Victory on Drilling

It looks like the Democrats may finally be caving in to the pressure from Republicans on offshore drilling. If this is true, and the ban is allowed to expire, then this is yet another victory for the GOP in this congress. It's also what the American people want, so I'm not really that surprised.

Democrats Want High Gas Prices

The House passed a bill yesterday that is similar to legislation being proposed in the Senate by Saxby and Johnny. In othe words, it does nothing to increase oil exploration in any significant way, but raises taxes on energy companies in order to fund alternative fuel research. In the Post article, Nancy Pelosi admits that the intent of this bill is not to encourage more drilling, but to seek alternative energy sources. Energy technologies in which she and her husband have invested, and which would make them very wealthy should they be implemented. Energy technologies which are not ready for widespread use, and would take years to implement.

So, the Dems are in no way interested in providing immediate relief in the face of high gas prices. They want to tax the oil companies, while pretending to allow drilling in very limited areas. Not only will we not see any decrease in fuel prices as a result of this bill, increased taxes on energy companies will only be passed on to us in the form of increased energy prices, thereby increasing the cost of fuel. Do these people think we're stupid? And 15 Republicans voted for this bill! It's time we sent a message to these disconnected morons. The only acceptable solution is to allow the ban on offshore drilling to expire, thereby opening up ALL of these areas for exploration.

I'm all for alternative fuels, and some day we will have them. But the simple fact is that it won't be any time soon, no matter how much money the government throws in that general direction. We have to exhaust every option available to us, and that means drill. Now. Everywhere.

What Were They Thinking?

I hate to say this, but our two senators fully deserve the criticism being thrown at them from conservatives over the Gang of 10 energy "compromise." Erick gives us a nice summary of the legislation over at Peach Pundit, and it's pretty much what you would expect from a compromise between Democrats and the GOP. The spineless Republicans cave in to 90% of everything the Dems want, and get a whole lot of nothing in return.

Every. Stinking. Time.

Here's the deal:

"If Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have their way, most of the outer continental shelf (”OCS”) would be permanently off the table for expanded energy exploration. Right now, the ban on OCS exploration must be renewed annually.

10 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable off the Pacific Coast.

10 billion barrels of oil and 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in ANWR.

2 billion barrels of oil and 18 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be permanently untouchable in the Atlantic."

Oh, and the bill would also raise taxes on energy companies by $30 billion. Let me guess - Saxby and Johnny had to throw that little tidbit in to "sweeten the deal" for the populist Democrats who want to be able to say they stuck it to the big bad oil companies.

And what did they get in exchange?

Access to a small fraction of the resources we have available to us right now, and a PERMANENT ban on the rest. I'm sorry. I really do like Saxby, but this CANNOT happen. I really don't understand his, or any of the other Republicans' reasoning for this nonsense. The public has made it very clear that we want to drill everywhere, now. Just do it, already.

Oh, Saxby...

I'm a big supporter of Saxby Chambliss. I may not always agree with him on every issue, but then there are very few politicians who qualify for that high honor, and on the whole I believe he's the right guy for Georgia. He's also a genuinely good guy, and I'll continue to work for his election, which should be a foregone conclusion given his popularity within the state. I do, however, have to lament the timing of his latest efforts at bipartisanship.

Why is it that every time we get a "Gang of ___" conservatives get screwed? Republicans are obviously very poor negotiators, because these bipartisan collaborations always end up with our side surrendering everything for very little in return. The bill proposed by this latest Gang of 10 is no different. Not only does its timing completely undermine the courageous efforts of the House GOP in demanding real solutions NOW, it simply doesn't do enough to provide immediate, comprehensive solutions to our dependence on foreign oil. There is far too much emphasis on funding for 'alternative fuels' research, and far too little in the way of short-term solutions available to us NOW.

I won't get into the political suicide that this bill effectively accomplishes for Republicans. That's been covered, and the senators are getting hammered, over at Redstate and other places for the last few days. But the real world solutions this bill is supposed to offer are simply not good enough. As Erick and others have said, we would be much better off simply allowing the ban of offshore drilling to expire, allowing us to drill everywhere.

Where is Jim Marshall?

I'm a little confused. Our allegedly conservative Democrat congressman, Jim Marshall, claims to support exploration for domestic energy sources. And yet, we're now into the second week of the energy protest in the House, led by two of our truly conservative Georgia congressmen, and Rep. Marshall is still on vacation. Imagine the incredible message that would be sent to the Democratic leadership, as well as the voters of the 8th district of Georgia, if he were to cross this party line and join the demand for a vote on energy exploration.

