About Me

Name:theoilpatchplug
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

$5 GAS, Get a Horse!! Video

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

Gas Boom!! $30,000 an Acre Leases

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

Only You're Pain, Could Make Them Feel So Good

Only For Elites Could High Gas Be Good Thing

The other day in southwestern Fresno County, a poor part of Central California, I talked with a number of folks at a rural gas station. Most drove second- and third-hand pickups, large cast-off sedans or used SUVs.

Their general complaint was twofold: They didn't have the cash to buy a new fuel-efficient Honda or Toyota.

And they were now spending a day or two of their wages just to fuel their cars for their long rural commutes.

But I also fill up three hours away on the San Francisco peninsula near Stanford University, where I work.

High-priced hybrid cars and new, more-efficient SUVs are everywhere. Mass transit is available and crammed.

After listening to these quite different motorists, I can confirm an obvious rule about energy use: The wealthier and better educated seem less concerned about the price of gas.

Indeed, from my informal conversations at two very different gas stations, I would go even further: The wealthy, particularly those who are politically liberal, also like that high-priced gas translates into less burning of fossil fuels by others and will help accelerate research into alternative energies.

Illiberal Price Hikes

But what these elites don't seem to realize is that the energy policies they tend to advocate are, for the present, paralyzing almost everyone else in the country — and that the truly ethical and environmental solution would require embracing positions long considered anathema to traditional liberalism.

The debate in Congress over more refineries and nuclear power plants, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off our coasts, and developing oil shale, tar sands and liquid coal has usually been a predictable soap opera: Grasping Republicans supposedly wish to enrich energy companies, while idealistic Democrats want only to protect the environment.

But those black-and-white positions, hatched in the good old days of $1.50-a-gallon gas, should now be revisited on the basis of far different moral considerations.

One is fairness to the poor and middle class. Like it or not, radical environmentalism (and those behind it who provide the lobbying, funding and influence to block energy legislation) appeals to an elite not all that worried when gas prices rise or electricity rates go up — since fossil energy use goes down.

But a paradox is that most environmentalists think of themselves as egalitarians.

So, instead of objecting to the view of a derrick from the California hills above the Santa Barbara coast, shouldn't a liberal estate owner instead console himself that the offshore pumping will help a nearby farmworker or carpenter get to work without going broke?

Another paradox: American laws and technology ensure that a rig off Florida or in Alaska has far less chance of springing a leak than one in the Persian Gulf or the Russian tundra.

If there really is a shared "planet Earth," then aren't we all its collective stewards? By locking out energy exploration in the United States, we are encouraging it almost everywhere else.

Big Wealth Transfer

No one is talking of more domestic drilling to give our SUVs and Hummers one last gasp at $2-a-gallon gas. Everyone is already cutting back and waiting for more-efficient engines and methods of conservation.

Instead, producing as much of our own energy as possible means extracting more safely the world's oil for the world's biggest consumer.

Consider also how oil triggers a massive transfer of wealth abroad that is as illiberal as it is dangerous.

Productive energy-strapped Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Chinese and Indians are working day and night to give the world critical material goods, ideas and services. To be blunt, oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and Iran are not.

At best, the massive transfer of national wealth to most oil producers translates into a Chinese worker on an assembly line working longer for less money while artificial island resorts pop up in the Persian Gulf.

At worst, that strapped Chinese fabricator is also working harder for another Iranian centrifuge, al-Qaida land mine or Saudi-funded madrassa.

We should stop talking about suing the OPEC cartel, jawboning the House of Saud to lower prices, blaming the oil companies or adding yet another massive tax on sky-high gas prices. What we don't need right now are more pie-in-the-sky sermons about wind and solar saving us all or about millions of new jobs in green technology that can be almost instantly created.

That all may be well and good in a generation. But in the here and now, we still need to tap the abundant conventional energy we already have in the U.S. And in large part that means building, mining and drilling.

 

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

Climate Change ... Russian Style

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian air force planes dropped a 25-kg (55-lb) sack of cement on a suburban Moscow home last week while seeding clouds to prevent rain from spoiling a holiday, Russian media said on Tuesday.

"A pack of cement used in creating ... good weather in the capital region ... failed to pulverize completely at high altitude and fell on the roof of a house, making a hole about 80-100 cm (2.5-3 ft)," police in Naro-Fominsk told agency RIA-Novosti.

Ahead of major public holidays the Russian Air Force often dispatches up to 12 cargo planes carrying loads of silver iodide, liquid nitrogen and cement powder to seed clouds above Moscow and empty the skies of moisture.

A spokesman for the Russian Air Force refused to comment.

June 12 was Russia Day, a patriotic holiday celebrating the country's independence after the break-up of the Soviet Union.

Weather specialists said the cement's failure to turn to powder was the first hiccup in 20 years.

The homeowner was not injured, but refused an offer of 50,000 roubles ($2,100) from the air force, saying she would sue for damages and compensation for moral suffering, Interfax said.

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

Answer to Energy: Obamacycle and McCainmobile

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

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