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, July 17, 2008
Hugh Hewitt :: Townhall.com Columnist
Memo to the Bush Administration: If Drilling Is That Important, Act That Way
by Hugh Hewitt
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The decision by President Bush to revoke an old Executive Order prohibiting offshore drilling for oil and natural gas on the outer continental shelf was a good move, and helped contribute to the drop in oil prices that followed over the next two days.

Demand is down for oil, and any sustained drive to open up new sources of production --even those sources that will take years to tap-- impacts the futures market by increasing the probability of greater-than-expected oil supplies in the out years.

The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Don't Drill Democrats aren't budging in their opposition to seeking new oil supplies, as the electoral benefits they envision from high gas prices far outweigh their concern over the damage done to individual Americans and the U.S. economy from the oil shock.  They'd rather win the presidency and expand their majorities in the House and the Senate than bring price relief to average Americans and shore up a shaky manufacturing sector buffeted by skyrocketing energy costs.

Democrats of course say in unison "We can't drill our way out of this," but in fact we can.  More oil production means lower gas prices --it is that simple.

Democrats say it will take too long, but markets react to short and medium term developments, and a firm commitment to new supplies would immediately impact those markets.

Democrats try and throw dirt in our collective eyes, using the most inane talking point of the year about unused leases --as though Americans don't understand that not all leased land holds oil and that oil companies don't sit on proven reserves that they lose control of over time.

The recognition has broken through and is spreading that a vote for any democrat is a vote for soaring gas prices and a shrinking economy.  Add in Obama's feverish tax hike plans, and the recipe for an economic disaster is on the table to go along with Obama's incredibly risky plans to retreat from Iraq and sit down with Ahmadinejad and Chavez for "no-preconditions" talks. 

But President Bush's action is just a start.  The focus has to be maintained, and the Administration must act as though it really means what it says it believes.

I interviewed both White House Communications Director Ed Gillispie and Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne this week.  I pushed both men on the need to get stand-by leasing of the outer continental shelf under way.  Stand-by leasing would award the tracts to oil companies for set terms, conditional only on the action by Congress to remove the ban or allow it to lapse.  The bidding process, which is normally managed by the Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, should be directed by the president to prepare a plan within 30 days on how the areas offshore would newly authorized for leasing would in fact be leased, and on how to include incentives in those leases to get the oil above water and into pipelines much more quickly than normal.  The opportunities to expedite new supplies are enormous:  Offer a lower royalty rate for oil pumped within two years of the lease date, or extend the lease term as a bonus for early delivery.

There are numerous ways a government acting in an emergency setting would be preparing now to use the authority it was confident that Congress would give them down the road.  The president's announcement was just the first step.  Now he has to demand the rest of the executive branch devote its time and resources to preparing the bureaucratic ground.

Every day Republican candidates should follow the lead of the president and focus on the Congress-made shortage of domestic oil supplies.  We are watching the effects of a Democrat-created oil shock, and Democrats on the Hill --led by Obama-- are very bit as responsible as the OPEC countries for contriving to foist these absurd prices on us when oil sits under the full control of the U.S.   

Voters know the score, and they know more oil is better than less oil.

But they won't fall for a political ploy.  The offshore and ANWR oil is important.  But if it is that important, shouldn't the Bush Administration be doing more than talking about getting to it and blaming Congress for blocking the effort?

Push the point, of course, every day and every way.

But also take every step now that will be necessary later to take advantage of the democrats' surrender to the needs of the American economy when voters' anger peaks.

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

Hugh Hewitt is host of a nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh Hewitt's new book is The War On The West.

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

Smack dab on target
Hugh has expressed the feelings of all American voters, dems, reps, and libs alike. There is no contention between the voters, just between the voters and congress, on both sides of the aisle.

Vote them ALL out of office next election, and for the next three cycles. It's our only hope to save America for the People.

A Voter's Revolt is very much a possibility.

Glenn Flowers

Typical Bush Incompetance
The lefties are wrong--Bush is not evil, he is simply incompetant. He does everything half-a**ed. Except when it comes to grovelling to Mexico and pushing for amnesty.

Bush had 7 1/2 years to persuade Congress to allow for drilling and he passively sat back. He's no leader. I'll be glad to see him go--and I actually voted for him twice!

Well said, glnflwrs!
I agree, yet I would specifically target the Dems and any RINO's that are not squarely behind drilling for removal from office.

There are quite a few conservative GOP members who support drilling and we need their continuity and experience to remain intact. We don't want to punish those that are acting in our best interests just because we are mad at the controlling party.

I encourage all voters to explore what their senators and representatives stand for energy wise and vote accordingly, it's all on-line.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816.

All good except
Hewitt, can you please stuff the lame electioneering? Am I so stupid in your eyes that you try to pass of this quote: "We are watching the effects of a Democrat-created oil shock, and Democrats on the Hill --led by Obama-- are very bit as responsible as the OPEC countries for contriving to foist these absurd prices on us when oil sits under the full control of the U.S."
Is there anybody out there with an electron moving above their tongue that doesn't know that our energy problem is about the only bi-partisan thing Congress and the Executive have done for/to us?
You can't possibly believe that this whole mess just popped up since Novemeber of '06. If you really, truly believe that you need to find another profession. I'm befuddled that you thought you might snooker somebody into voting Republican with a comment like this. Why did you put such BS in an otherwise perfect article. For that you get 4 stars instead of 5.

glnflwrs, I'm with you. I won't vote for any incumbent. They're like a herd infected with Mad Cow disease. Even the good one have to go.