But Rep. Marshall, by promising to vote for offshore drilling if given the chance, while simultaneously refusing to support multiple efforts to bring such votes to the floor, illustrates exactly why the voters in our district can no longer afford to be represented by anything other than a true conservative. We have allowed the charade to continue for far too long. Selectively casting "conservative" votes from behind the liberal agenda of his own party's leadership is not the kind of representation this district deserves.

You can bet that Rick Goddard would be in Washington right now, demanding that the views of his constituents be heard, instead of hoping that this all just goes away. Help the conservative 8th district secure conservative representation by contributing to Rick Goddard right now.

Socialism

No wonder he's so worshipped by the hardcore left. The junior senator from Illinois has decided that we middle and lower class citizens need another stimulus check to help offset the rising cost of gasoline. Let's forget, for a moment, that Obama is on the record as supporting high gas prices as a way to force us from our 'national addiction' to oil, and look, instead, at this latest position he's decided to espouse. By now we all know that the few positions he actually takes are not to be viewed as 'permanent', but subject to change at the request of conservative critics.

I'm in favor of what President Bush did this past spring - putting tax money back into the hands of taxpayers is always a good thing. But what Obama has proposed is, well, basically it's theft. He's decided on the classic populist play of robbing from the rich to give to the poor. He's actually proposing that the government take money from the profits of oil companies and give it to us poor folks. Now, I'd love to get a $1000 check, but not at the expense of seeing this nation reduced to socialism. Our current tax code is already as close as you can get to redistribution of wealth*, but this is blatant, outright socialism.

Of course, the ignorant voter just loves this stuff. They have no idea that most of the stockholders in major oil companies like Exxon-Mobile are ordinary, middle class citizens just like them. They're also totally oblivious to the fact that companies like Google, Microsoft, and many others have profit margins much higher that any oil company. Where's the outrage against these companies making a killing, while we 'suffer' through a poor economy? Why is it that any company that takes advantage of capitalism and makes a profit is 'evil'?

The bottom line is that without rich folks, we po' folks wouldn't have jobs. Forcing companies to hand over more of their profits is not just un-American, it will only give said companies more reason to raise prices, lay off employees, or find a cheaper place to make their products (China), causing further recession. Barry Obama is nothing but an old-school Marxist in a shiny new package. His reasoning is no different from any other liberal - let the government (the most inept, inefficient bureaucracy ever known) solve all of our problems at the expense of freedom and individual responsibility.

*According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 10% of income earners in this country paid 72.7% of the total Federal Income Tax burden in 2005. That's right, of the total income taxes paid to the federal government, 72% of that amount was paid by only 10% of the total population. The top 1% of earners pay almost 40% of the total tax burden, and the bottom 32% pay nothing. (The handy chart above courtesy of The Heritage Foundation.)

This is awesome...

This was a brilliant move by the House GOP on Friday, and it continues today...

After already barely passing a resolution to give themselves a five week paid vacation, the Democrat Congress sneakily adjourned for the day in a craven attempt to escape Washington without a real vote to address America’s high gas prices and energy security. It also, they laughed, would silence Republican members from discussing America’s energy security and independence on the record after votes...

Led by Tom Price (Patriot-GA), Mike Pence (Patriot-IN), Lynn Westmoreland (Patriot-GA) and Henry Brown (Patriot-SC), what commenced as a spontaneous expression of American outrage at Speaker Pelosi and her party’s refusal to hold a vote and help working Americans, soon became a historic Republican “Speak-In” unmatched in U.S. House history...

And so it will continue!

House Republicans will be rearranging schedules, flying thousands of miles, and refusing to take a paid vacation. Instead, the GOP will take to the House floor every day to ensure the voice of Americans’ is heard; there is a vote to make our country energy secure and independent; and keep America the greatest nation on Earth!

Excellent work from our Georgia boys, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Price! Paul Broun, unsurprisingly, was also a part of the original 'revolution.' Funny, I don't see our 'conservative' congressman Jim Marshall on the list...

The Pickens Plan

I’ve been hearing an awful lot about the Pickens Plan lately, and although I’m a little bit skeptical of its viability, I thought I’d attempt an objective look at what this former oil man is proposing. I’ve been to the site, and read through the proposal. I’m a little uncertain about his assertion that “oil production has peaked.” Suffice it to say that estimates of global oil reserves have never been all that accurate, and no one really knows how much oil is in the ground right now. In fact, just look at this headline from earlier today.

Mr. Pickens, however, is right about a lot of things. The current high gas prices are the result of high demand and low supply, so the best solution to drive prices down is to either increase supply or decrease demand. Give him credit for at least getting the economics right – which is more than we can say for any Democrat in congress. He’s also correct in his assertion that we are far too dependant on foreign sources for oil - having the lifeblood of our economy in the hands of people who at best dislike us, and at worst want nothing more than to see us destroyed, is not at all ideal. So, what exactly does T. Boone propose?

Contrary to some assertions, the Pickens Plan never purports to be a permanent replacement for our current energy supply structure. This plan seeks to “buy us some time” in order to allow development of new, long-term alternatives for the future. According to the Pickens Plan website, studies have shown that “wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion.” Another $200 billion would be required to build facilities for transmission of this power to cities and towns.

My first response to those who want to see this type of power generation replace our current scheme is that wind, like solar power, cannot be relied on for continuous power generation. The wind doesn’t always blow…the sun doesn’t always shine, but I assume these kinds of contingencies have been included in the aforementioned studies. 20% at lease sounds more reasonable. The site also states that our nation currently relies on natural gas for 22% of our electrical production. The Pickens Plan proposes that we invest in wind power technologies in order to effectively replace natural gas in production of electricity. This would then free up the natural gas resources for use as vehicle fuel. This is where the plan looses me.

I don’t know a lot about Compressed Natural Gas vehicles, but one argument of proponents is that the technology is “already in place.” That is true. In fact, Canada tried, and failed, to get these vehicles to catch on in the 1980’s. A conversion can be done to standard Otto and diesel cycle engines, at a cost of several thousand dollars, depending on the vehicle, and new vehicles can and are being produced that run on natural gas instead of gasoline. Only one, however, the Honda Civic GX, is currently on offer in the U.S.

So let’s look at some of the drawbacks to CNG-powered vehicles. I’m not all that concerned about the whole emissions thing - I don’t necessarily buy into man-made climate change – so the bottom line is whether this is a viable alternative that can be cost effective.

First of all, it takes a lot more volume to store CNG than it does an equivalent amount of liquid gasoline. In other words, you have to have larger storage tanks in order to accomplish a range of travel between refueling that would be comparable to gasoline. The lack of infrastructure is also a serious problem. I don’t know about you, but I have never seen a natural gas refueling station. They do exist, but are not common in most parts of the country. Combine this with the reduction in range, and you have a big problem. This plan would require serious investment by the government, or private industry, in order to build up the necessary infrastructure to make conversion to CNG viable.

But what about natural gas supply in this country? Right now, 98% of the natural gas used in this country is from domestic supplies, according to Pickens. Almost all of that is used to generate electricity, and it’s generally done using combined cycle gas turbines, which have an efficiency of up to 60%. For the scientifically challenged, the efficiency of a cycle is the ratio of what you get out vs. what you put in (or net power output vs. required fuel input). CNG engines are internal combustion engines, and won’t see an efficiency of more than 20%. In other words, we’ll have to use even more natural gas to produce the same amount of power in vehicles. The Pickens site also claims that “domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of oil.” That may be, but how do we know that we have enough to replace the current demand for petroleum-based fuels, accounting for the loss in efficiency?

And what happens when natural gas reserves run out? I realize that this has been proposed as a temporary solution, and that at least makes it worth debating. But the cost would be astronomical, and I don’t see any private companies being willing to take the risk of investing in CNG as a replacement for gasoline…which means government – talk about inefficiency – which means higher taxes. I’m willing to make some changes if it means getting us off foreign oil, but the thing that makes the most sense right now is to drill. We have oil available in Alaska, off the coast, and elsewhere that we need to access and refine. We need to make a move towards implementing nuclear power as well. Solar and wind power should be pursued and implemented to the fullest extent possible, but they are not long-term replacements for our current energy structure. Neither is drilling for more oil. However, an approach that makes use of every available option can give us time to develop more realistic alternatives.

I appreciate Mr. Pickens’ efforts, and I honestly believe he means well. If nothing else, he has helped to instigate a necessary debate about this issue. I can’t wait to see what American ingenuity produces as a solution to this problem.