Bush Leaves Pelosi With Few Options

Democrats, lead by friend of Big Tuna Nancy Pelosi, have found themselves out maneuvered once again by the “boy president,” and it is hard to imagine a counter strategy that would not anger far-left supporters and moneyman George Soros. Pelosi and Reid have claimed the increasingly untenable position of the radical environmentalists and America-haters by adamantly refusing to consider proposals to increase production of known U.S. oil and natural gas reserves such as those in ANWR, the Destin Dome in the Gulf of Mexico just off the Florida panhandle and the abundant oil and natural gas in several Rocky Mountain states.

The Democrats’ position on new drilling is a political albatross that is certainly going to have its effects come November and in a bold (and perhaps brilliant) move President Bush yesterday again called upon Congress to end restrictions on drilling for new oil, chastising Democrats for not allowing a vote in the House prior to the August recess.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush chastised Democrats on Saturday for refusing to allow a vote on whether to lift the federal ban on offshore oil drilling before lawmakers departed for their summer recess.

‘To reduce pressure on prices, we need to increase the supply of oil, especially oil produced here at home,’ Bush said in his weekly radio address. It was the fourth time this week that he has called for Congress to end the drilling restrictions off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

‘But the leaders of the Democratic Congress have refused to allow a vote’ on whether the drilling moratoriums should be lifted, Bush complained.

(My Way News)

By so doing, Pelosi and Company are put in the win-less position of either continuing to resist efforts to increase American oil production, and thus lower fuel costs, as it surely will in both the short term and long term, or (horrors!) concede to the demands of Bush and the minority Republicans. In the latter case Democrats can kiss their base and their major source of money goodbye. In choosing to be obstinate in the face of an obvious remedy and against the sentiment of the majority of Americans, the Democrats (i.e., Pelosi and Reid) have secured a position from which retreat is unthinkable and defense is political suicide. Brilliant!

Is Pickens' Plan Good for US?

Who hasn’t seen T. Boone Pickens on TV promoting his plan for American energy independence? Stating “I’ve been an oil man all my life,” Pickens goes on to claim that he has a plan that will free America from the grip of foreign oil, indeed, from the “addiction” to oil in general. The details are explained at his web site, pickensplan.com.

Pickens plan is simple enough in theory—wind turbines for electrical power and natural gas for vehicles. Natural gas vehicles, you ask? Actually, yes, they do exist. But, it isn’t as simple as it might seem. While natural gas vehicles (NGVs) are definitely cleaner burning than gasoline and natural gas is in abundant supplies in the U.S., there are still problems with increased space requirements for the storage cylinders (resulting in less inside room and trunk space in the cars) and the range between fill-ups is only half of a gasoline-powered car. Finding a place to fill the natural gas cylinders is also a problem. There are suppliers for equipment for producing compressed natural gas at home to fill the tanks of your automobile.

Wind turbine power is a little dicier. Pickens admits that it would take thousands of wind generators to make any significant difference and these would have to be strategically located in areas where the average wind velocities are consistent and predictable. Pickens has been a very successful entrepreneur dealing in such diverse activities as oil and natural gas, municipal water supplies and, surprise, wind turbines.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, David Lazarus had this (T. Boone Pickens could gain from his energy plan, but so might we):

The so-called Pickens Plan would first entail a hefty investment -- more than $1 trillion -- in wind farms on an unusually breezy stretch of countryside extending from Texas to North Dakota.

The wind power would replace the natural gas now used by power plants to generate electricity. The country currently gets about 22% of its juice from natural gas.

All that freed-up natural gas, in turn, would be applied to fueling millions of vehicles that now run on gasoline but would be converted -- it's not clear how, or on whose dime -- to run instead on compressed natural gas.

[…]

[Pickens] and his business partners are investing an estimated $12 billion to build the world's largest wind farm in Texas. That facility, needless to say, would play a pivotal role in meeting the nation's newfound demand for wind power.