Louisel
Moron.....Bush and congress were trying to drill back in '03. The house even passed a bill to drill in ANWR, but it was blocked in the Senate by mostly Democrats but there was a handful of Republicans too.

The real problem is the lobbyists. Lobbyists from the "big green" environmental machine out number Big Oils' lobbyists by a 2 to 1 margin. Not even slick Wille nor BHO the messiah could make a agruement that was more convincing than the campaign contributions pouring out of the environmental lobby, let alone stuttering W.

If you really did vote for him twice (which I doubt) we now know where the republican voting base gets it's bad stigma

"We need a new attitude."

Offering incentives on royalties, extending lease terms, and centralizing the process out of the executive branch are fine ways to activate the flow of oil.

Media needs to push this White House hard in the remaining months to set the national psyche in gear toward and new fossil fuel ethos.

For decades, Americans have become intellectually alien from oil resources, the oil patch and the business of refining and sale of oil products. All this while going through commercial periods of buying more and more consumer goods that were the outcome of petro/refinement.

The reasons for this intellectual estrangement from oil and its exploration culture originate in oil spills of the late 1960's and 70's and the visceral repulsion that has attended the association of oil with the Arab Middle East and the conspicuous consumption of the potentates.

Since the early 1970's, oil and war and terror and OPEC and shady meetings in nice hotels have dominated the public’s view of what surrounds the production of oil and petroleum.

Couple this helix of oil association and Middle East and other desperados with the passive view of land and coastal use entertained by the Democratic Party and you have generations of Americans that have no love or respect for fossil fuel and its extraction.

We need a new mind set. Conservative Radio, Cable News, (The ever improving Mr. Dobbs included) will need to teach the public that oil is their friend. It may seem counter intuitive but it can be done.

Feelings are hard to overcome but lessons learned at the pump may be just the right instructional device.



"We need a new attitude"
Offering incentives on royalties, extending lease terms, and centralizing the process out of the executive branch are fine ways to activate the flow of oil.

Media needs to push this White House hard in the remaining months to set the national psyche in gear toward a new fossil fuel ethos.

For decades, Americans have become intellectually alien from oil resources, the oil patch and the business of refining and sale of oil products. All this while going through commercial periods of buying more and more consumer goods that were the outcome of petro/refinement.

The reasons for this intellectual estrangement from oil and its exploration culture originate in oil spills of the late 1960's and 70's and the visceral repulsion that has attended the association of oil with the Arab Middle East and the conspicuous consumption of the potentates.

Since the early 1970's, oil and war and terror and OPEC and shady meetings in nice hotels have dominated the public’s view of what surrounds the production of oil and petroleum.

Couple this helix of oil association and Middle East and other desperados with the passive view of land and coastal use entertained by the Democratic Party and you have generations of Americans that have no love or respect for fossil fuel and its extraction.

We need a new mind set. Conservative Radio, Cable News, (The ever improving Mr. Dobbs included) will need to teach the public that oil is their friend. It may seem counter intuitive but it can be done.

Feelings are hard to overcome but lessons learned at the pump may be just the right instructional device.


50/50
Prager spoils an otherwise good column with his typical, mindless left bashing. He apparently forgot that the Bush administration has been in charge of energy policy since 2000, and that they categorically refused to tell the American people who exactly formulated our energy policy.

He forgets things like the Bush administration putting in an enormous tax break for the most fuel inefficient vehicles on the road.

On the other hand, the idea of preparing for an emergency makes all the sense in the world! Set up all teh administrative processes. I also advocate making logistical preparations to drill wherever there might be oil. But only as preparation for an emergency.

Dear Jack in PA


"Mindless left-bashing?

Who insists "we can't drill our way out," if not the LEFT? It's the Right wants to take immediate action, as we ought to.

Hugh, you struck gold (oil) with this!
We would not have the problem we are in now if Congress had approved President Bush's energy plan that he put forth during his first administration in 2001. We need to roll the tape on that because it shows how right he was then, and is now. We need to be more progressive in developing fossil fuels, including drilling for oil. He projected rightly that if we did not do so, we would face dire consequences. Unfortunately, Congress and others (including the sway of pop opinion concerning what is environmentally responsible) resulted in defeat of his plan.

The truth is that there is a global demand for oil and the technology for other alternatives (other than nuclear) is not there yet. The Bush plan would have allowed for the development of alternatives plus the development of fossil fuels. We simply cannot afford to cripple our energy supply to wait for those alternatives. To do so would bring hardship on the poor and especially the middle class.

Bush's only fault is that he was not more aggressive in promoting and pursuing the energy plan even in spite of the Democrats. The leadership in Congress simply is not there. Now it is up to the American people to take the case to Congress and demand that they develop our fuel resources, including drilling for oil, developing refineries, constructing nuclear power plants, and researching and developing alternative energies.

Whoops
I inserted Prager when it should have been Hewitt. Ah well, pretty interchangeable anyway.

Great article, Hugh!
Keep up the pressure on the administration...Jack, this column isn't by Prager.

