes — food supply disruptions, in large part to supply farm goods once used as food for the ethanol industry, and strong economic growth in India and Brazil, which together contain one-third of the world's 6 billion or so people.

Both Indians and Chinese have built market economies in recent years and are creating thriving middle-classes. India's middle class now includes more people than in all of France, while China is taking about 20 million people a year off the farm and turning them into urban dwellers.

These people, with their rising incomes, are demanding bigger houses, more cars, TVs, better food — more of everything that makes modern life good. This is a challenge for America and its allies — not something to shrink from.

The Fed isn't to blame for this. Yet, all these people getting richer have strained our supply system for food and energy, and now we must make more.

We have as many as 139 billion barrels of oil on our territory that is economically viable for us to get right now — all we have to do is go get it. That's Congress' job. Why won't it do it?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

All the 56 Chevys in Castros Cuba will have gas

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where's Global Warming? by the Weather Channel Founder

 

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance. 

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predicta calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. 

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas. 

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is. 

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story. 

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis. 

So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus. 

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming.   A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over. 

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam. 

I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tired of the Adventure of $5 Gas? We Could See what Breaks Next or Go Find More Oil

A leader in Congress sees a need for "obviously more production" from America's abundant energy reserves. Is Rahm Emanuel, head of the House Democratic Caucus, joining the "drill here, drill now" bandwagon?

The Illinois Democrat made those remarks when asked by CNBC's Erin Burnett what the Democratic energy agenda would be. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip, but it just happens to be the truth — something 57% of the American people agree with, according to a new Gallup poll.

While attacking GOP presidential nominee John McCain for "trying to drill our way out of the situation," Emanuel told CNBC: "I think you have to have both — obviously more production — but also to start to invest, which has not happened, in (energy) alternatives as well."

So do we. This is pretty much what congressional Republicans and President Bush have been saying all along.

We need to develop all of our domestic energy resources, none to the exclusion of any other source — nuclear, clean coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, heck, maybe even switch grass.

And while it is true that we can't get all of our energy needs from domestic sources, it doesn't mean we shouldn't get any of it here.

We've got a lot — in ANWR, in the Outer Continental Shelf, and in the oil shale out West.

How about subsidizing shale oil extraction with the billions we currently subsidize ethanol and other biofuels with?

The Department of the Interior estimates that there are 112 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil beneath U.S. federal lands and coastal waters. That's enough oil to power 60 million cars for 60 years. That's not counting the trillion barrels locked up in shale rock — three times the total oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Rep. Emanuel is not being truthful when he says we need to "start" funding alternative energy.

According to the Energy Information Administration, solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour and wind energy by $23.37.

By contrast, natural gas gets a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59. Wind and solar, despite all their subsidies, contribute less than 1% of our total electricity generation.

Barack Obama wants to increase gas prices through a windfall profits tax that consumers will wind up paying and, as it did in the Carter era, decrease supply and increase our dependence on foreign oil.

In his latest gaffe, Obama told CNBC he didn't really object to $4 gas, just that it occurred too quickly. Obama said: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment."

Rather than a slower increase in gas prices, as Obama prefers, Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., prefers a rapid increase in domestic oil supply.

He says he will push for an amendment to an upcoming spending bill that would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles offshore. Fifty miles is how far off the Florida coast China and Cuba are drilling for oil.

"Tapping America's huge reserve of deep-ocean energy helps us fight terrorism and increases our domestic energy supply, which will help put downward pressure on energy prices," says Greg Schnacke, president of the aptly named Americans for American Energy. "With Americans suffering at the gas pump and with higher energy bills, it's a no-brainer that the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) should be developed."

Data show global demand for oil and natural gas will likely grow 45% by 2030 compared with 2006.

America's oil and natural gas energy needs will grow and need to compete with that demand. Obviously, as Emanuel put it, we'll need more production — domestic production. All Rep. Emanuel has to do is reach across the aisle and endorse Rep. Peterson's amendment.