Meanwhile, Pickens' more-than-$4-billion hedge fund, BP Capital, is invested in a variety of natural gas companies. He also sits on the board of Clean Energy Fuels Corp., North America's largest provider of vehicular natural gas.

'Mr. Pickens is a very intelligent man,' said Don Martin, vice president of Enmark Energy, a Texas oil and natural gas company. 'People in the oil and natural gas business are rich for a reason. They know where the money is.'

Junkscience.com has done an excellent job parsing Picken's assertions vis-a-vis his television ads (Is T. Boone Pickens 'Swiftboating' America?).
Author Steven Milloy writes, for example

'In 1970, we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today, it's nearly 70 percent and growing,' he intones.

Aside from the fact that the Department of Energy (DOE) puts the import figure at a more moderate 58 percent, Pickens gives the impression that imported oil is scary because it all comes from the unstable Mideast.

His TV commercials feature images of American soldiers fighting in Iraq and he likens the annual $700 billion cost of foreign oil to 'four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.'

But hold the phone. Only 16 percent of our imported oil comes from the Persian Gulf — barely up from 13.6 percent in 1973, according to the DOE. Imports from OPEC countries are actually down — from 47.8 percent in 1973 to 44.5 percent in 2007.

Contrary to Pickens' assertion that oil imports are growing, the DOE expects oil imports to decrease by 10 percent by 2030.

Pickens insists that he is doing all of this “for America” and I have no reason to doubt him. Where is it written that working to help your country isn’t valid unless you end up in the poorhouse? But, when self-interests intersect with national interest it is prudent to examine the plan closely and ask a lot of questions. Many are doing just that and the answers are sometimes self-serving, sometimes patriotic and sometimes a little exagerated, but it appears that Pickens may have a plan that could become a part of a comprehensive energy policy that moves us toward energy independence in the future. And, T. Boone Pickens and his partners could do alright in the process.

Other related stories:

Business Week

Treehugger.com

The Hill

Republicans Learn to Play Like Dems

In a rare example of masculine determination Senate Republicans have taken a page or two from the Dem playbook and are forcing a vote on off-shore drilling. Betting that the energy crisis and high-prices are a sure bet for GOP candidates this season, Republican Senate leaders are setting out to claim the issue as their own. Finally. We’ll have to wait and see if they can sustain their position once the New York Times and Washington Post lambastes them for siding with “big oil” and “standing in the way of progress.”

Senate Republicans have threatened to block nearly all other bills pending before the August recess if Democrats refuse to vote with them on expanding offshore drilling.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said bills that do not pertain to energy can wait until after the August recess, with gas prices now surpassing $4 per gallon. McConnell and top Republicans indicated Wednesday they would oppose any procedural votes to take up other legislation, which require 60 votes to succeed.

'We think there is nothing more important that we can do right now than to deal with the Number One issue of the country,' McConnell said. 'This is the biggest issue since terrorism right after 9/11. People are pounding on their desks, saying, Why don’t these people get together and do something about this problem?' (The Hill)

Entire Hill article here.

Pelosi Responds Predictably to New Poll

Fancy Nancy had these comments just a few months ago promising more government programs to punish oil companies thus reigning in the runaway costs of fuel that impacts the entire U.S. economy. She calls these programs “common sense.” Somehow, I just can’t see how raising the cost of doing business to oil companies can possibly do anything but raise fuel costs even further, but, maybe I’m missing something—or not. Since this press conference the cost of fuel at the pump has risen another 25%.

In a new Rasmussen poll the grand dame of Pacific Heights is shown to be presiding over the worst Congress in the history of the Republic, having an approval rating of 9%. In an attempt to shift the blame for her monumental failure as Speaker of the House, Pelosi is now blaming the oil crisis on the Bush administration for not tapping the strategic oil reserves so as to lower fuel costs. Democrats criticized John McCain’s proposal for a gas tax moratorium as “gimcrackery” and they were right. And so is Speaker Pelosi’s proposal to release strategic reserves, made even more absurd by the fact that she had announced only weeks before plans to solve the crisis with Democrat congressional initiatives that were doomed to fail from the outset.