I've been online and taken a look at how our congressmen/women are voting. Unfortunately, my state is represented by two very liberal senators who send me platitudes when I write to them. Murray actually co-sponsored a wind-fall profits tax bill and sent me a response e-mail to that effect! Fortunately it failed. I am campaigning in my state for energy-aware candidates. I know Washington is preceived as a liberal state, but the yahoos in Seattle are the reason why. A good majority of our counties went "red" in the last election. Truthfully, if it was possible to divide our state along the Cascade Mountains, we would do it in a heartbeat on the east side! At any rate, I agree we need to get rid of the congress that isn't doing anything for us...keep the ones who can actually prove they are in favor of drilling as well as developing new energy...get rid of the rest.

dreadnaught
"Date: Jul 17, 2008 - 1:29 PM EST Subject: Dear Jack in PA


"Mindless left-bashing?

Who insists "we can't drill our way out," if not the LEFT? It's the Right wants to take immediate action, as we ought to. "


Nonsense you create a problem and then twitter like a flock od school girls. What part of you had your turn and you did nothing but make things worse don't you understand?

Hey 50/50
Let me see, was that liberal talking point 7 or 8?
By the way, this article was written by Hugh Hewitt, not Dennis Prager. I guess us Conservatives all look alike to you. Do you have that same problem with Obama? Do you call "Obama" Jessie?
Just for the Record, Bush is not in charge of the energy policy he presented in 2001. You know, the one that was voted down by the Socialist Democratic Party Senate that was in charge of our energy policy. They voted for Tom Daschle's Energy Policy, which removed Bush's higher Cafe Standards.
This was a speech he presented to get the Congress to pass his Energy Policy.

"PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: For two decades the share of the average family budget spent on energy steadily declined. But since 1998, it has skyrocketed by 25 percent. And that's a hardship for every American family. If we fail to act, Americans will face more and more widespread blackouts. If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the hands of foreign nations, some of whom who do not share our interests."

Now, if you would like to quit acting like a liberal lemming and try to educate yourself. Go here to see what Bushes Energy Policy would have given us:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf

Thank you, Sandrob
Thanks for inserting the facts and the link on the Bush Energy Plan for 2001. Unfortunately, the plan failed. Hopefully, it is not too late for the American people to take the case for this important issue to Congress and to those running for President. This is crucial to America's middle class and working families.

KAthleen

You are close, but simply can't get the whole picture right.

Yes, in 2001 the President presented an energy policy. And you also later suggest "Bush's only fault is that he was not more aggressive in promoting and pursuing the energy plan even in spite of the Democrats."

WHy have you neglected to mention that in 2001 the House and the Senate were firmly controlled by Republicans? Does this not seem like a significant omission in light of your second comment? WHy blame Democratas when the ones in control were Republicans.

You also neglect to mention that the energy policy advocated by the Bush administration was formulated, in secret, by VP Cheney who refused to tell the American people who was involved in the discussions! No environmentally sympathetic group has ever indicated they were involved. Who does that leave?

And you neglect to mention that Republicans put in place some significant policies that actually discouraged efficient and effective fuel use.

And finally, your summation leaves out a critical factor. The only solution is ICE, Innovation, COnservation, and exloration. John McCain gets high marks from this liberal for recognizing these three critical aspects of energy policy. Yoursolution is close, but you leave out conservation.

For Jack
It is true that Congress had a Republican Majority in 2001. However, this fact is irrelevant on the issue of Energy development. There are many Republicans who did not side with the President on this issue. In my earlier post, I said, "Unfortunately, Congress and others (including the sway of pop opinion concerning what is environmentally responsible) resulted in defeat of his plan."

The problem here is that there was a political image or pop gravitas against drilling. I think the problem is that Congress was not educated or thinking ahead with the problem. They were ignorant to the techonological progress in the industry and buckled under environmental lobbyists. The environment is very important, but we can develop our resources and use technology to do so safely and in harmony with the environment. We forget that we are much better suited to do this than other nations which do not have the same standards as we do.

So to answer your question, yes it is true that there was a Republican majority in 2001. But unfortunately there was not a "pro energy majority" and the two are not one in the same. I hope that both candidates running for president become more "pro energy" and show leadership in this area. The American working class and families depend on it.

Lack of real leadership
On energy, the true culprit it is not Bush or this particular congress. The first energy crisis was in 1972 and over the past 35-years; the public has been getting hosed. In that time, we have had Democrats and Republicans in the White House, Democrats or Republicans leading congress and still no real policy—they have all failed us for far too long.

Kathleen
"Date: Jul 17, 2008 - 1:53 PM EST Subject: Thank you, Sandrob ... the link on the Bush Energy Plan for 2001. Unfortunately, the plan failed. "

The conservatives are great at "failed" plans. Part of leadership is gettingt things done wether on immigration, energy, war etc. For some reason they same to feel if they cannot get a solution it is not their problem. That is NOT leadership. Leadership is getting rewsults.

T. Boone is not helping, either
The incessant commmercials by T. Boone echoing Reid's mouthing that "We can't drill our way out of this" doesn't help the country's situation.

In sounding off like the Dems, he is once again selfishly trying to help enrich himself. Probably by attempting a raid on federal funds to implement his wind-mill scheme.

His recent attempt is stays in character for producing novel ideas to make money for himself, not to help the country.

See http://www.famoustexans.com/boonepickens.htm


Kathleen
I still want to know why you inserted "Democrats" into your post when the people in control were obviously Republicans. It undermines your credibility: you appear to be more interested in blaming Democrats than in holding the people in charge to account.

You also neglect to reference teh role of Cheney's mystery group in forming policy. You'd think for something so critical, you'd want transparency.

I have the feeling, just a feeling mind you, that given teh background of the people involved, that the oil industry had a disproportionate influence on the Bush energy policy.

Nor have you addressed why the Republcian admin and COngress instituted a 100% tax credit for the cost of any vehicle purchased by a small business if the vehicle was over 6200 pounds. In short, why did they provide such a huge tax credit to the most inefficient vehicles while phasing out tax minor credits for the MOST efficient vehicles.

A sensible plan has to involve as much conservation as exploration and innovation. But that is something which conservatives seemingly refuse to accept. I guess that's why John McCain isn't considered much of a conservative.





Facts and leave politics out
This is a concern for us all as a nation, so lets look at the facts and leave politics out, for a moment anyway.

1. US Geological Report.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—

2. Off Shore Drilling
70 million acres are open for drilling, now.
Off California, Florida and Alaska.
Can produce 5 million more barrels a day( or supposedly anyway)

The Institute For Energy Research quickly pointed out that the number was based upon our current offshore extraction, stating "in order to arrive at these numbers, the authors of the report had to “extrapolate” as follows:

* Roughly 23 million acres of federal land are producing 1.6 million barrels each day today.
* Roughly 3 times as many federal acres - about 68 million - are leased to oil companies, but are not currently producing oil or gas.
* Therefore, the United States could be producing 3 times as much oil - or an additional 4.8 million barrels per day - if the lease holders for the non-producing federal lands started producing oil today.

Also some of the 70 m acres are deep water acres.

Time to demand, not ask the government to get out of all restrictions, all restrictions and allow the free market of oil to flow.

If the oil companies already have the 70 m acres, nothing to stop giving them the other 20 million they ask for.

Including ANWR.

How many of us are tired of the political games?

Demand the government quit hindering the oil market, they are the one and only real problem,
All of them

Bob
What happened last time prices ran up enough to make alternative production feasible? We set up shale and other production then the price of oil fell thru the floor and we lost millions upon millions. BUT worse; we went on a oil binge that is just slowing now making us ever more vulnerable to energy cut offs. The cost to production Saudi oil is less than 5/bbl the cost of producing shale oil is approaching 50/bbl. There is no free market in oil the market is controlled by a cartel called OPEC. Read The Prize

Hal Donahue
No cartel controls the price of oil. If it did, it would always be high and never low.

There is something economists call supply and demand invovled here, like all commodities.

The learnings we must make are not during the times we have low prices saying we "wasted resources. These are the times we have general prosperity as energy is cheap and people can do more things like travel and drive more comfortable cars. Instead, during those times when prices are high, find out why prices are higher and what is causing them to rise.

It is not that we are running out of energy. No way. We are running out of cheap energy. Why?

In the current case it is due to lack of a substantive energy plan, balancing more open oil and gas drilling with LNG imports, clean coal expansion and much, much more capacity of nuclear with sensible (not absolute) environmental protection.

"The Prize" is a good book.

Shut up and start drilling
Hugh you are right on target. The solution to our so called oil shortage is as plain as the nose on your face. Only the democrats are so dumb they miss it. They would have trouble tracking an elephant through ten feet of snow

Facts Democrats can't stand
1. Doesn't matter who is in a committee to establish a proposed policy, IF the final POLICY PROPOSAL is made public and subjected to scrutiny. Yeah, it's perfectly acceptable to assume that, when formulating an ENERGY policy, they would select members of the ENERGY INDUSTRY to participate. But the only thing that is truly relevant is --"Is it a good policy, in and of ITSELF?" "Good" people can make bad policy proposals, too. This Democrat talking point about the membership of teh working group is an argumental fallacy called "argument by authority".

2. Doesn't matter that Republicans held a SLIM majoirty in both houses of COngress. The Democrat minority was quite successful in blocking the proposed energyu policies, especially in teh Senate. That's why Bush's proposal passed teh House, but kept getting hung up in teh Senate, as it only takes 41 senators keep a bill from even being voted on. As a result, the DEMOCRATS blocked the Presoident's energy policy, and by threat of gridlocked rammed their own ideas through -- which the Republicans approved, just to kepp SOMETHING moving. (In fact, most of Bush's BIGGEST failures have been his REACHING ACROSS THE AISLE to Democrats, which effectively meant, "letting Democrats write the bills".)

We need to do it all!!
Republicans need to propose legislation daily agreeing to all the conservation initiatives and new technological developments the dems are pushing as well as opening the outer continental shelf, ANWR and the oil shale deposits in the Rockies. We can drill our way out if drilling is included as part of a comprehesive PLAN.


"We need a new attitude"

Offering incentives on royalties, extending lease terms, and centralizing the process out of the executive branch are fine ways to activate the flow of oil.

Media needs to push this White House hard in the remaining months to set the national psyche in gear toward a new fossil fuel ethos.

For decades, Americans have become intellectually alien from oil resources, the oil patch and the business of refining and selling oil products. All this while going through commercial periods of buying more and more consumer goods that were the outcome of petro/refinement.

The reasons for this intellectual estrangement from oil and its exploration culture originate in oil spills of the late 1960's and 70's and the visceral repulsion that has attended the association of oil with the Arab Middle East and the conspicuous consumption of the potentates.

Since the early 1970's, oil and war and terror and OPEC and shady meetings in nice hotels have dominated the public’s view of what surrounds the production of oil and petroleum.

Couple this helix of oil association and Middle East and other desperados with the passive view of land and coastal use entertained by the Democratic Party and you have generations of Americans that have no love or respect for fossil fuel and its extraction.

We need a new mind set. Conservative Radio, Cable News, (The ever improving Mr. Dobbs included) will need to teach the public that oil is their friend. It may seem counter intuitive but it can be done.

Feelings are hard to overcome but lessons learned at the pump may be just the right instructional device.

GOP's ray of political sunshine

As a conservative I readily admit the odds seem stacked against most GOP candidates - thanks in large part to the MSM's incessant negative stories on Iraq (even though dramatic successes exist), the MSM's repeated doom/gloom on the economy (even though the economy is still GROWING), etc.

THIS ISSUE - Drill Here, Drill Now - is the mantra every GOP candidate should be sounding off!

The dems are on the WRONG side - refusing to help the American People, refusing to take steps towards Energy Independence.

When it comes to the next election - voters should hear this single message:

Energy Solutions & Independence = GOP
No Drilling, No Nuclear, No No No = DNC

bob
"Date: Jul 17, 2008 - 3:34 PM EST Hal Donahue
No cartel controls the price of oil. If it did, it would always be high and never low."

The American Heritage® Dictionary

cartel (n.) A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members.

OPEC is not a monopoly it controls the marginal barrel not all the barrels.

"There is something economists call supply and demand invovled here, like all commodities."

OPEC controls enough production to control price. They can drive the market up or down

"The learnings we must make are not during the times we have low prices saying we "wasted resources. These are the times we have general prosperity as energy is cheap and people can do more things like travel and drive more comfortable cars."

Exactly wrong. That is when we must do it to control consumption. If we do nothing demand will increase until we are unable to meet it.

"Instead, during those times when prices are high, find out why prices are higher and what is causing them to rise. "

Too late you are vulnerable. Reaction management seldom works long termm - you stumble ineffectively from one crisis to another

"It is not that we are running out of energy. No way. We are running out of cheap energy. Why?"

BINGO you nailed it.

"In the current case it is due to lack of a substantive energy plan, balancing more open oil and gas drilling with LNG imports, clean coal expansion and much, much more capacity of nuclear with sensible (not absolute) environmental protection."

see wrong you ignore rampant consumption and waste and the more energy you use the more vulnerable you are or the poorer the nation.

"The Prize" is a good book. "

Read it again Daniel would agree with me

Blame the Democrats?
Who signed the executive order putting our oil off limits inthe first place? George Bush I. Who defeated every attempt to get Congress to change the law while the GOP had control of Congress? The Republicans lead by the likes of John McCain.

Don't just blame the Democrats. There's more than enough blame to go around. It's time to throw all of these bums out.

Hal Donahue
Agree. At the present it is too late to be anything more than reactive.

The learnings I speak of are historical. Many price swings are learnings that give clues as to why prices are behaving the way they do.

If one does not look at these and simply say there is nothing to learn one is doomed to repeat one's mistakes.

Japan went thru the up cycles to its detriment during its peak manufacturing times and decided to create an energy policy that proved effective. Its centerpiece was diversification of supply. Now it enjoys much less swings as it has substantial nuclear, LNG and oil to power its economy.

We here are haphazard about it, and find ourselves hostage to the enviro freaks who believe energy is a bad thing unless it is a natural event (like oil and gas are not).

Louisel
I've been ranting about the need for single term presidents for a few years now. I believe GWB is now allowing the financers of his compaigns to get the "payback" now. If our presidents knew they had 1 term, we wouldn't have to deal with 1st term presidents consentrating on getting re-elected, and have better choices every 4 years. I'm sick of what our gov't has evolved to. They've learned to destroy good legislation by insisting on adding special interest - similar to extortion. "I'll vote for your bill if you include..." It will be interesting to see who can put an energy bill together first, how long to go through committee, and if it will ever get voted on. We have economic interests, employment issues, and lower income people to house, feed, and warm this winter. EXPEDITE, EXPEDITE, EXPEDITE. We need to re-evaluate the way we vote from now on.

Talent Scout...
Great post...thanks for the information. You are spot on!

Excellent article, best I've seen on the
oil situation. Superb ideas.

Hopefully someone in the administration will do the things Mr. Hewitt recommends. Either way, we'll get to see just how serious the Bush administration really is about what it says.

bob
"Date: Jul 17, 2008 - 5:16 PM EST Hal Donahue
Agree. At the present it is too late to be anything more than reactive.

The learnings I speak of are historical. Many price swings are learnings that give clues as to why prices are behaving the way they do."

true up to a point

"If one does not look at these and simply say there is nothing to learn one is doomed to repeat one's mistakes."

I agree 100% I took a graduate course in the UK in the late 70s. The chief economist came into class with a graph that had two line on it. One, rose slowly at about an 8 degree slope the second rose at a near 45 degree slope. He said one line is correct for world oil consumption over the next 20 years. We students looked at each other and said duh! Big deal consumption would be between those two lines. He said no ity was either/or. The difference was whether or not the Americans went back to 8 cyl engines. Looking back he was right we did indeed go back to the equivilent of the 8 cyl engine, the SUV. Discounted energy increases consumption

"..Its centerpiece was diversification of supply. Now it enjoys much less swings as it has substantial nuclear, LNG and oil to power its economy."

But go back to the marginal gallon. Just as in production OPEC controls the marginal gallon; on the consumption side the US controls that marginal gallon.

"We here are haphazard about it, and find ourselves hostage to the enviro freaks who believe energy is a bad thing unless it is a natural event (like oil and gas are not). "

I am a retired oil guy but please do reread the Prize. If we control consumption, we, not OPEC, control the market. The environmentalists have a point, up to a point. Producing blindly and polluting willy nilly just passes the costs on to healthcare, cleaning streams and beaches etc. Unless we have strong restraints on consumption I will side with them against just producing energy in a panic.

Enigma
Don't understand why George Bush does not follow up on his explanations and actions. Doesn't seem to be aware of issues or current events until after the fact.

Do understand why he wanted the job. Was the best opportunity in the world to prove daddy wrong.

If I were looking for top people to hire in the consulting or public relations business, would avoid all of the Bush people like the plague.

Hal
Hal D writes: "Exactly wrong. That is when we must do it to control consumption. If we do nothing demand will increase until we are unable to meet it."

I assume when you say "we" you are referring to the libs. I have the funny feeling that you want the gov to control comsumption. Typical backward lib thinking.

Where us the Executive Order mandating
drilling? To Hades with Congress. Bush needs to take a page from Reagan... then tell the American people you are going to issue an Executive Order to drill for oil for National Security (well within Presidential powers, then FREEKIN DO IT!

It would help if Bush asked all citizens to deluge congress with complaints and agreement with Bush's action.

(congress in small characters to show my disdain for these scumbags!!)

Hal Donahue
Well thought out points you make. I am an old oil guy too.

I started in the early 70's and witnessed some of the unpleasant things that the oil industry was capable of on the environment. Having said that, there are way too many bad things about embracing the current environmental movement to ever persuade me to take their side, though.

Their underlying fervor is anti-human as it seeks to limit us humans from enjoyment. To them, there is never sensible environmental policy that includes growth. They operate in an "either/or", never a "both".

Oil and gas occur naturally. They never seem to grasp this simple fact, that it is a part of nature and must be good, like everything else they say about nature.

Waitaminnit.
If drilling is a big deal, why did Bush wait until there was a Dem Congress to lift the ban?

Political rubbish.

Oil is out. Why wreck our protected wilderness for a failed energy source?

We need a Manhattan Project for energy and we need it now!

........
-----Oil is out. Why wreck our protected wilderness for a failed energy source?……..paranoid mystic-----

Ignoramus, this “wilderness”, much of it a wasteland, is the size of Indiana and the proposed drilling area would be the size of a football stadium. Liberal idiots [redundancy] have no concept of proportion.

Tell me dimwit, oil prices need to be reduced immediately. What do you propose to do with 10 days? Solar? Are we all to put solar panels on our cars and roll around doing 10 mph? Maybe wind? Lets put a sail on the roofs of our cars and glide down the street like bumper cars. What’s your immediate solution?

Talon
"Date: Jul 17, 2008 - 6:14 PM EST Hal
Hal D writes: "Exactly wrong. ...I assume when you say "we" you are referring to the libs. I have the funny feeling that you want the gov to control comsumption. Typical backward lib thinking. "

Not at all. Look what is happening now. We are rationing by price and consumption is adjusting accordingly. Are we the people inconvenienced yes but by cutting consumption we control price.

I am a moderate I have little problem rationing by price as long as we know what we are doing. In my opinion pushing cheap energy increases our foreign consumption (domestic production is not cheap) and damages national security.

The Great Satan
"Date: Jul 17, 2008 - 9:01 PM EST ........
-----Tell me dimwit, oil prices need to be reduced immediately. What do you propose to do with 10 days? Solar? Are we all to put solar panels on our cars and roll around doing 10 mph? Maybe wind? Lets put a sail on the roofs of our cars and glide down the street like bumper cars. What’s your immediate solution? "

It is happening we are rationing by price. That is capitalism. Let it happen. We didn't respond last time so now we pay or submit. Suck it up or surrender you choose.

Nite

Bush won’t demand conservation

Does Bush represent the oil companies or the AMERICAN people?

Politico- President Bush said Tuesday that he will not call on Americans to conserve gasoline despite the rising price of oil, saying consumers are “smart enough” to figure out for themselves that they should drive less.

“They’re smart enough to figure out whether they’re going to drive less or not. I mean, you know, it’s interesting what the price of gasoline has done,” Bush said at a news conference in the White House press room, “is it caused people to drive less. That’s why they want smaller cars: They want to conserve. But the consumer’s plenty bright. The marketplace works.”

“You noticed my statement yesterday, I talked about good conservation and — you know, people can figure out whether they need to drive more or less,” he said. “They can balance their own checkbooks.”

“It’s a little presumptuous on my part to dictate how consumers live their own lives,” the president added. “I’ve got faith in the American people.”

Bush was asked about an earlier news conference in which he said he had not heard of forecasts that gasoline could reach $4 a gallon, a mark that was soon eclipsed.

“I’ve heard of it now,” he quipped.

The president said the “psychology” of the oil markets must be considered in carrying out an effective energy policy

read more

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/bush-wont-demand-c onservation

Mostly true except for one thing
"Demand is down for oil, and any sustained drive to open up new sources of production --even those sources that will take years to tap-- impacts the futures market by increasing the probability of greater-than-expected oil supplies in the out years."

I would like you to walk me through this Hugh. None of the drilling will bring any new oil to market for at least, AT LEAST, five years, probably more like 7-8 years. Futures contracts don't go out further than 5 years. If you buy an oil contract for delivery in less than 5 years, how does that impact prices? It doesn't change supply/demand, it takes some pressure off conserving and global demand will continue to outpace any demand reductions in the US.

The best that can be said about drilling, and I'm for it 100%, is that it will slow down future price increases while buying us the precious time we need to wean ourselves from burning oil, especially imported oil.

You really need to drop that lie about drill here, drill now, lower prices. It's an outright lie and will just come back to haunt us when we need credibility. I just don't understand why people have to ruin a perfectly good and winning hand by lying.

WE'RE SCREWED!
If we actually think congress cares about us, I think we're standing in the manure pit. They poison our minds every election cycle promising everything we would want and then do nothing. Unions back the party which stops the democratic process on energy bills by not allowing votes on bills, therefore, if you are a union auto worker and the American auto industry continues to struggle, what will you do? I reach a new level of anger every time a new layoff announcement is made because of oil prices. These are our fellow Americans who have families to care for. Al Gore tells us we will all die if we don't embrace this priestcraft. Hell Al, welcome to earth, we're all going to die you wretch! He's been able to influence the world by causing increased starving, economic woes, etc. Glad we wasn't president!

.........
----Subject: Bush won’t demand conservation

Does Bush represent the oil companies or the AMERICAN people?.....John Konop-----

Are you dumb or just stupid? Do you need daddy govt to tell you what to do? [rhetorical question]. Liberals are useless; they're the ones still living with their parents when they're 30 and still asking for money.

CNN had a poll where approx 75% of Americans wanted to drill immediately. Pelosi refuses. Tell me you blithering idiot, does Pelosi represent the eco-socialists or does she represent the American people?

Hey Jack
In your response to Kathleen you said:
"WHy have you neglected to mention that in 2001 the House and the Senate were firmly controlled by Republicans?
I say:
In 2001 the senate was controlled by the Democratic Socialist. The House was controlled by Republicans.

With regard to Cheney's meeting with the oil companies to discuss "ENERGY", what would you have him do? Meet with Fishermen to discuss ENERGY.
I think the Cheney Oil Meeting is Talking Point #12, am I right?

Didn't Obama just have a secret meeting with the Black Caucus? Could it be that the Obama and the Black Caucus are secretly planning to overthrow the government of Nigeria? Thats what I heard and it makes sense to me.
Thats how silly you sound with regards to Cheney.

Republicans are too slow and too old
We needed somebody to step up to the plate and challenge us with a 10 year plan for energy independence.

Unfortunately, Gore came up with a 10 year plan first and he'll get the Kennedy comparisons. His plan is not about energy independence - it's just another lame excuse not to drill.

Yes, there is oil
to be had. Lots of it. All we have to do is drill for it. But let's remember that it's a finite source. I'm all for drilling to reduce/stabilize prices at the pump. But my fear is that Americans will then go back to their old ways (two gas-guzzling SUVs in every garage). Any legislation to permit new exploration and drilling must have written into it the gradual reduction of a fossil-fueled economy with firm, enforceable benchmarks. Otherwise, ten years from now we'll be back in the same boat, only there won't be any new places to drill.

I saw
Donald Trump on MSNBC yesterday. I'm no big fan of The Donald, but the man does have his finger on the pulse of world finance. He said every oil tanker in the world is loaded to the gils and backed up in every port of delivery. The oil fields have substantially slowed production due to lack of demand. Now isn't that interesting?

ECO-NAZI & MEDIA PROBLEM
The eco-Nazis have been using propaganda and successfuly steering America in the direction of weakness and self-destruction for decades, with the help of the leftist Establishment Media (yes, independent surveys prove this bias). Isn't it interesting that the greatest criticism and "legal" restrictions are always America's fault or burden?

Big Media is one of the Weightiest problems facing conservative legislators, especially those in competitive districts. They fear the influence and unlimited spending of the Establishment Media to support their opponents. If you wish to criticize the conservatives/Republicans, you should not criticize their policies as much as you should criticize their ineptness/fear in debating their Big Media and eco-Nazi enemies.

This explains why a Republican majority almost always loses several Congressmen when voting on key bills. In addition, Dems are more likely to use the Senate cloture threat to stop Repub. bills, while Repubs. don't use this improper/unConstitutional manuever nearly as often (Big Media will usually slam them, but not the Dems). If you study history, you will see that Dems have much tighter party discipline, and it is because they know that the Big Media will never attack them for conforming, but WILL attack them for voting with the Repubs. Reverse for Repubs.


BUSH DIDN'T HAVE 7 1/2 YEARS
All you geniuses who claim Pres. Bush is at fault "because he had 7 1/2 years", please note that he was preoccupied by a war for most of that time (and there was no gas crisis), whereas the Dems held the initiative with their Congressional majority since Jan. 2007.

Interestingly, the price of gas rose only from $1.47 to $2.17 during the six Bush+RepublicanCongress years, a rate of only 5.9% per YEAR, hardly a crisis level requiring emergency attention. After the Dems took control, the price rose from $2.17 to $4.11 in 16 months, a rate of 67% per year, or 5.6% PER MONTH! And they still haven't initiated a single legislative solution despite the crisis.

President Bush removes the exec. order Offshore Ban and the world oil market dropped $15.89 in 3 DAYS! Did the U.S. conserve 10% of our consumption is 3 days? Did the value of the dollar lead that price drop? Did the Saudis suddenly up their ouput by 10% in the last 3 days?

So stop your claims that positive U.S. news cannot have any effect until the oil is delivered.

Try to be at least a little bit historically and economically literate, people!

BTW, the Dow Jones rose 4% (400+ points) in just 2 DAYS on oil price declines, despite continuing bad news in the housing market and some other bad reports.

Pick Up the Phone!!
It's very simple and it worked with shamnesty. Call your Reps. and Senators and demand that they lift the Congressional ban on offshore drilling. Then call your State Rep. and Senator and ask them to submit legislation that will go into effect if/when Congress acts.

Regardless of party affiliation, all patriots with basic motor skills must act now to help hurting families and to preserve our economic and national security.

US Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121

HAL, YOU'RE MISINFORMED
Hal Donohue July 17, 2008 6:04 PM

"I took a graduate course in the UK in the late 70s. The chief economist came into class with a graph that had two line on it. One, rose slowly at about an 8 degree slope the second rose at a near 45 degree slope. He said one line is correct for world oil consumption over the next 20 years. We students looked at each other and said duh! Big deal consumption would be between those two lines. He said no ity was either/or. The difference was whether or not the Americans went back to 8 cyl engines. Looking back he was right we did indeed go back to the equivilent of the 8 cyl engine, the SUV."

----

Hal, you should ask for a refund, because the Prof lied to you. He was apparently a British lefty who wanted to blame it all on the U.S.

If the WORLD oil consumption graph was going to be largely dependent upon U.S. oil consumption (your prof mentioned no other variables, which implied the graph was SOLELY based on what the U.S. did with its purchasing decisions), then the historical U.S. graph would have to be near the slope of the world oil consumption...unless some OTHER variable is responsible.

U.S. gross oil consump. (not dependent upon veh. type) during that “irresponsible SUV buying binge” rose from 17.1 mln. bbls per day [1980] to 20.7 mln bbls per day [2007], 21% rise in 27 years, just under 1% per year. Cars, and SUV's were becoming more efficient, so larger vehicles did not greatly increase oil consumption here.

Convert that increase to a slope, and 1% slope is barely visible...not even in the ballpark with that prof’s 45 degrees (100%). In fact, 1% wouldn't even reach the 8 degr. slope.

Either it isn't our fault, and something else was the primary driver, OR your prof doesn't understand math. Or he lied because he hated the U.S.

[Source most info: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?f ips=US ]

10 Years to see benefits from drilling
Drilling opponents say it will take ten years before we see any benefits from drilling if we start now, and they have a valid point.

If we opened ANWR to drilling starting tonight at midnight, the oil producers would first have to go through several years of regulatory red tape on the national, state and local levels before they could get to work.

Then they would be faced with a flurry of lawsuits from environmental groups, resulting in another 4 or 5 years of delays in the courts.

The left knows it will take at least ten years, because they're the ones who are providing the obstacles.

This is what I am doing when I get gas!
See this Photo! It says it all!

http://lh3.ggpht.com/coffee260/SICT4RiBVmI/AAAAAAAAAGM/Em_S lzoquJY/DSC01571.JPG?imgmax=640

Hugh Hewitt --Energy Czar
Great forward thinking! This is exactly what needs to be done to keep us focused and serious. The same approaches need to be applied to all aspects of energy production and transmission; do all of the necessary planning to push coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geo, bio, etc. Then when legal or other obstacles are overcome we'll be ready!

Three Reasons to Drill, Not One
As usual, the GOP is under-performing when it comes to debating the Democrats on a critical issue.

I have yet to see, hear or read a conservative point out that the need to drill is more than just about gas prices. The Democrats can counter, correctly or incorrectly, that increased oil supplies would not significantly reduce gas pump prices. But the GOP is dropping the ball on the OTHER TWO CRITICAL REASONS for increased drilling.

First, reduced dependence on foreign oil means reduced exposure to the completely unpredictable geopolitical behavior of oil-producing countries like Iran, Russia and Venezuela. They can make oil prices spike just by SAYING something. Do we want these people in control of our economy?

Second, wouldn't it make more sense to send the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend annually on gas to American companies and employees? Why pad the pockets of those who want to see our country destroyed?

Come on, GOP, you're letting the Dems control the debate, as usual. Wake up.

Colorado Mac
It is my understanding your Colorado congressmen and senators are the ones adamantly opposed to producing the oil from shale in your state. Those reserves contain enough oil to cover 100% of the U. S. consumption for 274 years. It is expensive. Rand Corp in a 2005 study estimated the costs up to $95/bbl. Doesn’t sound so high now, does it? The production would be a boon for your state’s economy and a God send for our nation’s economy. We have been failed by each congress and it’s administration since Jimmy Carter. Will we ever elect politicians who will address our problem with some resolve?

Drilling
We Americans should demand that those liberal, do-nothing illuminati politicians allow drilling not only in our waters but the Arctic Refuge. We need to stop sending our dollars to those countries who would spit on us while taking our money. We need to show them that we don't need their oil.

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.