We suggest that we drill here and drill now, and show the world that the America that split the atom and put men on the moon can fuel its own cars and power its own factories.

We suggest that the GOP and John McCain shout from the rooftops a new, and winning, campaign slogan: "It's domestic energy, stupid!"

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We've Been Working in the Oil Patch

   

Test wells were drilled through the Barnett Shale Formation for years and only dry holes and some information was developed. Mitchell Energy geologist and engineers finally figured out that they could frac or prop open the limited permeability (ability for oil to flow) with sand and natural gas began to flow in Wise County.

Sandy Dvorin a wildcatter from Dallas figured out that the same Barnett Shale could produce in the Dallas /Ft. Worth suburbs and the Barnett Shale rush was on. Sandy told me he could only get $3 or less for his natural gas and the wells were barely economic at that price. 7170 Barnett Shale wells have been drilled and completion techniques have improved. The prices have improved to over $11 per million cubic feet.

Today 3.1 Billion Cubic feet of natural gas flows from horizontal wells and a few vertical wells with fracs. The reserves are conservatively estimated to be in excess of 26 Trillion Cubic Feet of natural gas. Operators are paying up to $26,000 per acre for a 3 year lease with 25% royalties. This was just the beginning.

There are major shale plays in Wyoming, Arkansas, Mississippi and a brand new play in Northern Louisiana and East Texas know as the Haynesville Shale. The Haynesville Shale was over 168 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas in reserves. Leases in some of the hot spots are going for $35,000 per acre with 25-36% royalties.

Down to the south the Pearsall Shale is heating up. We have leases with shallow oil zones between the Barnett and the Pearsall plays. I believe these plays will fill in and we are just in the beginning phases of many major discoveries.

Oil and Gas Real Estate plays might be a good way for the small guy to participate in increasing our energy reserves. If you own the lease and can hold the leases with shallow production you can farm out portions of the leases and reserve royalties as well as receive a large lease bonus. These deep wells can cost up to $7-10 million to drill and complete and investors could retain 5-10% in overriding royalties which could earn millions per year per well.

Help is on the way. Now, if we could get congress to get out of the way of the big boys.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems Should Own $5 Gas, Their Policies Caused It

 America was saved Tuesday from a Democratic Congress determined to do more damage to our economy and raise oil prices still higher. Energy taxes and eco-extremism make Democrats the real oil gougers.

The most absurd provision in the thoroughly ridiculous energy package offered by Senate Democrats this week was to make price gouging on oil and gas a federal crime, punishable by a fine of $5 million if an energy emergency has been declared by the president at the time of such price fixing.

Democrats are, in effect, publicly warning the nation's oilmen that the next time they beat their wives they'll be sorry.

Dozens of investigations over the decades have not produced a scintilla of evidence that there has ever been any kind of Big Oil conspiracy to set gasoline prices. And dozens of states already have laws making gouging illegal.

What, unfortunately, is not illegal is Congress' ability to gouge motorists and natural gas and heating oil cosumers by preventing us from extracting more of our own oil and gas.

Democratic senators failed on Tuesday to get the 60 votes needed on a bill to impose a 25% windfall profit tax on oil companies, as well as rescind tax incentives purportedly worth $17 billion over a decade. Those breaks, by the way, are helping to expand U.S. oil refinery capacity.

But Democrats want to punish a handful of the biggest U.S. firms, giving foreign oil companies an edge over them, and have the government spend the $17 billion on windmills and solar panels.

Imagine the Mideast's oil-rich terrorist sponsor states, along with a Big Oil Marxist thug like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, watching America's self-destructive refusal to utilize our own domestic oil and gas.

How weak they must consider us when nearly a half dozen Republican senators, including John Warner of Virginia and Charles Grassley of Iowa, vote to treat those who provide our economy's lifeblood as if they were evil.

Our enemies see that the party that may gain control of the presidency in November can't even remember how windfall profit taxes under Jimmy Carter over a quarter-century ago devastated our economy by depressing domestic output and boosting imports.