There will be even bigger and better solutions from the fertile mind of Ms. Pelosi, this we can be sure. We can also be sure that she will not cross the enviro-fascists who have done so much to ensure our country's dependence on foreign oil and to whom she has pandered shamelessly, even to the point of fabricating Bible quotes advocating radical enviromentalism.

Develop Oil Reserves Now

On Dakota Voice and other blogs and news sites, on Fox News and MSNBC I have noticed that when the subject of drilling for American oil comes up the Leftist spokesmen respond that the benefits of drilling at home will be too little too late.

As a recent example, Bill Dennison, responded to a Dakota Voice post “Half of US Oil is Off Limits to Drilling” by claiming the US oil reserves are not enough to make any difference.

"If U.S. oil reserves (Alaska, Bakken, offshore and everywhere on U.S. territory) total an optimistic 150 Billion recoverable barrels that would replace our imports -- only our IMPORTS -- for approximately thirty five years. Then what?"

Thirty-five years!? Only IMPORTS? That, Bill, is exactly what we want to replace. Besides,I don’t believe that is all the oil there is, but if so, I’ll take it! That would give America the time to defeat terrorism, develop yet additional petroleum reserves, build nuclear power plants and advance alternative technologies. If not greater energy independence what is our alternative? Continue to pay the price demanded by our enemies in the Middle East so that they will have the wealth to continue to wage Jihad against the West?

Notice that the Democrats and Leftists do not bring up environmental concerns in their arguments against developing known oil reserves. They know that Americans dealing with 4 and 5 dollar per gallon gasoline and rising prices on groceries and most everything else are a little inpatient with enviro-whackos constantly whining and getting in the way of needed energy and development policies. Americans of all political persuasions are realizing that we cannot be held hostage to unfriendly countries, paying whatever they demand, and maintain our sovereignty and way of life. That is why it is so important for Republicans to seize this issue now and become the party of American strength and independence. (Unfortunately, John McCain is not the man to lead such a movement.)

But we can readily see which party in Congress is on the right side of the issue. Congressman Roy Blunt put together these data to highlight the differences between House Republicans and House Democrats on energy policy:

BY THE ISSUE

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

SUMMARY

91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and gas

86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

CORRECTION: This post has been edited to remove a reference to another website that was erroneously mentioned and had nothing to do with persons named in this piece. My apologies to all, especially to loyal readers of Dakota Voice.

Blame Congress for Fuel Costs

In a post last week I pointed out that "Big Oil" has little to do with the high cost of gas at the pump, netting only about 9.4% profit on their investment overall, or approximately 37 cents out of the $4 per gallon many of us are now paying.

The Wall Steet Journal addressed the situation in a piece yesterday that should be required reading as we approach elections this November.

Blame Congress for High Oil Prices

Gasoline prices are through the roof and Americans are angry. Someone must be to blame and the obvious villain is 'Big Oil' with its alleged ability to gouge consumers and achieve unconscionable, 'windfall' profits. Congress is in a vile mood, and has dragged oil industry executives before its committees for show trials, issuing predictable threats of punishment, e.g. a 'windfall profits tax.'

But if there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself. That venerable body has made it impossible for U.S. producers of crude oil to tap significant domestic reserves of oil and gas, and it has foreclosed economically viable alternative sources of energy in favor of unfeasible alternatives such as wind and solar. In addition, Congress has slapped substantial taxes on gasoline. Indeed, as oil industry executives reiterated in their appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 15% of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits.

Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.

Big Oil Profits Not to Blame

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, a research and educational center of classical liberalism following the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises, has a report on the economics of retail gasoline prices and the findings might surprise many who get their information mainly from CNN, the NYT and CBS.

My wife told me this morning that there had been a report on a TV news program about record profits of oil companies and she wondered how the government can allow this to happen. This from an intelligent, professional woman who is very conservative by any measure, but, like so many Americans, she is succumbing to the media's incessant clatter about oil profits, big oil, excessive profits, price gouging and the need for BIG Government to come to the rescue.

The cost of gasoline at the pump is a very complicated matter that includes world oil demand and supply, refinery capacity, regional blends of gasoline, transportation, taxes, local economies, inflation, the strength of the dollar, political alliances, commodities traders and on and on. The profit to the oil company that refines, transports and markets gasoline is a relatively small portion of the total cost per gallon. On average the profit margin for oil companies amounts to less than ten percent (9.4% nationally). At $3.78 per gallon, the profit to Big Oil is approximately 35 cents! When you fill your 20 gallon tank for $75.60, the oil company profits $7.15. Taxes in most states exceed 50 cents per gallon adding $20 to that same tank of gas!

When President Bush met with the Saudis last week he was told that they would not increase production of oil because that would not significantly lower the cost at the pump, and they are correct. The demand for oil in China and India quickly claims any excesses of oil on the market and keeps world prices high.

The solution to the energy crisis, as I’ve commented on before, is development of our resources here at home. This means telling our senators and congressmen to disregard the environmental pressure groups and allow drilling for oil and natural gas in ANWAR, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Bakken Formation in the Dakotas, building of new refineries, development of clean coal technology, and nuclear power for electricity to some of our major metropolitan areas. Using current and developing technologies, I believe that this could all be done with very little impact on our environment, but with major impact on energy costs and foreign dependence.

Gas Station Clerk Fired After Being Robbed

POSTED: 8:26 pm CDT May 8, 2008

UPDATED: 8:48 pm CDT May 8, 2008

MERRIAM, Kan. -- A gas station clerk is upset that he was fired after he was robbed.

Why was he fired?

The article goes on to say...

The store's policy is to never have more than $50 in the open register. Bills larger than $20 are supposed to be immediately placed into another vault.

And...

"I didn't have the time to put the money in the bill acceptor," Nick said.

The robber fled the store with $200, which is $150 more than the company rules allow to be in the till.

"So, basically, I got fired because a billion-dollar company loses $200," Nick said.

Conoco Phillips won't comment on the specifics, but it said safety is the No. 1 priority. A company representative said there are established guidelines that must be followed to ensure safe practices on the job.

To read the entire article, go to KMBC .

I was not at the store, nor have I seen the surveillance tape, but if the employee is giving an accurate accounting of what transpired, I think Conoco Phillips should add another priority to their list -- A priority called common sense.

I understand the dangers of having a large amount of cash in the till. I wonder, however, if the Conoco Phillips personnel in charge of making rules, realizes how prices affect the ability (or lack thereof) to carry out the rules from olden days when a gallon of gas was a dollar and some change? Now, with gas prices as high as they are, each and every transaction involving gasoline could potentially put the till over $50. So is the rule an absolute to deposit as one goes (possibly with each transaction) or to deposit the funds in a safe fashion using common sense? Has the company made it possible to realistically and safely follow their rules or is that a non-issue from their perspective? One has to wonder when reading KMBC report.

Black Gold in the Dakotas

The US Geological Survey is about to release a new report on the Bakken Formation, an oil deposit that spans areas of North and South Dakota and parts of Montana. The report will specify accurate assessments of the oil reserve that is currently estimated to contain up to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If true, this will expand the known oil reserves of the U.S. up to ten times the known capacity to date.

The significance of this report will, of course, depend upon the willingness of Americans to drill for this oil. Like reserves in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico, oil that remains under the surface does little to help us toward energy independence.

Next Energy News puts it this way in their report:

The US imported about 14 million barrels of Oil per day in 2007, which means US consumers sent about $340 Billion Dollars over seas building palaces in Dubai and propping up unfriendly regimes around the World, if 200 billion barrels of oil at $90 a barrel are recovered in the high plains the added wealth to the US economy would be $18 Trillion Dollars which would go a long way in stabilizing the US trade deficit and could cut the cost of oil in half in the long run.

Perhaps the record cost of fuel at the pump will motivate us to begin to exploit the oil in our own back yard. I anticipate a fight with “environmentalists,” however, who no doubt will find the potential environmental impact much too severe to consider a shot at greater energy independence.