Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Cliff May :: Townhall.com Columnist
Energy Independence: That's What Voters Want Politicians to Pursue - and Not Just by Talking About It
by Cliff May
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


If you were advising a friend who was unfit and lacking energy, would you tell him to diet or exercise? You’d probably suggest he do both.

Right now, America is literally short on energy and, largely as a result, in poor shape economically. Indeed, the free nations of the West are sitting around like couch potatoes, watching with bovine passivity as an unprecedented amount of wealth – and the power that invariably goes with it – moves from the pockets of free peoples to the coffers of Saudi sheiks, Iranian mullahs, Russian apparatchiks and tin-pot dictators – none of whom have our interests at heart.

So should Americans utilize the domestic oil and natural gas resources that, in recent years, politicians have placed off limits? Or should we use our technological skills to develop new, alternative sources of energy? Most Americans – wiser than politicians or perhaps just less beholden to special interests – say the answer is, obviously, both.

A poll conducted last month by Voter Consumer Research Inc. for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD, the think tank I head) found that the price of gasoline is the issue that troubles more voters than any other: Forty-three percent put it at the top of their list, followed by jobs and the economy at 37 percent, and the war in Iraq at 31 percent.

But pressed to reflect on their answers, voters said that even more distressing than the price they’re paying at the pump is America’s addiction to foreign oil. Depending on how the question was asked, between 57 and 64 percent say they believe that energy independence should be America’s primary goal – because our economic and national security depends on it.

They don’t believe we can conserve our way out of this crisis: Eighty-two percent say that conservation alone won’t cure what ails us.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “Drill here, Drill Now, Pay Less” campaign has had an impact: Most people – 60 percent – favor more domestic exploration and production of oil, including off the coasts and even in wilderness areas.

But a whopping 91 percent say the best way to reduce America’s oil dependence is to give consumers more fuel choices; 83 percent say man can’t live by oil alone -- alternative fuels need to be brought to market.

Specifically, 76 percent want the U.S. government to promote the development of plug-in hybrids – cars that can run on both liquid fuels and electricity, and which can be re-charged by plugging into a standard electric socket.

And 73 percent want Congress to create an “Open Fuels Standard” -- to require that all cars sold in the U.S. be “Flexible Fuel Vehicles,” able to run on any combination of gasoline and alcohol fuels (which can be made not just from corn but from sugarcane and other plants, crop residue, natural gas, coal, garbage and many other sources).

This is the change that could happen fastest: Open Fuels Standard bills are now before both the Senate and the House and have bipartisan support. But insiders doubt they will pass in the little time Congress will be in session in what’s left of this election year.

FDD’s poll also shows that only a minority -- 43 percent -- think it will help to sue OPEC countries (with 55 percent opposed to this option), and only 42 percent support a federal gas tax summer holiday (with 55 percent opposed),

By comparison, note these supermajorities: Eighty percent of Americans want the government to provide incentives to energy companies to make alternative fuels available. Seventy-eight percent want tax incentives for consumers to buy them. Seventy-one percent favor tax incentives for car companies to build Flexible Fuel Vehicles. Sixty percent say get rid of the tariff on imported ethanol (most of which would come from Brazil and other developing countries in the tropics).

Better than three out of every four Americans understand that diversifying fuel choices and reducing dependence on energy controlled by unfriendly regimes will improve America’s economic health and help protect America’s sovereignty. More than six out of ten grasp that at least some of the money we now pay at the pump winds up in the hands of terrorists.

Areas of lingering concern: whether alternative fuels can be quickly and widely distributed; the reliability of the vehicles that use them; and whether making fuels from agricultural crops increases food prices.

Finally, whom do Americans blame for the present predicament? More than 70 percent point fingers at OPEC, oil companies and speculators, while also comprehending that demand for energy is rising globally. But 87 percent say they hold the federal government chiefly responsible. With numbers that high, plenty of politicians will talk about solving the energy crisis. We’ll see how many get off the couch and really work up a sweat.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Be the first to read Cliff May's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.


News Articles On This Topic
 
Popular Articles By May

Energy Independence Awareness ribbons!
That's how we'll solve the problem! We'll start wearing Energy Independence Awareness ribbons! That's how we solve all of our problems in this country--by raising awareness! It's too hard to teach the facts, the numbers and the science involved and it would cut into the government schools' diversity and alternative sex classes. So rather than raise educational standards so we can mold the minds of young people so they become engineers and scientists who might be able to produce the required breakthroughs, we'll all just become aware of the problem!

So let's all start wearing our Energy Independence Awareness ribbons (color to be determined) and chant our slogan with pride:

"I'm wearing a ribbon because I can't be bothered to actually fix the problem."

Imagine if that's how we reacted to the Soviets' launch of Sputnik.

Energy Independence
I've got a simple solution to the problem. Euthanize the 43 percent who believe that suing OPEC will increase our energy supply. People that stupid need to go. Then we will have all of the oil that they would use and we'd be on our way to independence!

What about those who believe that the government (taxpayers) should bribe us to give up what has worked incredibly well since oil was discovered, to try to replace the cheapest, most efficient product available. Plug in cars, give me a break. That would be fine if you never drive more than 100 miles! How much do you thin those batteries would cost you? How long do you think they would last?

As Rush says, the most expensive commidity we have in this country is ignorance. This polling data proves it!

It Aint Rocket Science!
When these miracle plug-in cars, for which prototypes and production facilities dont exist, are all on the road where is the increased electrical power generating capacity going to come from? Windmills? Solar panels? Those are limited sources of energy that are currently generating less than 2% of our electricity. If you add the the demand on the electrical system all the energy needed to power 100 million vehicles you're back to the same problem; without combustion and nuclear it becomes impossible for the average person to own their own car. The Dems are pursuing policies to that end. The voters will never go for it. The Dems are in BIG trouble!
Every time anyone suggests that drilling will take years to have an effect we should raise the question of how long it would take to cover the landscape with enough windmills and build the factories to produce these miracle electric cars for them to have an effect?
Drilling and Nuclear power are our only reasonable options.

Could someone here
Offer some objective projections regarding the increased drilling proposals. The posts I've been reading have been long on rhetoric, but short on real estimates.

Throw the rascals out
The 2 big problems the electorate agree on is $4 gas and illegal immigrants. These problems are directly the result of legislative misfeasance, made worse by ignoring these very real problems. Any voter who votes to keep his current representative in office is voting for economic suicide.

Bryce
Here's a projection:
If you look for oil you will find it.

Here's another:
If you don't look for oil you wont.

More projections:
Electric plug-in cars dont exist. there are no prototypes and no production facilities.

A further projection:
If you covered the parts of the landscape that you aren't using to grow ethanol crops with windmills you still wouldn't produce enough energy to replace the energy that is currently generated by gasoline to power transportation.

A last projection:
The enviro-Dems are heading for political defeat on this issue.

Realistic Estimates?
Have you heard of Google?
We have approximately 40 BILLION barrels of oil in the Wyoming/Dakota plain. That is more than all of the OPEC countries combined!
This article by Cliff just highlights that the vast majority of Americans are NOT ignorant!
They have a much better sense of good judgment than do most politicians. That is why we should trust the Free Market instead of Government Command and Control.
However, OPEC is not a Free Market player. Would Teddy Roosevelt have stood by for over 30 years to let this band of unscrupulous thieves rob the west of vital resources? Of course not! But businesses and Governments are too afraid of the short-term pain to take the best possible action to relieve the long-term pain by using naval barricades to block the shipment of oil from Saudi Arabia and its partners, AND seizing all of their financial assets! Make them Eat and Drink their oil, then see how long the production is constrained and the price artificially inflated.
At least going after our own oil is a diplomatically less confrontational approach to the problem. Isn't that what our Nancy-boy democrats are usually all in favor of?
Final comment: Alternative fuels for automobiles and trucks make sense because these are the largest group of oil product consumers with flexibility, as compared to the Airlines, Chemical Industries, etc. Development of a Point-of-use hydrogen generation source of energy for vehicles is the best answer. If only enough investment could develop a reasonably low-cost implementation, we could drop our oil consumption by about 20%.
For a major Presidential Election, without a clear successor, there is a huge dearth of leadership in this country!
We need desperately need a Ronald Reagan Now!

Passing it along
Senator Jim Inhofe writes:


Dear Friend,

I don't need to tell you that gas prices are high, but there is someone I do need to tell...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

...and I need your help to do it.

Please mail me your gas receipts and a short note about what your family has had to sacrifice because of out-of-control prices at the pump. I'll bundle together all the receipts and stories I receive and send them to Senator Reid. Together, we will send a message to Washington and show Harry Reid that high gas prices are hurting Oklahomans.

Please mail your gas receipts by August 21 to:

Jim Inhofe
PO Box 13300
Oklahoma City, OK 73113


bryce at 12:00 #4
While we're waiting for someone to post data in support of drilling, why don't you (Or some other "alternate" advocate) post some data about the viability of alternate energy resorces?

Please include:
Acerage needed. Cost to replace existing power sources. Cost of material production. Cost of energy production. Cost of converting/buying "alternate energy" vehicles. Ect.

Nuclear power plants have been PROVEN to work efficently, can produce a LOT of electricity, and are now advanced enough to use up a greater precentage of radioactive material than they did thirty years ago when a ban on building and upgrading AMERICAN nuclear plants was put in place.

I second skep41's comments.
Well said.

I think that we need to send a few practical engineers to Congress who know to think logically and do simple math...


Great post SandRob!
I could not have said it better myself! AGW is what happens when AGC(Antrhopogenic Global Cooling) failed to materialize. I clearly remember how these "experts" were predicting another ice age back in the 70's. When that failed to happen they had to say SOMETHING so Algore makes a crockumentary about the poor Polar bears and AGW and the public buys it, HOOK, LINE, and SINKER. Now don't tell anyone that the mean temperature hasn't risen in a decade (it actually declined) or that the world's leading expert on Polar bears has stated that of the 11 groups of polar bears, 9 are THRIVING and 2 are holding their own. And please don't tell them that over 200 of the world's top climate experts wrote an open letter to the UNPCC telling them that A) the question of AGW is anything but settled or a censensus, B) IF warming did occur nobody knows if it is good or bad, and C) they recommend that governments use their resources to prepare for any possible effects rather than trying to combat climate change. Of course nobody on the UNPCC paid any attention because according to them, AGW is already a consensus.

Cliff, Cliff, Cliff Addendum
I was not very clear regarding Ethanol deficits.

1. Net energy loss, It takes more energy to produce than it (Ethanol) provides.

2. It has been estimated that the burning of Forrest to grow crops for ethanol, will take three or four hundred years to make up for the C02 created by this deforestation. In other words, the savings of C02 created by using Ethanol will not be seen for three or four hundred years. As Ethanol demand increases, this dilemma will continue.

3. Ethanol in big cities will cause health problems due to the ozone it creates during burning.

4. At present, Crops used to create ethanol are causing food shortages and have raised food prices.

5. The production and use of Ethanol is worse on the environment than gasoline.

If I'm aware of the above, you can be damned sure the Echo Socialist are aware of the above. So, ask yourself, why are they not marching and picketing outside ADM, hmmmmm?
CNG, Propane, Hydrogen are better alternatives. Every Ready or Duracell will work for those who live in cities, but Diesel Trucks, Airplanes, and cars/trucks for those who live in rural areas will require gas/diesel for the foreseeable future. The Free Market will provide what is needed, this is, after all, still a capitalist society, so lets let it work.
There is no oil crisis, just a government crisis, so lets start drilling.

I
third Skep1

Now you've done it, Sen. Inhofe is gonna get
deluged with recpts from all of us. Not a bad idea, a gas recept tea party. Let's join the fun.

I'm partial to tea party's myself.

Projeections
I have been in the oil and gas industry over 3 decades so I can give you some idea.

1) Politicians claim it would take a decade for any drilling now to effect prices.

The reality is that average time wellhead to pump is 3 months, 6 max. That means that once significant drilling has been completed, we could see a real change in our dependance on OPEC with a year or two. Providing of course the needed infrastructure is allowed also.

2) Policticians claim that no real price decrease will occur immediately.

The reality is that once traders on the commodities markets see that America truly HAS an energy plan and is doing sonething about it, price spikes will become less frequent. If you don't believe me watch the price of crude when there is an attack on a Saudi oil refinery or Iran threatens it's neighbors. Despite a recent spike in US crude stockpiles, prices moderated only slightly due to future supply concerns.

All the crude in the world won't do us any good if we don't start expanding refining capacity. There hasn't been a refinery built in this country for 30 years. I konw lots of people that work in refineries and they all say the same thing, it's amazing how well these plants still run considering MOST were built in the 40' and 50's. Considering that of a 42 gallon US barrel of crude only about 8 gallons of regular grade gasoline is made it isn't hard to figure out what would happen if a major refinery were shutdown indefinitely. Conservation and alternatives can help but they alone will NOT solve the problem. As always the laws of supply and demand RULE what you pay for goods and services.

Thanks Tom
I wish some of these commentators would would address the root problem (AGW) instead of the ignorance they spew. I don't even care if they leave the possibility of AGW open, at least they can be pointing out all the fraud. Names like Michael Mann, Benjamin Santer, Wei-Chyung Wang and the IPCC should be headliners for a case of fraud. I could list other names like James Hansen Al Gore etc. The MSM, with the exception of WSJ, won't touch it so why doesn't Cliff May and all the other commentators start screaming from the roof tops that there is a strong case that AGW is a Fraud. By the way, If you google Wall Street Journal and Global Warming, they have a number of good articles exposing global warming as a hoax.
It has been cooling for the last ten years as C02 has been rising! What will it take for the media to get some onions and tell it like it is!
Keep telling everyone you know and then maybe by word of mouth we can get enough people to start asking questions. Because the MSM and the Cliff Mays of this world are sure not going to help.
End of Rant

PELOSI VS PARIS
Shockingly, whoever scripted the "commercial" for Paris makes more sense than Nancy. Releasing oil from the strategic reserve is not long-term energy policy.

Also, I'm not quite sure if the grid would handle mass numbers of electric hybrids, especially in Nancy's brown-out state of CA, not to mention the price and availablility of hybrids. We need the do-everything now plan. We need relief for the short term, primarily emphasis in reducing futures, even if it's a bluff. I would also like to see re-direction of oil subsides toward research for future fuels. I don't think the taxpayer is receiving any return on investment for those subsides. I'm all for nuclear, wind and solar where prudent, oil shale and new drilling used in conjuction with refinery capacity improvement. Stalling everything just infuriates people.

Mr. May - a 2
I really hope you don't believe any of these BS polls by people grinding their axes. People will say anything on these polls that they think is politically correct, especially when they are designed to get the very answers that the pollster wants.

If you really want to know what people want, look at what they do. Just like politicians people have a tendency to say one thing and do another.

Alternative fuel/hybrid cars are BS. The first two years Toyota had their hybrid on the market they sold two in the entire State here. They may sell more at 4.00/gal but it will not be a lot more, especially since the CEO of Toyota said there was no break-even until gas reached 5.00/gal and subsidies were maintained by the State and Feds via direct tax breaks to the consumer.

I’ll tell you what people want, they want cheap gas. Just like the O’Vomit supporters who don’t have a car want free money, car drivers want cheap gas.

I’ve said this before but I will repeat it; If the U.S. were serious about ending foreign oil, we would be drilling everywhere in the U.S. and prohibiting import or export of oil and gas.

Instead the proposed solution is more taxes to make the price een higher. Which is the real problem that the Lamocrats see:

We are not yet a pure communist country, only half-way there.

Hey ModMark
Nice try Marco.
Actually, the 2005 Energy Act contained hundreds of energy related items,there was a lot of give and take, but I think you know who makes out from Ethanol (corn) subsidies, both from the political benefits to their constituents and then the Eco Socialist from an environmental aspect.. Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana etc. It would seem that the Socialist hold the most numbers of corn states. Actually, the subsidies first started with the 1978 Energy Act and who was in command of congress at that time. Also, who was the President? Can you say "Jimmy Carter"?
This is not to say the Republicans (Notice, I didn't use Conservatives)didn't have their hands in it.

You said.
Isn't propane an oil product? Cost me $18 t fill my tank.

Who cares what propane is, it doesn't need to be compressed? It's $2.40 a gal, your paying too much.

Is T Boone right?

Partially, Nukes instead of windmills and we got plenty of oil. We can't drill our way out might apply to year 2050.

I'm not naming a pup after you until you quit being a moderate. Or, was this post you're way of telling me your a liberal and that you've gone from the Grey to the Dark side? If thats the case "Volt" might be out and "Darth" might be in. LOL

Hey ModMark
You said:
"Bzzzz, both Toyota and GM PHEV will have a gas engine drving a generator. They should have a 600 mile range."

Don't count the sale until you have the P.O. in hand. GM's president thinks Global Warming is a scam. With that in mind, how much do you think he is willing to gamble with PHEV.

CNG, Propane and Hydrogen. Conversion kits will eliminate the problem of what to do with your old car and make transition affordable. By the way, Hydrogen will only be 30 years if the Free Market decides it will take that long. If I had my choice, Hydrogen with a combustion engine. I can't help it, I can't stand the Ever Ready Bunny.
Batteries are for sissies!


25 posts
And lots of assertions later and still no one has offered any data from an independent source demonstrating the projected effects of increased drilling.

Well, according to the admin's most optomistic projections there would no new oil for at least 5 years, and peak production 10 years later would a savings of $1.44 per gallon at contempory prices.

Bottom line, any new product will end up on the worldwide market, and US production is too small a part of the worldwide market to make a significant impact on worldwide prices.

Addicted to Oil
If I hear that term one more time I may just go postal. It is like saying you are addicted to food and water. Oil is the only substance we have in any quantity, efficiency and affordability we have at this time. You can't be addicted to that which is necessary to sustain your life, livelihood and quality of life.

Let the hybrid roller skate enthusiasts follow their dream if they must but until I can afford their solution, it is worthless to me. If you have anything other that platitudes to offer, I am interested. Until then just shut up.

Hey ModMark
You said:
"Hold off till Nov 5 for the pup naming ceremony. Now if I vote for a GOP congressman, Democrat Senator and Libertarian President, would that just make me."

I think that makes you a tri-polar in dire need of a lot of lithium. Not to be confused with Lithium Hydride. It also means the pup must be named "R.P. McMurphy"

Has anyone else noticed
that fewer and fewer libs are coming on here to defend the Dems' nitwit energy policies? Even moveon.org admits that they're losing the fight.

Hey bryce
You said:
"Well, according to the admin's most optomistic projections there would no new oil for at least 5 years, and peak production 10 years later would a savings of $1.44 per gallon at contempory prices."

Would you please be so kind as to provide some references to these statements?

Hey Marinero
I miss them all soooo bad, especially kimberly!

Hey DanLV
"ADDICTED TO OIL!"
Now if you go postal, do it around a bunch of libs, Please.

"GOOFY" Juvenile BHO, Energy Plan:
HEY MR IVY LEAGUE:::::

90% of us ALREADY have had our tires inflated for at least the past 10 years

OBAMA< we may not have an IVY LEAGUE degree HOWEVER:

WE do have common sense, reality, and can count:

SO IDIOT BHO::: how can we stop OIL imports if only 3% of the 10 % who never have inflated tires or tuned engines follow YOUR "BRILLIANT" Juvenile ENERGY PLAN ?

BHO dumber than a 5 year OLD::::::
GAWD

OBAMA's brilliant IVY LEAGUE EDUCATED ENERGY PLAN:

INFLATE YOUR TIRES::::::::::::

HINT::::: 90% of us: including every truck driver, cab driver: BUS company have had our tires inflated for at least 10 years: and our engines tuned:

GAWD: he is truly insulting us: with is "CHANGE" energy plan: so "NEW" so REVOLUTIONARY::::::::

Obama has the brain capacity of a 5 year old:

HEY: BHO: SAVINGS ?? come again:
WOW: SOME "CHANGE" !!

MR IVY LEAGUE::::: does not have a clue about reality:

90% of us, including every cab driver, bus company, trucker, have had our tires infalted for about 10 years and our engines tuned:

OBAMA thinks like a 5 year old:

Thank You, Newt



Our gratitude goes to Newt who either started or really launced this winning campaign for McCain. The election is over, in my opinion. Barack will lose. McCain will win--he'll take Ohio over Obama any day of the week.

Then, perhaps, as Dick Morris predicted, Hillary will get another chance in 2012.











PUTIN: finds, drills, pumps,in 4 months
WHAT IS WRONG with our technology ??

or is it that we have to save every flea and mouse?

Putin, finds, drills, pumps and delivers in under 4 months:

ASK WHAT IS WRONG with the USA; 10 years !!
and we go to the MOON::::::::::::

YOU see, use, touch oil every day::::
everything around you that you use, see, and touch is either a by product of OIL

and or delivered to you via the use of OIL and oil by products:

Obama cannot possibly be that stupid:

sandrob
Yup, gotta love Kimberly

Obama thinks like a five-year-old?
The whole left base thinks like children! Appalled by gun violence? Pass a law to ban guns! Health care costs out of control? Pass a law to make health care free! Fuel costs getting you down? Repeal the law of supply & demand! People are investing money and actually getting returns? Kill the goose that lays the golden egg!

No kidding, during his 2004 presidential campaign, John Skerry ran radio ads promising to repeal the law of supply and demand, though not in those exact words. Why would he stop there? Why not just repeal the law of gravity, and we could all just float to work?

Back on topic: people who say "we" need to switch to non-fossil fuels are only exposing their ignorance on the energy needs of the US. Coal and oil are not going anywhere any time soon.

"We need to switch to solar". Uh-huh, and why would that be? So we can pay ten times as much for our electricity? I've got a better idea -- why don't *you* switch to solar?

(the above directed at nobody in particular, since the aforementioned dopes don't actually seem to be posting to this thread)

Why is it
that libs don't believe a word the Bush administration says ("Bush lied, people died")EXCEPT for the DOE's "drilling won't do any good" statistics, which they love to cite as God's Irrefutable Truth?

Sandro
My data comes from the most recent Energy Information Agency Annual Report on Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Liquified Natural Gas Reserves.

bryce
When were these DOE statistics compiled, and by whom? Do the people who compile these statistics change with every administration, or could they be holdovers from the Clinton years? Could they be biased against drilling? Do these statistics take into account known oil deposits only, or are they based on how much oil they think might be out there? Do all government predictions always turn out to be right? Did the Brazilians know they were going to find an 80 billion barrel field off their coast before they went looking for it? Why don't libs complain about Brazil, Russia, Norway, and so many other countries drilling? What about American shale oil and the Bakken field in North Dakota, will those have no impact on oil supplies and prices either? If private companies are willing to risk investing in drilling, should we just tell them to forget it because the DOE says it won't do any good? Is that attitude how America got to be a great nation? Is paying $1.44 less per gallon peanuts to you? How long will it take to replace the majority of autos in this country with practical electric cars that don't even exist yet? Before you ask any more questions (or the same one over and over), try answering some.

No Difference?
For those fools who believe the politicians projection of 10 to 20 years to see any effects of new oil production in the US, how about this idea. American went from totally unprepared for World War II to highly mobilized in a matter of just a couple of years. Read about it! The only reason it would take longer than a year for new oil to make a difference would be government inaction and roadblocks. By executive order a president with guts could make it happen in an amazingly short time.

There would be no United States of America if we had had the same negative attitude about winning World War II that politicians have about doing something about our energy crisis.

energy independence
The thing that is most certain to guide America to energy independence is not mentioned in this article. It has nothing to do with government incentives, tax breaks, or mandates. What will get it done is FREEDOM. Get the government out of the picture, remove stupid barriers to accessing the natural resources of our great nation and watch the efficiency of the free market, private investment. The incentive of prospective profit by those private individuals willing to risk their capital without bureaucrats breathing down their necks, threatening to confiscate "windfall" profits will have us on the road to energy independence so fast it will make heads of the OPEC despots spin like Linda Blair's in the exorcist. That will have them begging us to buy their barrels of oil for pennies way before 10 years have past.

mike
You GO! Well said!

Marinero
For starters, many of your questions are addressed in the EIA report, I suggest you give it a read.

As to why we should be concerned about private companies spending their own money to drill, the problem is that it's not just their money. Perhaps you missed it, but we, the taxpayers, are on the hook for trillions in subsidies and incentives to drill thanks to our elected representatives. In short, one of the reasons the oil industry is so keen to drill is because the taxpayers are funding a significant portion of their so called risks.

And besides, as I have repeatedly noted, US supplies are, and will always be a minor part of worldwide output. As we speak the US contributes 1.5 mil bpd to the world markets, OPEC 25 mil. Even expodential increases in US import can have no significant impact because players like OPEC, the former Soviet states, Venezuela, Canada, etc...simply have to restrict their output by a percent or two to blunt the meager US increases.

So, even if someone here were to present some objective numbers, they wouldn't add up to a significant impact on the world market.

Marinero thank you
For pointing out my error. The admin's prediction of price reduction is $1.44 PER BARREL some fifteen years down the line.

UT dlhiggy
We should all agree that they were the greatest generation. We live amongst the discouraging generation. I truly believe the liberal talking points are believed wholeheartedly by weak-minded, weak-kneed surrenderists. The greatest generation saw the need and went to work. This generation seems to want to surrender and accept rising costs and slipping consumer confidence, rather than work for independence. While our borders are being invaded, our government has been infiltrated. The democratic process has been stalled and our grip on our republic is beginning to slip. I have definitely changed my driving habits such as turning it off at stoplights, feathering up to speed, and overall less-aggressive driving. I don't believe that will change even if fuel prices go down - sort of like before seat belt laws were inacted, I made the decision to buckle up anyway. We do need to "feather" into alternatives, but a multipronged approach concerning oil should be pursued. Go after the speculators, but also drill, increase refinery capacity, incentives moving away from petroleum to true alternatives - excluding food based ethanol, and all other proven energy means.

Mike - Energy Independence
Mike(49) your are 100% correct, however, we all know that the gov't isn't going to get out of the way. (Lord knows I wish they'd shrink about 75% and take care of ONLY that which the Constitution says they should take care of.)

So - How do we solve this problem? I'd suggest that everyone chooses the candidate that is the least intrusive in your life and business and encourage your acquaintances to do the same. And I'm not just talking about the national elections.

Lastly, let me add - - - TERM LIMITS - - - At all levels of government. Get the bums out!!

Bryce...this one is for you
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0 8/07/AR2008080702914.html?hpid=moreheadlines


hear that fat lady warming up in the background? She is getting ready to hum along with VICTORY AT SEA...

We won (well just about)

Robert

Robert did you actually read this?
It reiterates everything I have been saying about the deepening fissures in Iraq.

If your point is that the focus has now become political, then you are making the same point I have been making since the provincial elections were announced.

Speaking of which, what tune is the fat lady singing regarding the fact that the highly touted provincial elections, characterized by all as vital to stability are now off the table for 2008?

Likewise what tune is she singing about the Kirkuk and the Kurdsish seperatists? Not only has that situation scuttled the provincial elections, the Consitution, and the Hydro-carbon law, the seperatists have now bombed the crucial pipeline from Azerbyjan, prompting a jump in worldwide oil prices?

No, energy FREEDOM!
Not that I accept at face value anything pollsters say, but it doesn't matter what "the people" want, nor does the accuracy or inaccuracy of the liars' claims concerning the efficacy of drilling matter.

The proper purpose of government is to secure individual rights. That is the only consideration here. Government is morally obligated to allow drilling and to allow companies to develop - or not develop - whatever energy sources they see fit, without interference, harassment, penalty, or reward.

If you are one of these panty-waist liberals who believe that we HAAAAAVE to fund "alternative" energy, then move to a socialist country where you can be forced to fund these things all you want. If you cannot find voluntary funding for your pet energy projects, then they had jolly well better remain unfunded in this country. The rest of us are not afraid of the free market, and we fail to see why you ought to be allowed to dictate to the rest of us what type and how much energy we use - at our expense, no less.

We got into this mess because our energy industry is a relatively unfree one. It is time to free the energy market.

Wendy
As long as the oil companies receive tens of billions in taxpayer funded subsidies and incentives, and expect to drill on taxpayer owned land, the government...as in We the People...most certainly have a say.

And what we should be saying is no for a very simple reason. The US share of the worldwide export market is minimal and any increases in US market will be insignificant.

That's not me talking, that the admin's own Energy Informtion Agency.

Bryce (57)
Several times you've mentioned in your posts that "any increases in US market will be insignificant."

According to the CIA's Worldbook the proven reserves of oil in the world is 1.331 trillion bbl (1 January 2006 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook /geos/xx.html

According to an EIA/DOE report on Saudi Arabia they have proven reserves of 260 billion bbls (~20% of total world proven reserves)

According to an article at Daily Reckoning, the estimates of oil contained in oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming is 1.5 trillion bbl.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/rpt/OilShale.html

So if we (the US)have as much oil as the WORLD has just in shale oil - - ignoring Cont'l Shelf oil, ANWR and Dakota/Montana finds - - would you not agree that this is something other than "insignificant"?

Reserves:
1.331 Trillion bbl (proven)
260 Billion bbl (Saudi proven)
1.500 Trillion bbl (US oil shale - estimated)

I recognize the difference between proven and estimated, but "estimates" told us the world would run out of oil completely 4 or 5 times in the 20th century, and estimates almost always are scaled upward after delivery actually commences. The Carioca find off shore of Argentina was "estimated" at 100 million bbls by Thomson Financial 1/30/08 (reported in Forbes). Reuters on 4/14/08 reported the find to be "estimated" at 33 BILLION bbls.

BTW - When you compare recovery expenses of oil shale oil to proven methods of steam injection of "normal" oil fields, which has been done in the US for decades, they are comparable.

Therefore, I agree that WE (as in We The People) do indeed have a say. What we should be saying is an unqualified YES!
Drill here, drill now, save money.

BRyce...you were wrong about Iraq
and now you are wrong about drilling...

We have to explore and develop "new" sources of energy, particularly nukes...but we need to use our own oil.

What is wrong with doing that?

What is wrong with using our own resoruces? I dont get your complaint.

Robert

Thank you Glen
I haven't read the Daily Reckoning piece, but will. I have read the Rand piece, and while the proposals have promise I came away with the opinion that considering the effects of oil shale mining, the technology should be in place first before expanded extraction. Even with current advances extraction from shale is a very dirty and inefficient operation.

Robert on Iraq
Provincial elections. Nuff said.

On the oil, it will still end up on the world market where its' impact will be reduced to insignificance.

Energy Independence
It seems ironic that with all of their oil and all of their new nuclear facilities, Iran will have energy independence decades before the United States of America.

Glen
Read the Daily Reckoning piece and it basically says the same thing as Rand...maybe.

bryce
"As to why we should be concerned about private companies spending their own money to drill, the problem is that it's not just their money. Perhaps you missed it, but we, the taxpayers, are on the hook for trillions in subsidies and incentives to drill..."

First of all, corporate taxes are a sham. "We, the taxpayers" end up paying them. Secondly, the oil companies drilled before they had the subsidies, and they would drill if they were taken away. Thirdly, if I'm paying the oil companies incentives to drill, I want them to drill MORE, not less. My main point is, just because YOU are willing to concede defeat, if oil companies are willing to drill, there is no valid reason to stop them. Not in a free market; not in a free country. What are you, the self-appointed baby sitter of the oil companies? Clearly, there's some other reason why you don't want them to drill, and you're not saying what it is, just like all the other lying no-drill Dems. The fact is, you don't want drilling because you WANT the price of oil to stay nice and high, so we'll all have to ride bicycles for the next 30 years until "green," polar-bear friendly technologies are viable. You should at least have the honesty to admit it and stop making nonsensical arguments.

To make my post shorter, read glenn's post above. Ditto. That still leaves you with several unanswered questions from my original post.

Same tired arguments get old
I see that the same people as always are debating the same energy solution set that has been the topics for well over a month now on every thread dealing with oil. This happens regardless of the subject of the article and, as always, the same tired arguments are pushed with no outcome. We have the liberals touting the Lamocrat party talking points, the psuedo-engineers touting gimmicks that are flashy and have “star trek” appeal but no realistic way of producing an outcome within the next 50 years, and we have the fake “moderates” who claim to take both side while touting the liberal way.

Out of all of these posts on this thread nobody yet has addressed the real issue with this column. The subject of the column is the outcome of the poll concerning “what the people want”. The poll was conducted by Voter Consumer Research Inc and paid for by Cliff May’s own group The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD). Here is that group’s policy statement in the “about” page:
___________________________________________________________

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) is the only nonpartisan policy institute dedicated exclusively to promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that drive terrorism.
FDD was founded shortly after 9/11 by a group of visionary philanthropists and policymakers to engage in the worldwide war of ideas and to support the defense of democratic societies under assault by terrorism and Militant Islamism.
FDD uniquely combines policy research, democracy training, strategic communications, and investigative journalism. We focus our efforts where opinions are formed and, ultimately, where the war of ideas will be won or lost: in the media, on college campuses, and in the policy community, at home and abroad.
Folks, do you think that there could be a case here for wanting an outcome that was ultimately reached in the poll?

Energy Victory
You folks who say Plug-In vehicles don't even exist in prototype should wander down to your local library and read the May 2007 issue of Popular Mechanics. The correct terminology is Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles or PHEV. According to this article there were a few small companies already modifying stock hybrids. Toyota, GM and Daimler-Chrysler are actively testing with Ford and Nissan in the development stage. Tesla has a production model, expensive, but the point being it exists.
America needs a comprehensive plan to move us to energy self sufficiency. Developing our own oil and initiating the Flex-Fueled vehicles, are a short term bridge to the intermediate phase using our home grown technologies such as coal gasification, nuclear, high efficiency diesel engines and wind. All of these technologies exist in the here and now.
A critical part of the plan to transition to self sufficiency, our electrical infrastructure has to be upgraded to accommodate both the power we will be generating and the increased electrical load.
Alternatives such as solar, Blue-Green algae and more exotic energy sources can easily be added to the grid if they become economically viable.

Are we There?
Vic, I think the comments generally do address the piece. We can have oil independence when congress decides to allow it. Shale oil is known to exist in adequate quantities to provide 100% of our 20mm bbl/day consumption for hundreds of years. It is expensive. According to a Rand study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_industry) the cost will be between $30 and $95/bbl.

The problem with this source of oil is the cost. When the United States terminates its importation of oil, the world price will drop dramatically as it has done in the past. We, the people, are so greedy, we opt for cheap foreign oil every time. That’s why we are in the position we’re in today. $10/bbl oil is too attractive for us to pay $30/bbl. Of course $140/bbl oil makes us cry for development. Do we have the courage (1) to produce domestic oil and (2) the discipline to ignore cheap foreign oil?

J. Howard
If the issue was foreign oil we would be drilling everywhere in the U.S. and outlawing foreign oil.

May's issues are somewhat disingneuous anyway since we get very little oil from the Arabs. Most of our imported oil comes from the Canadians.

As I have said many times, to the Democrats the issue is we aren't taxed enough.

Bryce (60)
In your post you state . . "Even with current advances extraction from shale is a very dirty and inefficient operation."

Regarding "dirty" - Perhaps you are not unaware of the in-situ process, which is the currently preferred method. There is virtually no "mining" with this method. The mining method you refer to was shown to be expensive and (by some standards) dirty about 30 years ago and is currently not considered the way to go.

Regarding "inefficient", as I stated in my original (58) post the current extraction methods are price competitive with steam injected oil recovery methods. (Referenced in the Daily Reckoning article.) Also as large scale processing gets up and running, I would expect that "tinkering" with the process will improve efficiency further.

Granted it is not as cheap to get oil as it used to be. But still cheaper than wind or solar. (Remember "Jed Clampets" oil find while shootin' for some food.) We can't just poke a hole in the ground and expect it to flow out like water. I suspect all of the low hanging fruit has been gathered, certainly it has in No America.

Can you provide a link to the Rand article you reference?

AGW Not Mentioned -Why?
President Bush's Jan 2003 State of the Union Address:

Even more, I ask you to take a crucial step and protect our environment in ways that generations before us could not have imagined.

In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation.

Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car, producing only water, not exhaust fumes.

With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.

Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
End of Quote...........................

This was only 5 1/2 years ago and the price of oil was $25/bbl. Bush was projecting 16 years from 2003.

Importantly, Anthropogenic Global Warming and Climate Change were not mentioned once in this speech.

This oil crisis was brought on by the Socialist in Congress preventing drilling in the name of Environmentalism. It should have never happened.
Remember that when you vote this November.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Scam!

Hero of anti-AGW and pro-drilling
Talent Scout posted this resterday and it is worth posting again. Just a note about Inhofe.
He is a true American Hero for his efforts to disclosing AGW as the scam that it is. He is one of the few in congress that are willing to take this stand. Google Jim Inhofe and you will see what I mean.

Talent Scout's post:

Subject: Passing it along
Senator Jim Inhofe writes:


Dear Friend,

I don't need to tell you that gas prices are high, but there is someone I do need to tell...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

...and I need your help to do it.

Please mail me your gas receipts and a short note about what your family has had to sacrifice because of out-of-control prices at the pump. I'll bundle together all the receipts and stories I receive and send them to Senator Reid. Together, we will send a message to Washington and show Harry Reid that high gas prices are hurting Oklahomans.

Please mail your gas receipts by August 21 to:

Jim Inhofe
PO Box 13300
Oklahoma City, OK 73113

Blame Game
While the current Democratic congressional leadership may be responsible for a lack of legislation to address our energy crisis of today, the blame for our position can be laid at the feet of both parties. Leaders of the domestic oil industry have been crying for recognition our risks in reliance on foreign oil for 40 years. Since the bungling Jimmy Carter, we have had Democratic and Republican administrations and congressional majorities without the courage to address our problems. Those issues are not limited to energy, think entitlements, health care costs, a 57,000 page Internal Revenue Code.

Vic, surely you recognize oil is an international commodity and its price is based upon the world’s production versus its demand. Whether we get our oil from Canada or Nigeria or Venezuela, our demand for imported oil keeps the price of oil at the levels we see. If we discontinue our importation of oil from any source, the cash flow to Iran, Venezuela and other declared enemies of the U. S. will drop precipitously, a good thing.

At least we’re beginning to hear oil shale mentioned by some “talking heads.” That resource that can make us truly independent together with the technology to produce it has been with us since 1980. Is it possible congress hasn’t known all this time?

Fayette Bill (68)
Hey Bill – Agree with your #68 post. A couple of minor corrections though, the Tesla sports car is not PHEV. It is a pure EV.

Ford delivered it’s first PHEV to SoCal Edison in December 2007. http://www.ford.com/about-ford/news-announcements/featured -stories/featured-stories-detail/plugin-hybrids (Can’t buy one yet, but it’s pretty close.)

I suspect Toyota will have the first consumer available PHEV, they have lots of “pride” in being #1 in HEV deliveries, and considerable cash to make it happen.

Speaking of EV vehicles - - Those who think EV’s are the total answer, consider this. How do you heat a car in cold weather? Sure electric heating grids work, but are a huge energy hog and will cut the effective range of the EV dramatically.

Tom at 2:04
wrote: "All the crude in the world won't do us any good if we don't start expanding refining capacity. There hasn't been a refinery built in this country for 30 years. I konw lots of people that work in refineries and they all say the same thing, it's amazing how well these plants still run considering MOST were built in the 40' and 50's. Considering that of a 42 gallon US barrel of crude only about 8 gallons of regular grade gasoline is made"

Sheer nonsense.

We have plenty of refining capacity in the U.S., and do NOT need new ones. We expand and upgrade them regularly, at the rate of 50 percent over the past 25 years. In 1983 we had about 12 million barrels per day crude capacity, today it is just under 18 million.

Our demand for gasoline is decreasing, this summer is about 3 percent below last summer. Refineries are running at 87 percent of capacity, about the lowest ever for summer months.

What rational company will build new refineries in a declining market? Not Shell, obviously, who just cancelled plans for a new refinery in Sarnia, Ontario (Canada).

And the gasoline yield you wrote is absolutely false. U.S. refineries yield about half the products as gasoline, so from 42 gallons in each barrel of crude, we produce about 21 gallons of gasoline.

See the EIA website for some facts.

-- Roger E. Sowell
Energy Attorney and
Refinery Engineer

J. Howard
I am not disputing what drives the price up, in fact I have posted many times that the elevated price now is due to foreign demand increases. I am dispiuting Cliff May's rational which is the U.S. feeding money to terrorist countries and phony polls.

You know, the subject of this article that seems to be ignored while everyone pushes their favorite techno-gimmick and socialist solution.

If we get Obama
Will we hear that he and the democrats have the same type of mandate on energy as they had with getting the troops out of Iraq?

There is a technology to develop oil from algae. How much are democrats willing to invest in this?

Plugging in cars is not an answer to the energy issue. We still need something to power the generators which will produce the electricity. How much electricity will we be asking our utilities to produce if we go to the hybrid type vehicles? One hundred million (conservatively ten million) automobiles would need a lot of electricity. Sounds as though we would be exchanging one problem for another.

calif. is the problem...too! talent ....
Idiots from the San Frncisco area elect No Brain
Nancy...and if the demos control congress...well, how do we get rid of her!?
No, thats called murder!
Talent scout normally has good thoughts...how do we get rid of her...talent?
elvis
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.