On top of saving the country from the Democrats' new energy taxes, congressional Republicans are putting forward some smart remedies for our dangerous foreign oil dependence.

House Minority Leader John Boehner is touting Rep. Mac Thornberry's No More Excuses bill to use tax exempt bonds to encourage new oil refinery construction, make federal lands available for new refineries, lift Congress' ban on drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf (with its estimated 17 billion barrels of oil), open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, and encourage new nuclear plants with tax incentives.

Meanwhile, Rep. John Peterson will try to amend the Interior Department spending bill in the House Appropriations Committee this week to open America's deep-sea reserves, which have been off-limits for nearly three decades and which contain 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Killing the geese that provide our economy with black gold is no answer to high energy prices. Developing more of our own energy is vital not just for relief at the pump, but for our national security in the global war on terror. At least one party in Congress gets it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

UR Ah , Tax it you get more??????????????

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Industry to Congress, Still Drilling, Still Willing to Drill More : Just Get Out of the Way!

 

 

 Mexico and the United States engage in an energy dispute in the Gulf of Mexico. So why does Mexico want to protect and develop its offshore oil but we don't?

On May 13, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., rose on the Senate floor to demand that arms sales to Saudi Arabia cease unless that kingdom "increases its oil production by one million barrels a day" — coincidentally the amount that would be flowing from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge today had President Clinton not vetoed drilling in its frozen tundra in 1995.

In arguing that Saudi Arabia "holds the key to reducing gas prices in the short term," Schumer showed that even Democrats recognize the law of supply and demand.

As for the long term, Schumer et al. have no interest in drilling in ANWR or anywhere else. They say the added supply would take 10 years to reach our gas tanks, something they've been arguing for at least the last 10 years.

Well, Shell Oil is busy trying to increase our oil supply by drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Oil companies are forced to go farther and deeper as abundant oil and natural gas reserves are placed off-limits by a Congress that rails against high prices and profits.

Shell is now spending millions of those "windfall" profits to build and deploy an oil drilling platform known as Perdido. It's as tall as the Eiffel Tower and will be anchored to the seabed by moorings spanning an area the size of downtown Houston. Set to begin production next year, Perdido is expected to yield 100,000 barrels of badly needed crude a day.

The problem is that undersea pools of oil do not respect geographical boundaries, and Perdido is just eight miles north of a maritime boundary defined by a Carter-era treaty dividing the Gulf for purposes of resource development into areas controlled by the U.S., Mexico and Cuba.

Shell, partnering in the project with BP and Chevron, believes the oil is pooled solely on the U.S. side. Mexico claims Perdido will siphon oil from the Mexican side. Mexico could join the group, but its state-owned oil company, Pemex, is forbidden by law from participating with foreigners in developing its crude. As a result, its isolated oil industry is atrophying and needs foreign help. So both situations may soon change.

The irony here is that while we drill for oil close to Mexico, we can't drill for oil close to the United States. And we turn a blind eye while others do.

Cuba's state-run oil company, Cubapetroleo, has inked a deal with China's Sinopec to explore for oil in its half of the Florida Strait, and is using Chinese-made drilling equipment to conduct the exploration. The U.S. Geological Survey estimated the North Cuban Basin contains 4.6 billion barrels of oil.

Since 1992, oil companies have drilled more than 2,100 wells in the Gulf at depths greater than 1,000 feet. Each can cost $100 million or more. Not all hit pay dirt. One that did was Jack No. 2, a joint venture by two oil companies. In deep water 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, Jack tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil.

The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that, all told, offshore areas that are off-limits to drilling contain upwards of 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

In sum, the oil is there, and oil companies are willing to go after it if we let them. Just think of it: American oil creating American jobs while lowering gas prices! Deep wells such as Perdido and Jack No. 2 can help solve our energy and economic woes. But when it comes to energy, Democrats don't know Jack.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive